Meditations of First Philosophy
by Descartes
Dedication
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 tot heir
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, and few
give themselves to the search after truth; and the greater number, in
their desire to acquire a reputation for boldness of thought,
arrogantly combat the most important of truths.
That is why, whatever force there may be in my reasonings, seeing
they belong to philosophy, I cannot hope that they will have much
effect on the minds of men, unless you extend to them your protection.
But the estimation in which you Company is universally held is so
great, and the name of Sorbonne carries with it so much authority,
that, next to the Sacred Councils, never has such deference been paid
to the judgment of any Body, not only in what concerns the faith, but
also in what regards human philosophy as well: everyone indeed
believes that it is not possible to discover elsewhere more
perspicacity and solidity, or more integrity and wisdom in pronouncing
judgment. For this reason I have no doubt that if you deign to take
the trouble in the first place of correcting this work (for being
conscious not only of my infirmity, but also of my ignorance, I should
not dare to state that it was free from errors), and then, after adding
to it these things that are lacking to it, completing those which are
imperfect, and yourselves taking the trouble to give a more ample
explanation of those things which have need of it, or at least making
me aware of the defects so that I may apply myself to remedy them —
when this is done and when finally the reasonings by which I prove that
there is a God, and that the human soul differs from the body, shall be
carried to that point of perspicuity to which I am sure they can be
carried in order that they may be esteemed as perfectly exact
demonstrations, if you deign to authorize your approbation and to
render public testimony to their truth and certainty, I do not doubt, I
say, that henceforward all the errors and false opinions which have
ever existed regarding these two questions will soon be effaced from
the minds of men. For the truth itself will easily cause all men of
mind and learning to subscribe to your judgment; and your authority
will cause the atheists, who are usually more arrogant than learned or
judicious, to rid themselves of their spirit of contradiction or lead
them possibly themselves to defend the reasonings which they find being
received as demonstrations by all persons of consideration, lest they
appear not to understand them. And, finally, all others will easily
yield to such a mass of evidence, and there will be none who dares to
doubt the existence of God and the real and true distinction between
the human soul and the body. It is for you now in your singular wisdom
to judge of the importance of the establishment of such beliefs [you
who see the disorders produced by the doubt of them] . But it would
not become me to say more in consideration of the cause of God and
religion to those who have always been the most worthy supports of the
Catholic Church.
Preface to the Reader
I have already slightly touched on these two questions of God and
the human soul in the Discourse on the Method of rightly conducting the
Reason and seeking truth in the Sciences, published in French in the
year 1637. Not that I had the design of treating these with any
thoroughness, but only so to speak in passing, and in order to
ascertain by the judgment of the readers how I should treat them later
on. For these questions have always appeared to me to be of such
importance that I judged it suitable to speak of them more than once;
and the road which I follow in the explanation of them is so little
trodden, and so far removed from the ordinary path, that I did not
judge it to be expedient to set it forth at length in French and in a
Discourse which might be read by everyone, in case the feebler minds
should believe that it was permitted to them to attempt to follow the
same path.
But, having in this Discourse on Method begged all those who have
found in my writings somewhat deserving of censure to do me the favour
of acquainting me with the grounds of it, nothing worthy of remark has
been objected to in them beyond two matters: to these two I wish here
to reply in a few words before undertaking their more detailed
discussion.
The first objection is that it does not follow from the fact that
the human mind reflecting on itself does not perceive itself to be
other than a thing that thinks, that its nature or its essence consists
only in its being a thing that thinks, in the sense that this word only
excludes all other things which might also be supposed to pertain to
the nature of the soul. To this objection I reply that it was not my
intention in that place to exclude these in accordance with the order
that looks to the truth of the matter (as to which I was not then
dealing), but only in accordance with the order of my thought
[perception]; thus my meaning was that so far as I was aware, I knew
nothing clearly as belonging to my essence, excepting that I was a
thing that thinks, or a thing that has in itself the faculty of
thinking. But I shall show hereafter how from the fact that I know no
other thing which pertains to my essence, it follows that there is no
other thing which really does belong to it.
The second objection is that it does not follow from the fact that
I have in myself the idea of something more perfect than I am, that
this idea is more perfect than I, and much less that what is
represented by this idea exists. But I reply that in this term idea
there is here something equivocal, for it may either be taken
materially, as an act of my understanding, and in this sense it cannot
be said that it is more perfect than I; or it may be taken objectively,
as the thing which is represented by this act, which, although we do
not suppose it to exist outside of my understanding, may, none the
less, be more perfect than I, because of its essence. And in following
out this Treatise I shall show more fully how, from the sole fact that
I have in myself the idea of a thing more perfect than myself, it
follows that this thing truly exists.
In addition to these two objections I have also seen two fairly
lengthy works on this subject, which, however, did not so much impugn
my reasonings as my conclusions, and this by arguments drawn from the
ordinary atheistic sources. But, because such arguments cannot make
any impression on the minds of those who really understand my
reasonings, and as the judgments of many are so feeble and irrational
that they very often allow themselves to be persuaded by the opinions
which they have first formed, however false and far removed from reason
they may be, rather than by a true and solid but subsequently received
refutation of these opinions, I do not desire to reply here to their
criticisms in case of being first of all obliged to state them. I
shall only say in general that all that is said by the atheist against
the existence of God, always depends either on the fact that we ascribe
to God affections which are human, or that we attribute so much
strength and wisdom to our minds that we even have the presumption to
desire to determine and understand that which God can and ought to do.
In this way all that they allege will cause us no difficulty, provided
only we remember that we must consider our minds as things which are
finite and limited, and God as a Being who is incomprehensible and
infinite.
Now that I have once for all recognised and acknowledged the
opinions of men, I at once begin to treat of God and the Human soul,
and at the same time to treat of the whole of the First Philosophy,
without however expecting any praise from the vulgar and without the
hope that my book will have many readers. On the contrary, I should
never advise anyone to read it excepting those who desire to meditate
seriously with me, and who can detach their minds from affairs of
sense, and deliver themselves entirely from every sort of prejudice. I
know too well that such men exist in a very small number. But for
those who, without caring to comprehend the order and connections of my
reasonings, form their criticisms on detached portions arbitrarily
selected, as is the custom with many, these, I say, will not obtain
much profit from reading this Treatise. And although they perhaps in
several parts find occasion of cavilling, they can for all their pains
make no objection which is urgent or deserving of reply.
And inasmuch as I make no promise to others to satisfy them at
once, and as I do not presume so much on my own powers as to believe
myself capable of foreseeing all that can cause difficulty to anyone, I
shall first of all set forth in these Meditations the very
considerations by which I persuade myself that I have reached a certain
and evident knowledge of the truth, in order to see if, by the same
reasons which persuaded me, I can also persuade others. And, after
that, I shall reply to the objections which have been made to me by
persons of genius and learning to whom I have sent my Meditations for
examination, before submitting them to the press. For they have made
so many objections and these so different, that I venture to promise
that it will be difficult for anyone to bring to mind criticisms of any
consequence which have not been already touched upon. This is why I
beg those who read these Meditations to form no judgment upon them
unless they have given themselves the trouble to read all the
objections as well as the replies which I have made to them.
Synopsis of the Six Following
Meditations.
In the first Meditation I set forth the reasons for which we may,
generally speaking, doubt about all things and especially about
material things, at least so long as we have no other foundations for
the sciences than those which we have hitherto possessed. But although
the utility of a Doubt which is so general does not at first appear, it
is at the same time very great, inasmuch as it delivers us from every
kind of prejudice, and sets out for us a very simple way by which the
mind may detach itself from the senses; and finally it makes it
impossible for us ever to doubt those things which we have once
discovered to be true.
In the second Meditation, mind, which making use of the liberty
which pertains to it, takes for granted that all those things of whose
existence it has the least doubt, are non-existent, recognises that it
is however absolutely impossible that it does not itself exist. This
point is likewise of the greatest moment, inasmuch as by this means a
distinction is easily drawn between the things which pertain to mind—
that is to say to the intellectual nature—and those which pertain to
body.
But because it may be that some expect from me in this place a
statement of the reasons establishing the immortality of the soul, I
feel that I should here make known to them that having aimed at writing
nothing in all this Treatise of which I do not possess very exact
demonstrations, I am obliged to follow a similar order to that made use
of by the geometers, which is to begin by putting forward as premises
all those things upon which the proposition that we seek depends,
before coming to any conclusion regarding it. Now the first and
principal matter which is requisite for thoroughly understanding the
immortality of the soul is to form the clearest possible conception of
it, and one which will be entirely distinct from all the conceptions
which we may have of body; and in this Meditation this has been done.
In addition to this it is requisite that we may be assured that all
the things which we conceive clearly and distinctly are true in the
very way in which we think them; and this could not be proved
previously to the Fourth Mediation. Further we must have a distinct
conception of corporeal nature, which is given partly in this Second,
and partly in the Fifth and Sixth Meditations. And finally we should
conclude from all this, that those things which we conceive clearly and
distinctly as being diverse substances, as we regard mind and body to
be, are really substances essentially distinct one from the other; and
this is the conclusion of the Sixth Meditation. This is further
confirmed in this same Meditation by the fact that we cannot conceive
of body excepting in so far as it is divisible, while the mind cannot
be conceived of excepting as indivisible. For we are not able to
conceive of the half of a mind as we can do of the smallest of all
bodies; so that we see that not only are their natures different but
even in some respects contrary to one another. I have not however
dealt further with this matter in this treatise, both because what I
have said is sufficient to show clearly enough that the extinction of
the mind does not follow from the corruption of the body, and also to
give men the hope of another life after death, as also because the
premises from which the immortality of the soul may be deduced depend
on an elucidation of a complete system of Physics. This would mean to
establish in the first place that all substances generally—that is
to say all things which cannot exist without being created by God—
are in their nature incorruptible, and that they can never cease to
exist unless God, in denying to them his concurrence, reduce them to
nought; and secondly that body, regarded generally, is a substance,
which is the reason why it also cannot perish, but that the human body,
inasmuch as it differs from other bodies, is composed only of a certain
configuration of members and of other similar accidents, while the
human mind is not similarly composed of any accidents, but is a pure
substance. For although all the accidents of mind be changed,
although, for instance, it think certain things, will others, perceive
others, etc., despite all this it does not emerge from these changes
another mind: the human body on the other hand becomes a different
thing from the sole fact that the figure or form of any of its portions
is found to be changed. From this it follows that the human body may
indeed easily enough perish, but the mind [or soul of man (I make no
distinction between them)] is owing to its nature immortal.
In the third Meditation it seems to me that I have explained at
sufficient length the principal argument of which I make use in order
to prove the existence of God. But none the less, because I did not
wish in that place to make use of any comparisons derived from
corporeal things, so as to withdraw as much as I could the minds of
readers from the senses, there may perhaps have remained many
obscurities which, however, will, I hope, be entirely removed by the
Replies which I have made to the Objections which have been set before
me. Amongst others there is, for example, this one, How the idea in us
of a being supremely perfect possesses so much objective reality [that
is to say participates by representation in so many degrees of being
and perfection] that it necessarily proceeds from a cause which is
absolutely perfect. This is illustrated in these Replies by the
comparison of a very perfect machine, the idea of which is found in the
mind of some workman. For as the objective contrivance of this idea
must have some cause, i.e. either the science of the workman or that of
some other from whom he has received the idea, it is similarly
impossible that the idea of God which is in us should not have God
himself as its cause.
In the fourth Meditation it is shown that all these things which we
very clearly and distinctly perceive are true, and at the same time it
is explained in what the nature of error or falsity consists. This
must of necessity be known both for the confirmation of the preceding
truths and for the better comprehension of those that follow. (But it
must meanwhile be remarked that I do not in any way there treat of sin
-- that is to say of the error which is committed in the pursuit of
good and evil, but only of that which arises in the deciding between
the true and the false. And I do not intend to speak of matters
pertaining to the Faith or the conduct of life, but only of those which
concern speculative truths, and which may be known by the sole aid of
the light of nature.)
In the fifth Meditation corporeal nature generally is explained,
and in addition to this the existence of God is demonstrated by a new
proof in which there may possibly be certain difficulties also, but the
solution of these will be seen in the Replies to the Objections. And
further I show in what sense it is true to say that the certainty of
geometrical demonstrations is itself dependent on the knowledge of God.
Finally in the Sixth I distinguish the action of the understanding
from that of the imagination; the marks by which this distinction is
made are described. I here show that the mind of man is really
distinct from the body, and at the same time that the two are so
closely joined together that they form, so to speak, a single thing.
All the errors which proceed from the senses are then surveyed, while
the means of avoiding them are demonstrated, and finally all the
reasons from which we may deduce the existence of material things are
set forth. Not that I judge them to be very useful in establishing
that which they prove, to wit, that there is in truth a world, that men
possess bodies, and other such things which never have been doubted by
anyone of sense; but because in considering these closely we come to
see that they are neither so strong nor so evident as those arguments
which lead us to the knowledge of our mind and of God; so that these
last must be the most certain and most evident facts which can fall
within the cognizance of the human mind. And this is the whole matter
that I have tried to prove in these Meditations, for which reason I
here omit to speak of many other questions which I dealt incidentally
in this discussion.
Meditations On First Philosophy in which the Existence of God and
the Distinction Between Mind and Body are Demonstrated.
Meditation I
Of the things which may be brought within the sphere
of the doubtful
It is now some years since I detected how many were the false
beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how
doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis; and from
that time I was convinced that I must once for all seriously undertake
to rid myself of all the opinions which I had formerly accepted, and
commence to build anew from the foundation, if I wanted to establish
any firm and permanent structure in the sciences. But as this
enterprise appeared to be a very great one, I waited until I had
attained an age so mature that I could not hope that at any later date
I should be better fitted to execute my design. This reason caused me
to delay so long that I should feel that I was doing wrong were I to
occupy in deliberation the time that yet remains to me for action.
To-day, then, since very opportunely for the plan I have in view I
have delivered my mind from every care [and am happily agitated by no
passions] and since I have procured for myself an assured leisure in a
peaceable retirement, I shall at last seriously and freely address
myself to the general upheaval of all my former opinions.
Now for this object it is not necessary that I should show that all
of these are false—I shall perhaps never arrive at this end. But
inasmuch as reason already persuades me that I ought no less carefully
to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and
indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false,
if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will
suffice to justify my rejecting the whole. And for that end it will
not be requisite that I should examine each in particular, which would
be an endless undertaking; for owing to the fact that the destruction
of the foundations of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest
of the edifice, I shall only in the first place attack those principles
upon which all my former opinions rested.
All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and
certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses;
but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and
it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once
been deceived.
But it may be that although the senses sometimes deceive us
concerning things which are hardly perceptible, or very far away, there
are yet many others to be met with as to which we cannot reasonably
have any doubt, although we recognise them by their means. For
example, there is the fact that I am here, seated by the fire, attired
in a dressing gown, having this paper in my hands and other similar
matters. And how could I deny that these hands and this body are mine,
were it not perhaps that I compare myself to certain persons, devoid of
sense, whose cerebella are so troubled and clouded by the violent
vapours of black bile, that they constantly assure us that they think
they are kings when they are really quite poor, or that they are
clothed in purple when they are really without covering, or who imagine
that they have an earthenware head or are nothing but pumpkins or are
made of glass. But they are mad, and I should not be any the less
insane were I to follow examples so extravagant.
At the same time I must remember that I am a man, and that
consequently I am in the habit of sleeping, and in my dreams
representing to myself the same things or sometimes even less probable
things, than do those who are insane in their waking moments. How
often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found
myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the
fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed! At this moment
it does indeed seem to me that it is with eyes awake that I am looking
at this paper; that this head which I move is not asleep, that it is
deliberately and of set purpose that I extend my hand and perceive it;
what happens in sleep does not appear so clear nor so distinct as does
all this. But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many
occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in
dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there
are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish
wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my
astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I
now dream.
Now let us assume that we are asleep and that all these
particulars, e.g. that we open our eyes, shake our head, extend our
hands, and so on, are but false delusions; and let us reflect that
possibly neither our hands nor our whole body are such as they appear
to us to be. At the same time we must at least confess that the things
which are represented to us in sleep are like painted representations
which can only have been formed as the counterparts of something real
and true, and that in this way those general things at least, i.e.
eyes, a head, hands, and a whole body, are not imaginary things, but
things really existent. For, as a matter of fact, painters, even when
they study with the greatest skill to represent sirens and satyrs by
forms the most strange and extraordinary, cannot give them natures
which are entirely new, but merely make a certain medley of the members
of different animals; or if their imagination is extravagant enough to
invent something so novel that nothing similar has ever before been
seen, and that then their work represents a thing purely fictitious and
absolutely false, it is certain all the same that the colours of which
this is composed are necessarily real. And for the same reason,
although these general things, to with, [a body], eyes, a head, hands,
and such like, may be imaginary, we are bound at the same time to
confess that there are at least some other objects yet more simple and
more universal, which are real and true; and of these just in the same
way as with certain real colours, all these images of things which
dwell in our thoughts, whether true and real or false and fantastic,
are formed.
To such a class of things pertains corporeal nature in general, and
its extension, the figure of extended things, their quantity or
magnitude and number, as also the place in which they are, the time
which measures their duration, and so on.
That is possibly why our reasoning is not unjust when we conclude
from this that Physics, Astronomy, Medicine and all other sciences
which have as their end the consideration of composite things, are very
dubious and uncertain; but that Arithmetic, Geometry and other sciences
of that kind which only treat of things that are very simple and very
general, without taking great trouble to ascertain whether they are
actually existent or not, contain some measure of certainty and an
element of the indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two and
three together always form five, and the square can never have more
than four sides, and it does not seem possible that truths so clear and
apparent can be suspected of any falsity [or uncertainty].
Nevertheless I have long had fixed in my mind the belief that an
all-powerful God existed by whom I have been created such as I am. But
how do I know that He has not brought it to pass that there is no
earth, no heaven, no extended body, no magnitude, no place, and that
nevertheless [I possess the perceptions of all these things and that]
they seem to me to exist just exactly as I now see them? And, besides,
as I sometimes imagine that others deceive themselves in the things
which they think they know best, how do I know that I am not deceived
every time that I add two and three, or count the sides of a square, or
judge of things yet simpler, if anything simpler can be imagined? But
possibly God has not desired that I should be thus deceived, for He is
said to be supremely good. If, however, it is contrary to His goodness
to have made me such that I constantly deceive myself, it would also
appear to be contrary to His goodness to permit me to be sometimes
deceived, and nevertheless I cannot doubt that He does permit this.
There may indeed be those who would prefer to deny the existence of
a God so powerful, rather than believe that all other things are
uncertain. But let us not oppose them for the present, and grant that
all that is here said of a God is a fable; nevertheless in whatever way
they suppose that I have arrived at the state of being that I have
reached—whether they attribute it to fate or to accident, or make
out that it is by a continual succession of antecedents, or by some
other method—since to err and deceive oneself is a defect, it is
clear that the greater will be the probability of my being so imperfect
as to deceive myself ever, as is the Author to whom they assign my
origin the less powerful. To these reasons I have certainly nothing to
reply, but at the end I feel constrained to confess that there is
nothing in all that I formerly believed to be true, of which I cannot
in some measure doubt, and that not merely through want of thought or
through levity, but for reasons which are very powerful and maturely
considered; so that henceforth I ought not the less carefully to
refrain from giving credence to these opinions than to that which is
manifestly false, if I desire to arrive at any certainty [in the
sciences].
But it is not sufficient to have made these remarks, we must also
be careful to keep them in mind. For these ancient and commonly held
opinions still revert frequently to my mind, long and familiar custom
having given them the right to occupy my mind against my inclination
and rendered them almost masters of my belief; nor will I ever lose the
habit of deferring to them or of placing my confidence in them, so long
as I consider them as they really are, i.e. opinions in some measure
doubtful, as I have just shown, and at the same time highly probable,
so that there is much more reason to believe in than to deny them.
That is why I consider that I shall not be acting amiss, if, taking of
set purpose a contrary belief, I allow myself to be deceived, and for a
certain time pretend that all these opinions are entirely false and
imaginary, until at last, having thus balanced my former prejudices
with my latter [so that they cannot divert my opinions more to one side
than to the other], my judgment will no longer be dominated by bad
usage or turned away from the right knowledge of the truth. For I am
assured that there can be neither peril nor error in this course, and
that I cannot at present yield too much to distrust, since I am not
considering the question of action, but only of knowledge.
I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the
fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than
deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall
consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all
other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which
this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity;
I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no
blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all
these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if
by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any
truth, I may at least do what is in my power [i.e. suspend my
judgment], and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false
thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful
and deceptive he may be. But this task is a laborious one, and
insensibly a certain lassitude leads me into the course of my ordinary
life. And just as a captive who in sleep enjoys an imaginary liberty,
when he begins to suspect that his liberty is but a dream, fears to
awaken, and conspires with these agreeable illusions that the deception
may be prolonged, so insensibly of my own accord I fall back into my
former opinions, and I dread awakening from this slumber, lest the
laborious wakefulness which would follow the tranquillity of this
repose should have to be spent not in daylight, but in the excessive
darkness of the difficulties which have just been discussed.
Meditation II
Of the Nature of the Human Mind;
and that it is more easily known than the Body
The Meditation of yesterday filled my mind with so many doubts that
it is no longer in my power to forget them. And yet I do not see in
what manner I can resolve them; and, just as if I had all of a sudden
fallen into very deep water, I am so disconcerted that I can neither
make certain of setting my feet on the bottom, nor can I swim and so
support myself on the surface. I shall nevertheless make an effort and
follow anew the same path as that on which I yesterday entered, i.e. I
shall proceed by setting aside all that in which the least doubt could
be supposed to exist, just as if I had discovered that it was
absolutely false; and I shall ever follow in this road until I have met
with something which is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing else,
until I have learned for certain that there is nothing in the world
that is certain. Archimedes, in order that he might draw the
terrestrial globe out of its place, and transport it elsewhere,
demanded only that one point should be fixed and immoveable; in the
same way I shall have the right to conceive high hopes if I am happy
enough to discover one thing only which is certain and indubitable.
I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false; I
persuade myself that nothing has ever existed of all that my fallacious
memory represents to me. I consider that I possess no senses; I
imagine that body, figure, extension, movement and place are but the
fictions of my mind. What, then, can be esteemed as true? Perhaps
nothing at all, unless that there is nothing in the world that is
certain.
But how can I know there is not something different from those
things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the
slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by
whatever name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind?
That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of
producing them myself? I myself, am I not at least something? But I
have already denied that I had senses and body. Yet I hesitate, for
what follows from that? Am I so dependent on body and senses that I
cannot exist without these? But I was persuaded that there was nothing
in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there were
no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did
not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I
persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of
something]. But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and
very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then
without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as
much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think
that I am something. So that after having reflected well and carefully
examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this
proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I
pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it.
But I do not yet know clearly enough what I am, I who am certain
that I am; and hence I must be careful to see that I do not imprudently
take some other object in place of myself, and thus that I do not go
astray in respect of this knowledge that I hold to be the most certain
and most evident of all that I have formerly learned. That is why I
shall now consider anew what I believed myself to be before I embarked
upon these last reflections; and of my former opinions I shall withdraw
all that might even in a small degree be invalidated by the reasons
which I have just brought forward, in order that there may be nothing
at all left beyond what is absolutely certain and indubitable.
What then did I formerly believe myself to be? Undoubtedly I
believed myself to be a man. But what is a man? Shall I say a
reasonable animal? Certainly not; for then I should have to inquire
what an animal is, and what is reasonable; and thus from a single
question I should insensibly fall into an infinitude of others more
difficult; and I should not wish to waste the little time and leisure
remaining to me in trying to unravel subtleties like these. But I
shall rather stop here to consider the thoughts which of themselves
spring up in my mind, and which were not inspired by anything beyond my
own nature alone when I applied myself to the consideration of my
being. In the first place, the, I considered myself as having a face,
hands, arms, and all that system of members composed on bones and flesh
as seen in a corpse which I designated by the name of body. In
addition to this I considered that I was nourished, that I walked, that
I felt, and that I thought, and I referred all these actions to the
soul: but I did not stop to consider what the soul was, or if I did
stop, I imagined that it was something extremely rare and subtle like a
wind, a flame, or an ether, which was spread throughout my grosser
parts. As to body I had no manner of doubt about its nature, but
thought I had a very clear knowledge of it; and if I had desired to
explain it according to the notions that I had then formed of it, I
should have described it thus: By the body I understand all that which
can be defined by a certain figure: something which can be confined in
a certain place, and which can fill a given space in such a way that
every other body will be excluded from it; which can be perceived
either by tough, or by sight, or by hearing, or by taste, or by smell:
which can be moved in many ways not, in truth, by itself, but by
something which is foreign to it, by which it is touched [and from
which it receives impressions]: for to have the power of
self-movement, as also of feeling or of thinking, I did not consider to
appertain to the nature of body: on the contrary, I was rather
astonished to find that faculties similar to them existed in some
bodies.
But what am I, now that I suppose that there is a certain genius
which is extremely powerful, and, if I may say so, malicious, who
employs all his powers in deceiving me? Can I affirm that I possess
the least of all those things which I have just said pertain to the
nature of body? I pause to consider, I revolve all these things in my
mind, and I find none of which I can say that it pertains to me. It
would be tedious to stop to enumerate them. Let us pass to the
attributes of soul and see if there is any one which is in me? What of
nutrition or walking [the first mentioned]? But if it is so that I
have no body it is also true that I can neither walk nor take
nourishment. Another attribute is sensation. But one cannot feel
without body, and besides I have thought I perceived many things during
sleep that I recognised in my waking moments as not having been
experienced at all. What of thinking? I find here that thought is an
attribute that belongs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me. I
am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for
it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I
should likewise cease altogether to exist. I do not now admit anything
which is not necessarily true: to speak accurately I am not more than
a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind or a soul, or an
understanding, or a reason, which are terms whose significance was
formerly unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing and really exist;
but what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks.
And what more? I shall exercise my imagination [in order to see if
I am not something more]. I am not a collection of members which we
call the human body: I am not a subtle air distributed through these
members, I am not a wind, a fire, a vapour, a breath, nor anything at
all which I can imagine or conceive; because I have assumed that all
these were nothing. Without changing that supposition I find that I
only leave myself certain of the fact that I am somewhat. But perhaps
it is true that these same things which I supposed were non-existent
because they are unknown to me, are really not different from the self
which I know. I am not sure about this, I shall not dispute about it
now; I can only give judgment on things that are known to me. I know
that I exist, and I inquire what I am, I whom I know to exist. But it
is very certain that the knowledge of my existence taken in its precise
significance does not depend on things whose existence is not yet known
to me; consequently it does not depend on those which I can feign in
imagination. And indeed the very term feign in imagination proves to
me my error, for I really do this if I image myself a something, since
to imagine is nothing else than to contemplate the figure or image of a
corporeal thing. But I already know for certain that I am, and that it
may be that all these images, and, speaking generally, all things that
relate to the nature of body are nothing but dreams [and chimeras].
For this reason I see clearly that I have as little reason to say,
I shall stimulate my imagination in order to know more distinctly what
I am, than if I were to say, I am now awake, and I perceive
somewhat that is real and true: but because I do not yet perceive it
distinctly enough, I shall go to sleep of express purpose, so that my
dreams may represent the perception with greatest truth and evidence.
And, thus, I know for certain that nothing of all that I can
understand by means of my imagination belongs to this knowledge which I
have of myself, and that it is necessary to recall the mind from this
mode of thought with the utmost diligence in order that it may be able
to know its own nature with perfect distinctness.
But what then am I? A thing which thinks. What is a thing which
thinks? It is a thing which doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms,
denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and feels.
Certainly it is no small matter if all these things pertain to my
nature. But why should they not so pertain? Am I not that being who
now doubts nearly everything, who nevertheless understands certain
things, who affirms that one only is true, who denies all the others,
who desires to know more, is averse from being deceived, who imagines
many things, sometimes indeed despite his will, and who perceives many
likewise, as by the intervention of the bodily organs? Is there
nothing in all this which is as true as it is certain that I exist,
even though I should always sleep and though he who has given me being
employed all his ingenuity in deceiving me? Is there likewise any one
of these attributes which can be distinguished from my thought, or
which might be said to be separated from myself? For it is so evident
of itself that it is I who doubts, who understands, and who desires,
that there is no reason here to add anything to explain it. And I have
certainly the power of imagining likewise; for although it may happen
(as I formerly supposed) that none of the things which I imagine are
true, nevertheless this power of imagining does not cease to be really
in use, and it forms part of my thought. Finally, I am the same who
feels, that is to say, who perceives certain things, as by the organs
of sense, since it truth I see light, I hear noise, I feel heat. But
it will be said that these phenomena are false and that I am dreaming.
Let it be so; still it is at least quite certain that it seems to me
that I see light, that I hear noise and that I feel heat. That cannot
be false; properly speaking it is what is in me called feeling; and
used in this precise sense that is no other thing than thinking.
From this time I begin to know what I am with a little more
clearness and distinction than before; but nevertheless it still seems
to me, and I cannot prevent myself from thinking, that corporeal
things, whose images are framed by thought, which are tested by the
senses, are much more distinctly known than that obscure part of me
which does not come under the imagination. Although really it is very
strange to say that I know and understand more distinctly these things
whose existence seems to me dubious, which are unknown to me, and which
do not belong to me, than others of the truth of which I am convinced,
which are known to me and which pertain to my real nature, in a word,
than myself. But I see clearly how the case stands: my mind loves to
wander, and cannot yet suffer itself to be retained within the just
limits of truth. Very good, let us once more give it the freest rein,
so that, when afterwards we seize the proper occasion for pulling up,
it may the more easily be regulated and controlled.
Let us begin by considering the commonest matters, those which we
believe to be the most distinctly comprehended, to wit, the bodies
which we touch and see; not indeed bodies in general, for these general
ideas are usually a little more confused, but let us consider one body
in particular. Let us take, for example, this piece of wax: it has
been taken quite freshly from the hive, and it has not yet lost the
sweetness of the honey which it contains; it still retains somewhat of
the odour of the flowers from which it has been culled; its colour, its
figure, its size are apparent; it is hard, cold, easily handled, and if
you strike it with the finger, it will emit a sound. Finally all the
things which are requisite to cause us distinctly to recognise a body,
are met with in it. But notice that while I speak and approach the
fire what remained of the taste is exhaled, the smell evaporates, the
colour alters, the figure is destroyed, the size increases, it becomes
liquid, it heats, scarcely can one handle it, and when one strikes it,
now sound is emitted. Does the same wax remain after this change? We
must confess that it remains; none would judge otherwise. What then
did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax? It could certainly be
nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice, since all these
things which fall under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing, are
found to be changed, and yet the same wax remains.
Perhaps it was what I now think, viz. that this wax was not that
sweetness of honey, nor that agreeable scent of flowers, nor that
particular whiteness, nor that figure, nor that sound, but simply a
body which a little while before appeared tome as perceptible under
these forms, and which is now perceptible under others. But what,
precisely, is it that I imagine when I form such conceptions? Let us
attentively consider this, and, abstracting from all that does not
belong to the wax, let us see what remains. Certainly nothing remains
excepting a certain extended thing which is flexible and movable. But
what is the meaning of flexible and movable? Is it not that I imagine
that this piece of wax being round is capable of becoming square and of
passing from a square to a triangular figure? No, certainly it is not
that, since I imagine it admits of an infinitude of similar changes,
and I nevertheless do not know how to compass the infinitude by my
imagination, and consequently this conception which I have of the wax
is not brought about by the faculty of imagination. What now is this
extension? Is it not also unknown? For it becomes greater when the
wax is melted, greater when it is boiled, and greater still when the
heat increases; and I should not conceive [clearly] according to truth
what wax is, if I did not think that even this piece that we are
considering is capable of receiving more variations in extension than I
have ever imagined. We must then grant that I could not even
understand through the imagination what this piece of wax is, and that
it is my mind alone which perceives it. I say this piece of wax in
particular, for as to wax in general it is yet clearer. But what is
this piece of wax which cannot be understood excepting by the
[understanding or] mind? It is certainly the same that I see, touch,
imagine, and finally it is the same which I have always believed it to
be from the beginning. But what must particularly be observed is that
its perception is neither an act of vision, nor of touch, nor of
imagination, and has never been such although it may have appeared
formerly to be so, but only an intuition of the mind, which may be
imperfect and confused as it was formerly, or clear and distinct as it
is at present, according as my attention is more or less directed to
the elements which are found in it, and of which it is composed.
Yet in the meantime I am greatly astonished when I consider [the
great feebleness of mind] and its proneness to fall [insensibly] into
error; for although without giving expression to my thought I consider
all this in my own mind, words often impede me and I am almost deceived
by the terms of ordinary language. For we say that we see the same
wax, if it is present, and not that we simply judge that it is the same
from its having the same colour and figure. From this I should
conclude that I knew the wax by means of vision and not simply by the
intuition of the mind; unless by chance I remember that, when looking
from a window and saying I see men who pass in the street, I really do
not see them, but infer that what I see is men, just as I say that I
see wax. And yet what do I see from the window but hats and coats
which may cover automatic machines? Yet I judge these to be men. And
similarly solely by the faculty of judgment which rests in my mind, I
comprehend that which I believed I saw with my eyes.
A man who makes it his aim to raise his knowledge above the common
should be ashamed to derive the occasion for doubting from the forms of
speech invented by the vulgar; I prefer to pass on and consider whether
I had a more evident and perfect conception of what the wax was when I
first perceived it, and when I believed I knew it by means of the
external senses or at least by the common sense as it is called, that
is to say by the imaginative faculty, or whether my present conception
is clearer now that I have most carefully examined what it is, and in
what way it can be known. It would certainly be absurd to doubt as to
this. For what was there in this first perception which was distinct?
What was there which might not as well have been perceived by any of
the animals? But when I distinguish the wax from its external forms,
and when, just as if I had taken from it its vestments, I consider it
quite naked, it is certain that although some error may still be found
in my judgment, I can nevertheless not perceive it thus without a human
mind.
But finally what shall I say of this mind, that is, of myself, for
up to this point I do not admit in myself anything but mind? What
then, I who seem to perceive this piece of wax so distinctly, do I not
know myself, not only with much more truth and certainty, but also with
much more distinctness and clearness? For if I judge that the wax is
or exists from the fact that I see it, it certainly follows much more
clearly that I am or that I exist myself from the fact that I see it.
For it may be that what I see is not really wax, it may also be that I
do not possess eyes with which to see anything; but it cannot be that
when I see, or (for I no longer take account of the distinction) when I
think I see, that I myself who think am nought. So if I judge that the
wax exists from the fact that I touch it, the same thing will follow,
to wit, that I am; and if I judge that my imagination, or some other
cause, whatever it is, persuades me that the wax exists, I shall still
conclude the same. And what I have here remarked of wax may be applied
to all other things which are external to me [and which are met with
outside of me]. And further, if the [notion or] perception of wax has
seemed to me clearer and more distinct, not only after the sight or the
touch, but also after many other causes have rendered it quite manifest
to me, with how much more [evidence] and distinctness must it be said
that I now know myself, since all the reasons which contribute to the
knowledge of wax, or any other body whatever, are yet better proofs of
the nature of my mind! And there are so many other things in the mind
itself which may contribute to the elucidation of its nature, that
those which depend on body such as these just mentioned, hardly merit
being taken into account.
But finally here I am, having insensibly reverted to the point I
desired, for, since it is now manifest to me that even bodies are not
properly speaking known by the senses or by the faculty of imagination,
but by the understanding only, and since they are not known from the
fact that they are seen or touched, but only because they are
understood, I see clearly that there is nothing which is easier for me
to know than my mind. But because it is difficult to rid oneself so
promptly of an opinion to which one was accustomed for so long, it will
be well that I should halt a little at this point, so that by the
length of my meditation I may more deeply imprint on my memory this new
knowledge.
Meditation III
Of God: that He exists
I shall now close my eyes, I shall stop my ears, I shall call away
all my senses, I shall efface even from my thoughts all the images of
corporeal things, or at least (for that is hardly possible) I shall
esteem them as vain and false; and thus holding converse only with
myself and considering my own nature, I shall try little by little to
reach a better knowledge of and a more familiar acquaintanceship with
myself. I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, that doubts,
affirms, denies, that knows a few things, that is ignorant of many
[that loves, that hates], that wills, that desires, that also imagines
and perceives; for as I remarked before, although the things which I
perceive and imagine are perhaps nothing at all apart from me and in
themselves, I am nevertheless assured that these modes of thought that
I call perceptions and imaginations, inasmuch only as they are modes of
thought, certainly reside [and are met with] in me.
And in the little that I have just said, I think I have summed up
all that I really know, or at least all that hitherto I was aware that
I knew. In order to try to extend my knowledge further, I shall now
look around more carefully and see whether I cannot still discover in
myself some other things which I have not hitherto perceived. I am
certain that I am a thing which thinks; but do I not then likewise know
what is requisite to render me certain of a truth? Certainly in this
first knowledge there is nothing that assures me of its truth,
excepting the clear and distinct perception of that which I state,
which would not indeed suffice to assure me that what I say is true, if
it could ever happen that a thing which I conceived so clearly and
distinctly could be false; and accordingly it seems to me that already
I can establish as a general rule that all things which I perceive
very clearly and very distinctly are true.
At the same time I have before received and admitted many things to
be very certain and manifest, which yet I afterwards recognised as
being dubious. What then were these things? They were the earth, sky,
stars and all other objects which I apprehended by means of the senses.
But what did I clearly [and distinctly] perceive in them? Nothing
more than that the ideas or thoughts of these things were presented to
my mind. And not even now do I deny that these ideas are met with in
me. But there was yet another thing which I affirmed, and which, owing
to the habit which I had formed of believing it, I thought I perceived
very clearly, although in truth I did not perceive it at all, to wit,
that there were objects outside of me from which these ideas proceeded,
and to which they were entirely similar. And it was in this that I
erred, or, if perchance my judgment was correct, this was not due to
any knowledge arising from my perception.
But when I took anything very simple and easy in the sphere of
arithmetic or geometry into consideration, e.g. that two and three
together made five, and other things of the sort, were not these
present to my mind so clearly as to enable me to affirm that they were
true? Certainly if I judged that since such matters could be doubted,
this would not have been so for any other reason than that it came into
my mind that perhaps a God might have endowed me with such a nature
that I may have been deceived even concerning things which seemed to me
most manifest. But every time that this preconceived opinion of the
sovereign power of a God presents itself to my thought, I am
constrained to confess that it is easy to Him, if He wishes it, to
cause me to err, even in matters in which I believe myself to have the
best evidence. And, on the other hand, always when I direct my
attention to things which I believe myself to perceive very clearly, I
am so persuaded of their truth that I let myself break out into words
such as these: Let who will deceive me, He can never cause me to be
nothing while I think that I am, or some day cause it to be true to say
that I have never been, it being true now to say that I am, or that two
and three make more or less than five, or any such thing in which I see
a manifest contradiction. And, certainly, since I have no reason to
believe that there is a God who is a deceiver, and as I have not yet
satisfied myself that there is a God at all, the reason for doubt which
depends on this opinion alone is very slight, and so to speak
metaphysical. But in order to be able altogether to remove it, I must
inquire whether there is a God as soon as the occasion presents itself;
and if I find that there is a God, I must also inquire whether He may
be a deceiver; for without a knowledge of these two truths I do not see
that I can ever be certain of anything.
And in order that I may have an opportunity of inquiring into this
in an orderly way [without interrupting the order of meditation which I
have proposed to myself, and which is little by little to pass from the
notions which I find first of all in my mind to those which I shall
later on discover in it] it is requisite that I should here divide my
thoughts into certain kinds, and that I should consider in which of
these kinds there is, properly speaking, truth or error to be found.
Of my thoughts some are, so to speak, images of the things, and to
these alone is the title idea properly applied; examples are my
thought of a man or of a chimera, of heaven, of an angel, or [even] of
God. But other thoughts possess other forms as well. For example in
willing, fearing, approving, denying, though I always perceive
something as the subject of the action of my mind, yet by this action
I always add something else to the idea which I have of that thing;
and of the thoughts of this kind some are called volitions or
affections, and others judgments.
Now as to what concerns ideas, if we consider them only in
themselves and do not relate them to anything else beyond themselves,
they cannot properly speaking be false; for whether I imagine a goat or
a chimera, it is not less true that I imagine the one that the other.
We must not fear likewise that falsity can enter into will and into
affections, for although I may desire evil things, or even things that
never existed, it is not the less true that I desire them. Thus there
remains no more than the judgments which we make, in which I must take
the greatest care not o deceive myself. But the principal error and
the commonest which we may meet with in them, consists in my judging
that the ideas which are in me are similar or conformable to the things
which are outside me; for without doubt if I considered the ideas only
as certain modes of my thoughts, without trying to relate them to
anything beyond, they could scarcely give me material for error.
But among these ideas, some appear to me to be innate, some
adventitious, and others to be formed [or invented] by myself; for, as
I have the power of understanding what is called a thing, or a truth,
or a thought, it appears to me that I hold this power from no other
source than my own nature. But if I now hear some sound, if I see the
sun, or feel heat, I have hitherto judged that these sensations
proceeded from certain things that exist outside of me; and finally it
appears to me that sirens, hippogryphs, and the like, are formed out of
my own mind. But again I may possibly persuade myself that all these
ideas are of the nature of those which I term adventitious, or else
that they are all innate, or all fictitious: for I have not yet
clearly discovered their true origin.
And my principal task in this place is to consider, in respect to
those ideas which appear to me to proceed from certain objects that are
outside me, what are the reasons which cause me to think them similar
to these objects. It seems indeed in the first place that I am taught
this lesson by nature; and, secondly, I experience in myself that these
ideas do not depend on my will nor therefore on myself—for they
often present themselves to my mind in spite of my will. Just now, for
instance, whether I will or whether I do not will, I feel heat, and
thus I persuade myself that this feeling, or at least this idea of
heat, is produced in me by something which is different from me, i.e.
by the heat of the fire near which I sit. And nothing seems to me more
obvious than to judge that this object imprints its likeness rather
than anything else upon me.
Now I must discover whether these proofs are sufficiently strong
and convincing. When I say that I am so instructed by nature, I merely
mean a certain spontaneous inclination which impels me to believe in
this connection, and not a natural light which makes me recognise that
it is true. But these two things are very different; for I cannot
doubt that which the natural light causes me to believe to be true, as,
for example, it has shown me that I am from the fact that I doubt, or
other facts of the same kind. And I possess no other faculty whereby
to distinguish truth from falsehood, which can teach me that what this
light shows me to be true is not really true, and no other faculty that
is equally trustworthy. But as far as [apparently] natural impulses
are concerned, I have frequently remarked, when I had to make active
choice between virtue and vice, that they often enough led me to the
part that was worse; and this is why I do not see any reason for
following them in what regards truth and error.
And as to the other reason, which is that these ideas must proceed
from objects outside me, since they do not depend on my will, I do not
find it any the more convincing. For just as these impulses of which I
have spoken are found in me, notwithstanding that they do not always
concur with my will, so perhaps there is in me some faculty fitted to
produce these ideas without the assistance of any external things, even
though it is not yet known by me; just as, apparently, they have
hitherto always been found in me during sleep without the aid of any
external objects.
And finally, though they did proceed from objects different from
myself, it is not a necessary consequence that they should resemble
these. On the contrary, I have noticed that in many cases there was a
great difference between the object and its idea. I find, for example,
two completely diverse ideas of the sun in my mind; the one derives its
origin from the senses, and should be placed in the category of
adventitious ideas; according to this idea the sun seems to be
extremely small; but the other is derived from astronomical reasonings,
i.e. is elicited from certain notions that are innate in me, or else it
is formed by me in some other manner; in accordance with it the sun
appears to be several times greater than the earth. These two ideas
cannot, indeed, both resemble the same sun, and reason makes me believe
that the one which seems to have originated directly from the sun
itself, is the one which is most dissimilar to it.
All this causes me to believe that until the present time it has
not been by a judgment that was certain [or premeditated], but only by
a sort of blind impulse that I believed that things existed outside of,
and different from me, which, by the organs of my senses, or by some
other method whatever it might be, conveyed these ideas or images to me
[and imprinted on me their similitudes].
But there is yet another method of inquiring whether any of the
objects of which I have ideas within me exist outside of me. If ideas
are only taken as certain modes of thought, I recognise amongst them no
difference or inequality, and all appear to proceed from me in the same
manner; but when we consider them as images, one representing one thing
and the other another, it is clear that they are very different one
from the other. There is no doubt that those which represent to me
substances are something more, and contain so to speak more objective
reality within them [that is to say, by representation participate in a
higher degree of being or perfection] than those that simply represent
modes or accidents; and that idea again by which I understand a supreme
God, eternal, infinite, [immutable], omniscient, omnipotent, and
Creator of all things which are outside of Himself, has certainly more
objective reality in itself than those ideas by which finite substances
are represented.
Now it 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 anything else does exist, have
been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more
diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of
proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we
must conclude that God necessarily exists.
For although the idea of substance is within me owing to the fact
that I am substance, nevertheless I should not have the idea of an
infinite substance—since I am finite—if it had not proceeded from
some substance which was veritably infinite.
Nor should I imagine that I do not perceive the infinite by a true
idea, but only by the negation of the finite, just as I perceive repose
and darkness by the negation of movement and of light; for, on the
contrary, I see that there is manifestly more reality in infinite
substance than in finite, and therefore that in some way I have in me
the notion of the infinite earlier then the finite—to wit, the
notion of God before that of myself. For how would it be possible that
I should know that I doubt and desire, that is to say, that something
is lacking to me, and that I am not quite perfect, unless I had within
me some idea of a Being more perfect than myself, in comparison with
which I should recognise the deficiencies of my nature?
And we cannot say that this idea of God is perhaps materially false
and that consequently I can derive it from nought [i.e. that possibly
it exists in me because I am imperfect], as I have just said is the
case with ideas of heat, cold and other such things; for, on the
contrary, as this idea is very clear and distinct and contains within
it more objective reality than any other, there can be none which is of
itself more true, nor any in which there can be less suspicion of
falsehood. The idea, I say, of this Being who is absolutely perfect
and infinite, is entirely true; for although, perhaps, we can imagine
that such a Being does not exist, we cannot nevertheless imagine that
His idea represents nothing real to me, as I have said of the idea of
cold. This idea is also very clear and distinct; since all that I
conceive clearly and distinctly of the real and the true, and of what
conveys some perfection, is in its entirety contained in this idea.
And this does not cease to be true although I do not comprehend the
infinite, or though in God there is an infinitude of things which I
cannot comprehend, nor possibly even reach in any way by thought; for
it is of the nature of the infinite that my nature, which is finite and
limited, should not comprehend it; and it is sufficient that I should
understand this, and that I should judge that all things which I
clearly perceive and in which I know that there is some perfection, and
possibly likewise an infinitude of properties of which I am ignorant,
are in God formally or eminently, so that the idea which I have of Him
may become the most true, most clear, and most distinct of all the
ideas that are in my mind.
But possibly I am something more than I suppose myself to be, and
perhaps all those perfections which I attribute to God are in some way
potentially in me, although they do not yet disclose themselves, or
issue in action. As a matter of fact I am already sensible that my
knowledge increases [and perfects itself] little by little, and I see
nothing which can prevent it from increasing more and more into
infinitude; nor do I see, after it has thus been increased [or
perfected], anything to prevent my being able to acquire by its means
all the other perfections of the Divine nature; nor finally why the
power I have of acquiring these perfections, if it really exists in me,
shall not suffice to produce the ideas of them.
At the same time I recognise that this cannot be. For, in the
first place, although it were true that every day my knowledge acquired
new degrees of perfection, and that there were in my nature many things
potentially which are not yet there actually, nevertheless these
excellences do not pertain to [or make the smallest approach to] the
idea which I have of God in whom there is nothing merely potential [but
in whom all is present really and actually]; for it is an infallible
token of imperfection in my knowledge that it increases little by
little. and further, although my knowledge grows more and more,
nevertheless I do not for that reason believe that it can ever be
actually infinite, since it can never reach a point so high that it
will be unable to attain to any greater increase. But I understand God
to be actually infinite, so that He can add nothing to His supreme
perfection. And finally I perceive that the objective being of an idea
cannot be produced by a being that exists potentially only, which
properly speaking is nothing, but only by a being which is formal or
actual.
To speak the truth, I see nothing in all that I have just said
which by the light of nature is not manifest to anyone who desires to
think attentively on the subject; but when I slightly relax my
attention, my mind, finding its vision somewhat obscured and so to
speak blinded by the images of sensible objects, I do not easily
recollect the reason why the idea that I possess of a being more
perfect then I, must necessarily have been placed in me by a being
which is really more perfect; and this is why I wish here to go on to
inquire whether I, who have this idea, can exist if no such being
exists.
And I ask, from whom do I then derive my existence? Perhaps from
myself or from my parents, or from some other source less perfect than
God; for we can imagine nothing more perfect than God, or even as
perfect as He is.
But [were I independent of every other and] were I myself the
author of my being, I should doubt nothing and I should desire nothing,
and finally no perfection would be lacking to me; for I should have
bestowed on myself every perfection of which I possessed any idea and
should thus be God. And it must not be imagined that those things that
are lacking to me are perhaps more difficult of attainment than those
which I already possess; for, on the contrary, it is quite evident that
it was a matter of much greater difficulty to bring to pass that I,
that is to say, a thing or a substance that thinks, should emerge out
of nothing, than it would be to attain to the knowledge of many things
of which I am ignorant, and which are only the accidents of this
thinking substance. But it is clear that if I had of myself possessed
this greater perfection of which I have just spoken [that is to say, if
I had been the author of my own existence], I should not at least have
denied myself the things which are the more easy to acquire [to wit,
many branches of knowledge of which my nature is destitute]; nor should
I have deprived myself of any of the things contained in the idea which
I form of God, because there are none of them which seem to me
specially difficult to acquire: and if there were any that were more
difficult to acquire, they would certainly appear to me to be such
(supposing I myself were the origin of the other things which I
possess) since I should discover in them that my powers were limited.
But though I assume that perhaps I have always existed just as I am
at present, neither can I escape the force of this reasoning, and
imagine that the conclusion to be drawn from this is, that I need not
seek for any author of my existence. For all the course of my life may
be divided into an infinite number of parts, none of which is in any
way dependent on the other; and thus from the fact that I was in
existence a short time ago it does not follow that I must be in
existence now, unless some cause at this instant, so to speak, produces
me anew, that is to say, conserves me. It is as a matter of fact
perfectly clear and evident to all those who consider with attention
the nature of time, that, in order to be conserved in each moment in
which it endures, a substance has need of the same power and action as
would be necessary to produce and create it anew, supposing it did not
yet exist, so that the light of nature shows us clearly that the
distinction between creation and conservation is solely a distinction
of the reason.
All that I thus require here is that I should interrogate myself,
if I wish to know whether I possess a power which is capable of
bringing it to pass that I who now am shall still be in the future; for
since I am nothing but a thinking thing, or at least since thus far it
is only this portion of myself which is precisely in question at
present, if such a power did reside in me, I should certainly be
conscious of it. But I am conscious of nothing of the kind, and by
this I know clearly that I depend on some being different from myself.
Possibly, however, this being on which I depend is not that which I
call God, and I am created either by my parents or by some other cause
less perfect than God. This cannot be, because, as I have just said,
it is perfectly evident that there must be at least as much reality in
the cause as in the effect; and thus since I am a thinking thing, and
possess an idea of God within me, whatever in the end be the cause
assigned to my existence, it must be allowed that it is likewise a
thinking thing and that it possesses in itself the idea of all the
perfections which I attribute to God. We may again inquire whether
this cause derives its origin from itself or from some other thing.
For if from itself, it follows by the reasons before brought forward,
that this cause must itself be God; for since it possesses the virtue
of self-existence, it must also without doubt have the power of
actually possessing all the perfections of which it has the idea, that
is, all those which I conceive as existing in God. But if it derives
its existence from some other cause than itself, we shall again ask,
for the same reason, whether this second cause exists by itself or
through another, until from one step to another, we finally arrive at
an ultimate cause, which will be God.
And it is perfectly manifest that in this there can be no
regression into infinity, since what is in question is not so much the
cause which formerly created me, as that which conserves me at the
present time.
Nor can we suppose that several causes may have concurred in my
production, and that from one I have received the idea of one of the
perfections which I attribute to God, and from another the idea of some
other, so that all these perfections indeed exist somewhere in the
universe, but not as complete in one unity which is God. On the
contrary, the unity, the simplicity or the inseparability of all things
which are in god is one of the principal perfections which I conceive
to be in Him. And certainly the idea of this unity of all Divine
perfections cannot have been placed in me by any cause from which I
have not likewise received the ideas of all the other perfections; for
this cause could not make me able to comprehend them as joined together
in an inseparable unity without having at the same time caused me in
some measure to know what they are [and in some way to recognise each
one of them].
Finally, so far as my parents [from whom it appears I have sprung]
are concerned, although all that I have ever been able to believe of
them were true, that does not make it follow that it is they who
conserve me, nor are they even the authors of my being in any sense, in
so far as I am a thinking being; since what they did was merely to
implant certain dispositions in that matter in which the self—i.e.
the mind, which alone I at present identify with myself—is by me
deemed to exist. And thus there can be no difficulty in their regard,
but we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or
that the idea of a Being supremely perfect—that is of God—is in
me, that the proof of God's existence is grounded on the highest
evidence.
It only remains to me to examine into the manner in which I have
acquired this idea from God; for I have not received it through the
senses, and it is never presented to me unexpectedly, as is usual with
the ideas of sensible things when these things present themselves, or
seem to present themselves, to the external organs of my senses; nor is
it likewise a fiction of my mind, for it is not in my power to take
from or to add anything to it; and consequently the only alternative is
that it is innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.
And one certainly ought not to find it strange that God, in
creating me, placed this idea within me to be like the mark of the
workman imprinted on his work; and it is likewise not essential that
the mark shall be something different from the work itself. For from
the sole fact that God created me it is most probable that in some way
he has placed his image and similitude upon me, and that I perceive
this similitude (in which the idea of God is contained) by means of the
same faculty by which I perceive myself—that is to say, when I
reflect on myself I not only know that I am something [imperfect],
incomplete and dependent on another, which incessantly aspires after
something which is better and greater than myself, but I also know that
He on whom I depend possesses in Himself all the great things towards
which I aspire [and the ideas of which I find within myself], and that
not indefinitely or potentially alone, but really, actually and
infinitely; and that thus He is God. And the whole strength of the
argument which I have here made use of to prove the existence of God
consists in this, that I recognise that it is not possible that my
nature should be what it is, and indeed that I should have in myself
the idea of a God, if God did not veritably exist—a God, I say,
whose idea is in me, i.e. who possesses all those supreme perfections
of which our mind may indeed have some idea but without understanding
them all, who is liable to no errors or defect [and who has none of all
those marks which denote imperfection]. From this it is manifest that
He cannot be a deceiver, since the light of nature teaches us that
fraud and deception necessarily proceed from some defect.
But before I examine this matter with more care, and pass on to the
consideration of other truths which may be derived from it, it seems to
me right to pause for a while in order to contemplate God Himself, to
ponder at leisure His marvellous attributes, to consider, and admire,
and adore, the beauty of this light so resplendent, at least as far as
the strength of my mind, which is in some measure dazzled by the sight,
will allow me to do so. For just as faith teaches us that the supreme
felicity of the other life consists only in this contemplation of the
Divine Majesty, so we continue to learn by experience that a similar
meditation, though incomparably less perfect, causes us to enjoy the
greatest satisfaction of which we are capable in this life.
Meditation IV
Of the True and the False
I have been well accustomed these past days to detach my mind from
my senses, and I have accurately observed that there are very few
things that one knows with certainty respecting corporeal objects, that
there are many more which are known to us respecting the human mind,
and yet more still regarding God Himself; so that I shall now without
any difficulty abstract my thoughts from the consideration of [sensible
or] imaginable objects, and carry them to those which, being withdrawn
from all contact with matter, are purely intelligible. And certainly
the idea which I possess of the human mind inasmuch as it is a thinking
thing, and not extended in length, width and depth, nor participating
in anything pertaining to body, is incomparably more distinct than is
the idea of any corporeal thing. And when I consider that I doubt,
that is to say, that I am an incomplete and dependent being, the idea
of a being that is complete and independent, that is of God, presents
itself to my mind with so much distinctness and clearness—and from
the fact alone that this idea is found in me, or that I who possess
this idea exist, I conclude so certainly that God exists, and that my
existence depends entirely on Him in every moment of my life—that I
do not think that the human mind is capable of knowing anything with
more evidence and certitude. And it seems to me that I now have before
me a road which will lead us from the contemplation of the true God (in
whom all the treasures of science and wisdom are contained) to the
knowledge of the other objects of the universe.
For, first of all, I recognise it to be impossible that He should
ever deceive me; for in all fraud and deception some imperfection is to
be found, and although it may appear that the power of deception is a
mark of subtilty or power, yet the desire to deceive without doubt
testifies to malice or feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in
God.
In the next place I experienced in myself a certain capacity for
judging which I have doubtless received from God, like all the other
things that I possess; and as He could not desire to deceive me, it is
clear that He has not given me a faculty that will lead me to err if I
use it aright.
And no doubt respecting this matter could remain, if it were not
that the consequence would seem to follow that I can thus never be
deceived; for if I hold all that I possess from God, and if He has not
placed in me the capacity for error, it seems as though I could never
fall into error. And it is true that when I think only of God [and
direct my mind wholly to Him], I discover [in myself] no cause of
error, or falsity; yet directly afterwards, when recurring to myself,
experience shows me that I am nevertheless subject to an infinitude of
errors, as to which, when we come to investigate them more closely, I
notice that not only is there a real and positive idea of God or of a
Being of supreme perfection present to my mind, but also, so to speak,
a certain negative idea of nothing, that is, of that which is
infinitely removed from any kind of perfection; and that I am in a
sense something intermediate between God and nought, i.e. placed in
such a manner between the supreme Being and non-being, that there is in
truth nothing in me that can lead to error in so far as a sovereign
Being has formed me; but that, as I in some degree participate likewise
in nought or in non-being, i.e. in so far as I am not myself the
supreme Being, and as I find myself subject to an infinitude of
imperfections, I ought not to be astonished if I should fall into
error. Thus do I recognise that error, in so far as it is such, is not
a real thing depending on God, but simply a defect; and therefore, in
order to fall into it, that I have no need to possess a special faculty
given me by God for this very purpose, but that I fall into error from
the fact that the power given me by God for the purpose of
distinguishing truth from error is not infinite.
Nevertheless this does not quite satisfy me; for error is not a
pure negation [i.e. is not the dimple defect or want of some perfection
which ought not to be mine], but it is a lack of some knowledge which
it seems that I ought to possess. And on considering the nature of God
it does not appear to me possible that He should have given me a
faculty which is not perfect of its kind, that is, which is wanting in
some perfection due to it. For if it is true that the more skilful the
artizan, the more perfect is the work of his hands, what can have been
produced by this supreme Creator of all things that is not in all its
parts perfect? And certainly there is no doubt that God could have
created me so that I could never have been subject to error; it is also
certain that He ever wills what is best; is it then better that I
should be subject to err than that I should not?
In considering this more attentively, it occurs to me in the first
place that I should not be astonished if my intelligence is not capable
of comprehending why God acts as He does; and that there is thus no
reason to doubt of His existence from the fact that I may perhaps find
many other things besides this as to which I am able to understand
neither for what reason nor how God has produced them. For, in the
first place, knowing that my nature is extremely feeble and limited,
and that the nature of God is on the contrary immense,
incomprehensible, and infinite, I have no further difficulty in
recognising that there is an infinitude of matter in His power, the
causes of which transcend my knowledge; and this reason suffices to
convince me that the species of cause termed final, finds no useful
employment in physical [or natural] things; for it does not appear to
me that I can without temerity seek to investigate the [inscrutable]
ends of God.
It further occurs to me that we should not consider one single
creature separately, when we inquire as to whether the works of God are
perfect, but should regard all his creations together. For the same
thing which might possibly seem very imperfect with some semblance of
reason if regarded by itself, is found to be very perfect if regarded
as part of the whole universe; and although, since I resolved to doubt
all things, I as yet have only known certainly my own existence and
that of God, nevertheless since I have recognised the infinite power of
God, I cannot deny that He may have produced many other things, or at
least that He has the power of producing them, so that I may obtain a
place as a part of a great universe.
Whereupon, regarding myself more closely, and considering what are
my errors (for they alone testify to there being any imperfection in
me), I answer that they depend on a combination of two causes, to wit,
on the faculty of knowledge that rests in me, and on the power of
choice or of free will—that is to say, of the understanding and at
the same time of the will. For by the understanding alone I [neither
assert nor deny anything, but] apprehend the ideas of things as to
which I can form a judgment. But no error is properly speaking found
in it, provided the word error is taken in its proper signification;
and though there is possibly an infinitude of things in the world of
which I have no idea in my understanding, we cannot for all that say
that it is deprived of these ideas [as we might say of something which
is required by its nature], but simply it does not possess these;
because in truth there is no reason to prove that God should have given
me a greater faculty of knowledge than He has given me; and however
skillful a workman I represent Him to be, I should not for all that
consider that He was bound to have placed in each of His works all the
perfections which He may have been able to place in some. I likewise
cannot complain that God has not given me a free choice or a will which
is sufficient, ample and perfect, since as a matter of fact I am
conscious of a will so extended as to be subject to no limits. And
what seems to me very remarkable in this regard is that of all the
qualities which I possess there is no one so perfect and so
comprehensive that I do not very clearly recognise that it might be yet
greater and more perfect. For, to take an example, if I consider the
faculty of comprehension which I possess, I find that it is of very
small extent and extremely limited, and at the same time I find the
idea of another faculty much more ample and even infinite, and seeing
that I can form the idea of it, I recognise from this very fact that it
pertains to the nature of God. If in the same way I examine the
memory, the imagination, or some other faculty, I do not find any which
is not small and circumscribed, while in God it is immense [or
infinite]. It is free-will alone or liberty of choice which I find to
be so great in me that I can conceive no other idea to be more great;
it is indeed the case that it is for the most part this will that
causes me to know that in some manner I bear the image and similitude
of God. For although the power of will is incomparably greater in God
than in me, both by reason of the knowledge and the power which,
conjoined with it, render it stronger and more efficacious, and by
reason of its object, inasmuch as in God it extends to a great many
things; it nevertheless does not seem to me greater if I consider it
formally and precisely in itself: for the faculty of will consists
alone in our having the power of choosing to do a thing or choosing not
to do it (that is, to affirm or deny, to pursue or to shun it), or
rather it consists alone in the fact that in order to affirm or deny,
pursue or shun those things placed before us by the understanding, we
act so that we are unconscious that any outside force constrains us in
doing so. For in order that I should be free it is not necessary that
I should be indifferent as to the choice of one or the other of two
contraries; but contrariwise the more I lean to the one—whether I
recognise clearly that the reasons of the good and true are to be found
in it, or whether God so disposes my inward thought—the more freely
do I choose and embrace it. And undoubtedly both divine grace and
natural knowledge, far from diminishing my liberty, rather increase it
and strengthen it. Hence this indifference which I feel, when I am not
swayed to one side rather than to the other by lack of reason, is the
lowest grade of liberty, and rather evinces a lack or negation in
knowledge than a perfection of will: for if I always recognised
clearly what was true and good, I should never have trouble in
deliberating as to what judgment or choice I should make, and then I
should be entirely free without ever being indifferent.
From all this I recognise that the power of will which I have
received from God is not of itself the source of my errors—for it is
very ample and very perfect of its kind—any more than is the power
of understanding; for since I understand nothing but by the power which
God has given me for understanding, there is no doubt that all that I
understand, I understand as I ought, and it is not possible that I err
in this. Whence then come my errors? They come from the sole fact
that since the will is much wider in its range and compass than the
understanding, I do not restrain it within the same bounds, but extend
it also to things which I do not understand: and as the will is of
itself indifferent to these, it easily falls into error and sin, and
chooses the evil for the good, or the false for the true.
For example, when I lately examined whether anything existed in the
world, and found that from the very fact that I considered this
question it followed very clearly that I myself existed, I could not
prevent myself from believing that a thing I so clearly conceived was
true: not that I found myself compelled to do so by some external
cause, but simply because from great clearness in my mind there
followed a great inclination of my will; and I believed this with so
much the greater freedom or spontaneity as I possessed the less
indifference towards it. Now, on the contrary, I not only know that I
exist, inasmuch as I am a thinking thing, but a certain representation
of corporeal nature is also presented to my mind; and it comes to pass
that I doubt whether this thinking nature which is in me, or rather by
which I am what I am, differs from this corporeal nature, or whether
both are not simply the same thing; and I here suppose that I do not
yet know any reason to persuade me to adopt the one belief rather than
the other. From this it follows that I am entirely indifferent as to
which of the two I affirm or deny, or even whether I abstain from
forming any judgment in the matter.
And this indifference does not only extend to matters as to which
the understanding has no knowledge, but also in general to all those
which are not apprehended with perfect clearness at the moment when the
will is deliberating upon them: for, however probable are the
conjectures which render me disposed to form a judgment respecting
anything, the simple knowledge that I have that those are conjectures
alone and not certain and indubitable reasons, suffices to occasion me
to judge the contrary. Of this I have had great experience of late
when I set aside as false all that I had formerly held to be absolutely
true, for the sole reason that I remarked that it might in some measure
be doubted.
But if I abstain from giving my judgment on any thing when I do not
perceive it with sufficient clearness and distinctness, it is plain
that I act rightly and am not deceived. But if I determine to deny or
affirm, I no longer make use as I should of my free will, and if I
affirm what is not true, it is evident that I deceive myself; even
though I judge according to truth, this comes about only by chance, and
I do not escape the blame of misusing my freedom; for the light of
nature teaches us that the knowledge of the understanding should always
precede the determination of the will. And it is in the misuse of the
free will that the privation which constitutes the characteristic
nature of error is met with. Privation, I say, is found in the act, in
so far as it proceeds from me, but it is not found in the faculty which
I have received from God, nor even in the act in so far as it depends
on Him.
For I have certainly no cause to complain that God has not given me
an intelligence which is more powerful, or a natural light which is
stronger than that which I have received from Him, since it is proper
to the finite understanding not to comprehend a multitude of things,
and it is proper to a created understanding to be finite; on the
contrary, I have every reason to render thanks to God who owes me
nothing and who has given me all the perfections I possess, and I
should be far from charging Him with injustice, and with having
deprived me of, or wrongfully withheld from me, these perfections which
He has not bestowed upon me.
I have further no reason to complain that He has given me a will
more ample than my understanding, for since the will consists only of
one single element, and is so to speak indivisible, it appears that its
nature is such that nothing can be abstracted from it [without
destroying it]; and certainly the more comprehensive it is found to be,
the more reason I have to render gratitude to the giver.
And, finally, I must also not complain that God concurs with me in
forming the acts of the will, that is the judgment in which I go
astray, because these acts are entirely true and good, inasmuch as they
depend on God; and in a certain sense more perfection accrues to my
nature from the fact that I can form them, than if I could not do so.
As to the privation in which alone the formal reason of error or sin
consists, it has no need of any concurrence from God, since it is not a
thing [or an existence], and since it is not related to God as to a
cause, but should be termed merely a negation [according to the
significance given to these words in the Schools]. For in fact it is
not an imperfection in God that He has given me the liberty to give or
withhold my assent from certain things as to which He has not placed a
clear and distinct knowledge in my understanding; but it is without
doubt an imperfection in me not to make a good use of my freedom, and
to give my judgment readily on matters which I only understand
obscurely. I nevertheless perceive that God could easily have created
me so that I never should err, although I still remained free, and
endowed with a limited knowledge, viz. by giving to my understanding a
clear and distinct intelligence of all things as to which I should ever
have to deliberate; or simply by His engraving deeply in my memory the
resolution never to form a judgment on anything without having a clear
and distinct understanding of it, so that I could never forget it. And
it is easy for me to understand that, in so far as I consider myself
alone, and as if there were only myself in the world, I should have
been much more perfect than I am, if God had created me so that I could
never err. Nevertheless I cannot deny that in some sense it is a
greater perfection in the whole universe that certain parts should not
be exempt from error as others are than that all parts should be
exactly similar. And I have no right to complain if God, having placed
me in the world, has not called upon me to play a part that excels all
others in distinction and perfection.
And further I have reason to be glad on the ground that if He has
not given me the power of never going astray by the first means pointed
out above, which depends on a clear and evident knowledge of all the
things regarding which I can deliberate, He has at least left within my
power the other means, which is firmly to adhere to the resolution
never to give judgment on matters whose truth is not clearly known to
me; for although I notice a certain weakness in my nature in that I
cannot continually concentrate my mind on one single thought, I can
yet, by attentive and frequently repeated meditation, impress it so
forcibly on my memory that I shall never fail to recollect it whenever
I have need of it, and thus acquire the habit of never going astray.
And inasmuch as it is in this that the greatest and principal
perfection of man consists, it seems to me that I have not gained
little by this day's Meditation, since I have discovered the source of
falsity and error. And certainly there can be no other source than
that which I have explained; for as often as I so restrain my will
within the limits of my knowledge that it forms no judgment except on
matters which are clearly and distinctly represented to it by the
understanding, I can never be deceived; for every clear and distinct
conception is without doubt something, and hence cannot derive its
origin from what is nought, but must of necessity have God as its
author—God, I say, who being supremely perfect, cannot be the cause
of any error; and consequently we must conclude that such a conception
[or such a judgment] is true. Nor have I only learned to-day what I
should avoid in order that I may not err, but also how I should act in
order to arrive at a knowledge of the truth; for without doubt I shall
arrive at this end if I devote my attention sufficiently to those
things which I perfectly understand; and if I separate from these that
which I only understand confusedly and with obscurity. To these I
shall henceforth diligently give heed.
Meditation V
Of the essence of material things,
and, again, of God, that He exists
Many other matters respecting the attributes of God and my own
nature or mind remain for consideration; but I shall possibly on
another occasion resume the investigation of these. Now (after first
noting what must be done or avoided, in order to arrive at a knowledge
of the truth) my principal task is to endeavour to emerge from the
state of doubt into which I have these last days fallen, and to see
whether nothing certain can be known regarding material things.
But before examining whether any such objects as I conceive exist
outside of me, I must consider the ideas of them in so far as they are
in my thought, and see which of them are distinct and which confused.
In the first place, I am able distinctly to imagine that quantity
which philosophers commonly call continuous, or the extension in
length, breadth, or depth, that is in this quantity, or rather in the
object to which it is attributed. Further, I can number in it many
different parts, and attribute to each of its parts many sorts of size,
figure, situation and local movement, and, finally, I can assign to
each of these movements all degrees of duration.
And not only do I know these things with distinctness when I
consider them in general, but, likewise [however little I apply my
attention to the matter], I discover an infinitude of particulars
respecting numbers, figures, movements, and other such things, whose
truth is so manifest, and so well accords with my nature, that when I
begin to discover them, it seems to me that I learn nothing new, or
recollect what I formerly knew—that is to say, that I for the first
time perceive things which were already present to my mind, although I
had not as yet applied my mind to them.
And what I here find to be most important is that I discover in
myself an infinitude of ideas of certain things which cannot be
esteemed as pure negations, although they may possibly have no
existence outside of my thought, and which are not framed by me,
although it is within my power either to think or not to think them,
but which possess natures which are true and immutable. For example,
when I imagine a triangle, although there may nowhere in the world be
such a figure outside my thought, or ever have been, there is
nevertheless in this figure a certain determinate nature, form, or
essence, which is immutable and eternal, which I have not invented, and
which in no wise depends on my mind, as appears from the fact that
diverse properties of that triangle can be demonstrated, viz. that its
three angles are equal to two right angles, that the greatest side is
subtended by the greatest angle, and the like, which now, whether I
wish it or do not wish it, I recognise very clearly as pertaining to
it, although I never thought of the matter at all when I imagined a
triangle for the first time, and which therefore cannot be said to have
been invented by me.
Nor does the objection hold good that possibly this idea of a
triangle has reached my mind through the medium of my senses, since I
have sometimes seen bodies triangular in shape; because I can form in
my mind an infinitude of other figures regarding which we cannot have
the least conception of their ever having been objects of sense, and I
can nevertheless demonstrate various properties pertaining to their
nature as well as to that of the triangle, and these must certainly all
be true since I conceive them clearly. Hence they are something, and
not pure negation; for it is perfectly clear that all that is true is
something, and I have already fully demonstrated that all that I know
clearly is true. And even although I had not demonstrated this, the
nature of my mind is such that I could not prevent myself from holding
them to be true so long as I conceive them clearly; and I recollect
that even when I was still strongly attached to the objects of sense, I
counted as the most certain those truths which I conceived clearly as
regards figures, numbers, and the other matters which pertain to
arithmetic and geometry, and, in general, to pure and abstract
mathematics.
But now, if just because I can draw the idea of something from my
thought, it follows that all which I know clearly and distinctly as
pertaining to this object does really belong to it, may I not derive
from this an argument demonstrating the existence of God? It is
certain that I no less find the idea of God, that is to say, the idea
of a supremely perfect Being, in me, than that of any figure or number
whatever it is; and I do not know any less clearly and distinctly that
an [actual and] eternal existence pertains to this nature than I know
that all that which I am able to demonstrate of some figure or number
truly pertains to the nature of this figure or number, and therefore,
although all that I concluded in the preceding Meditations were found
to be false, the existence of God would pass with me as at least as
certain as I have ever held the truths of mathematics (which concern
only numbers and figures) to be.
This indeed is not at first manifest, since it would seem to
present some appearance of being a sophism. For being accustomed in
all other things to make a distinction between existence and essence, I
easily persuade myself that the existence can be separated from the
essence of God, and that we can thus conceive God as not actually
existing. But, nevertheless, when I think of it with more attention, I
clearly see that existence can no more be separated from the essence of
God than can its having its three angles equal to two right angles be
separated from the essence of a [rectilinear] triangle, or the idea of
a mountain from the idea of a valley; and so there is not any less
repugnance to our conceiving a God (that is, a Being supremely perfect)
to whom existence is lacking (that is to say, to whom a certain
perfection is lacking), than to conceive of a mountain which has no
valley.
But although I cannot really conceive of a God without existence
any more than a mountain without a valley, still from the fact that I
conceive of a mountain with a valley, it does not follow that there is
such a mountain in the world; similarly although I conceive of God as
possessing existence, it would seem that it does not follow that there
is a God which exists; for my thought does not impose any necessity
upon things, and just as I may imagine a winged horse, although no
horse with wings exists, so I could perhaps attribute existence to God,
although no God existed.
But a sophism is concealed in this objection; for from the fact
that I cannot conceive a mountain without a valley, it does not follow
that there is any mountain or any valley in existence, but only that
the mountain and the valley, whether they exist or do not exist, cannot
in any way be separated one from the other. While from the fact that I
cannot conceive God without existence, it follows that existence is
inseparable from Him, and hence that He really exists; not that my
thought can bring this to pass, or impose any necessity on things, but,
on the contrary, because the necessity which lies in the thing itself,
i.e. the necessity of the existence of God determines me to think in
this way. For it is not within my power to think of God without
existence (that is of a supremely perfect Being devoid of a supreme
perfection) though it is in my power to imagine a horse either with
wings or without wings.
And we must not here object that it is in truth necessary for me to
assert that God exists after having presupposed that He possesses every
sort of perfection, since existence is one of these, but that as a
matter of fact my original supposition was not necessary, just as it is
not necessary to consider that all quadrilateral figures can be
inscribed in the circle; for supposing I thought this, I should be
constrained to admit that the rhombus might be inscribed in the circle
since it is a quadrilateral figure, which, however, is manifestly
false. [We must not, I say, make any such allegations because]
although it is not necessary that I should at any time entertain the
notion of God, nevertheless whenever it happens that I think of a first
and a sovereign Being, and, so to speak, derive the idea of Him from
the storehouse of my mind, it is necessary that I should attribute to
Him every sort of perfection, although I do not get so far as to
enumerate them all, or to apply my mind to each one in particular. And
this necessity suffices to make me conclude (after having recognised
that existence is a perfection) that this first and sovereign Being
really exists; just as though it is not necessary for me ever to
imagine any triangle, yet, whenever I wish to consider a rectilinear
figure composed only of three angles, it is absolutely essential that I
should attribute to it all those properties which serve to bring about
the conclusion that its three angles are not greater than two right
angles, even although I may not then be considering this point in
particular. But when I consider which figures are capable of being
inscribed in the circle, it is in no wise necessary that I should think
that all quadrilateral figures are of this number; on the contrary, I
cannot even pretend that this is the case, so long as I do not desire
to accept anything which I cannot conceive clearly and distinctly. And
in consequence there is a great difference between the false
suppositions such as this, and the true ideas born within me, the first
and principal of which is that of God. For really I discern in many
ways that this idea is not something factitious, and depending solely
on my thought, but that it is the image of a true and immutable nature;
first of all, because I cannot conceive anything but God himself to
whose essence existence [necessarily] pertains; in the second place
because it is not possible for me to conceive two or more Gods in this
same position; and, granted that there is one such God who now exists,
I see clearly that it is necessary that He should have existed from all
eternity, and that He must exist eternally; and finally, because I know
an infinitude of other properties in God, none of which I can either
diminish or change.
For the rest, whatever proof or argument I avail myself of, we must
always return to the point that it is only those things which we
conceive clearly and distinctly that have the power of persuading me
entirely. And although amongst the matters which I conceive of in this
way, some indeed are manifestly obvious to all, while others only
manifest themselves to those who consider them closely and examine them
attentively; still, after they have once been discovered, the latter
are not esteemed as any less certain than the former. For example, in
the case of every right-angled triangle, although it does not so
manifestly appear that the square of the base is equal to the squares
of the two other sides as that this base is opposite to the greatest
angle; still, when this has once been apprehended, we are just as
certain of its truth as of the truth of the other. And as regards God,
if my mind were not pre-occupied with prejudices, and if my thought did
not find itself on all hands diverted by the continual pressure of
sensible things, there would be nothing which I could know more
immediately and more easily than Him. For is there anything more
manifest than that there is a God, that is to say, a Supreme Being, to
whose essence alone existence pertains?
And although for a firm grasp of this truth I have need of a
strenuous application of mind, at present I not only feel myself to be
as assured of it as of all that I hold as most certain, but I also
remark that the certainty of all other things depends on it so
absolutely, that without this knowledge it is impossible ever to know
anything perfectly.
For although I am of such a nature that as long as I understand
anything very clearly and distinctly, I am naturally impelled to
believe it to be true, yet because I am also of such a nature that I
cannot have my mind constantly fixed on the same object in order to
perceive it clearly, and as I often recollect having formed a past
judgment without at the same time properly recollecting the reasons
that led me to make it, it may happen meanwhile that other reasons
present themselves to me, which would easily cause me to change my
opinion, if I were ignorant of the facts of the existence of God, and
thus I should have no true and certain knowledge, but only vague and
vacillating opinions. Thus, for example, when I consider the nature of
a [rectilinear] triangle, I who have some little knowledge of the
principles of geometry recognise quite clearly that the three angles
are equal to two right angles, and it is not possible for me not to
believe this so long as I apply my mind to its demonstration; but so
soon as I abstain from attending to the proof, although I still
recollect having clearly comprehended it, it may easily occur that I
come to doubt its truth, if I am ignorant of there being a God. For I
can persuade myself of having been so constituted by nature that I can
easily deceive myself even in those matters which I believe myself to
apprehend with the greatest evidence and certainty, especially when I
recollect that I have frequently judged matters to be true and certain
which other reasons have afterwards impelled me to judge to be
altogether false.
But after I have recognised that there is a God—because at the
same time I have also recognised that all things depend upon Him, and
that He is not a deceiver, and from that have inferred that what I
perceive clearly and distinctly cannot fail to be true—although I no
longer pay attention to the reasons for which I have judged this to be
true, provided that I recollect having clearly and distinctly perceived
it no contrary reason can be brought forward which could ever cause me
to doubt of its truth; and thus I have a true and certain knowledge of
it. And this same knowledge extends likewise to all other things which
I recollect having formerly demonstrated, such as the truths of
geometry and the like; for what can be alleged against them to cause me
to place them in doubt? Will it be said that my nature is such as to
cause me to be frequently deceived? But I already know that I cannot
be deceived in the judgment whose grounds I know clearly. Will it be
said that I formerly held many things to be true and certain which I
have afterwards recognised to be false? But I had not had any clear
and distinct knowledge of these things, and not as yet knowing the rule
whereby I assure myself of the truth, I had been impelled to give my
assent from reasons which I have since recognised to be less strong
than I had at the time imagined them to be. What further objection can
then be raised? That possibly I am dreaming (an objection I myself
made a little while ago), or that all the thoughts which I now have are
no more true than the phantasies of my dreams? But even though I slept
the case would be the same, for all that is clearly present to my mind
is absolutely true.
And so I very clearly recognise that the certainty and truth of all
knowledge depends alone on the knowledge of the true God, in so much
that, before I knew Him, I could not have a perfect knowledge of any
other thing. And now that I know Him I have the means of acquiring a
perfect knowledge of an infinitude of things, not only of those which
relate to God Himself and other intellectual matters, but also of those
which pertain to corporeal nature in so far as it is the object of pure
mathematics [which have no concern with whether it exists or not].
Meditation VI
Of the Existence of Material Things,
and of the real distinction between the
Soul and Body of Man
Nothing further now remains but to inquire whether material things
exist. And certainly I at least know that these may exist in so far as
they are considered as the objects of pure mathematics, since in this
aspect I perceive them clearly and distinctly. For there is no doubt
that God possesses the power to produce everything that I am capable of
perceiving with distinctness, and I have never deemed that anything was
impossible for Him, unless I found a contradiction in attempting to
conceive it clearly. Further, the faculty of imagination which I
possess, and of which, experience tells me, I make use when I apply
myself to the consideration of material things, is capable of
persuading me of their existence; for when I attentively consider what
imagination is, I find that it is nothing but a certain application of
the faculty of knowledge to the body which is immediately present to
it, and which therefore exists.
And to render this quite clear, I remark in the first place the
difference that exists between the imagination and pure intellection
[or conception ]. For example, when I imagine a triangle, I do not
conceive it only as a figure comprehended by three lines, but I also
apprehend these three lines as present by the power and inward vision
of my mind, and this is what I call imagining. But if I desire to
think of a chiliagon, I certainly conceive truly that it is a figure
composed of a thousand sides, just as easily as I conceive of a
triangle that it is a figure of three sides only; but I cannot in any
way imagine the thousand sides of a chiliagon [as I do the three sides
of a triangle], nor do I, so to speak, regard them as present [with the
eyes of my mind]. And although in accordance with the habit I have
formed of always employing the aid of my imagination when I think of
corporeal things, it may happen that in imagining a chiliagon I
confusedly represent to myself some figure, yet it is very evident that
this figure is not a chiliagon, since it in no way differs from that
which I represent to myself when I think of a myriagon or any other
many-sided figure; nor does it serve my purpose in discovering the
properties which go to form the distinction between a chiliagon and
other polygons. But if the question turns upon a pentagon, it is quite
true that I can conceive its figure as well as that of a chiliagon
without the help of my imagination; but I can also imagine it by
applying the attention of my mind to each of its five sides, and at the
same time to the space which they enclose. And thus I clearly
recognise that I have need of a particular effort of mind in order to
effect the act of imagination, such as I do not require in order to
understand, and this particular effort of mind clearly manifests the
difference which exists between imagination and pure intellection.
I remark besides that this power of imagination which is in one,
inasmuch as it differs from the power of understanding, is in no wise a
necessary element in my nature, or in [my essence, that is to say, in]
the essence of my mind; for although I did not possess it I should
doubtless ever remain the same as I now am, from which it appears that
we might conclude that it depends on something which differs from me.
And I easily conceive that if some body exists with which my mind is
conjoined and united in such a way that it can apply itself to consider
it when it pleases, it may be that by this means it can imagine
corporeal objects; so that this mode of thinking differs from pure
intellection only inasmuch as mind in its intellectual activity in some
manner turns on itself, and considers some of the ideas which it
possesses in itself; while in imagining it turns towards the body, and
there beholds in it something conformable to the idea which it has
either conceived of itself or perceived by the senses. I easily
understand, I say, that the imagination could be thus constituted if it
is true that body exists; and because I can discover no other
convenient mode of explaining it, I conjecture with probability that
body does exist; but this is only with probability, and although I
examine all things with care, I nevertheless do not find that from this
distinct idea of corporeal nature, which I have in my imagination, I
can derive any argument from which there will necessarily be deduced
the existence of body.
But I am in the habit of imagining many other things besides this
corporeal nature which is the object of pure mathematics, to wit, the
colours, sounds, scents, pain, and other such things, although less
distinctly. And inasmuch as I perceive these things much better
through the senses, by the medium of which, and by the memory, they
seem to have reached my imagination, I believe that, in order to
examine them more conveniently, it is right that I should at the same
time investigate the nature of sense perception, and that I should see
if from the ideas which I apprehend by this mode of thought, which I
call feeling, I cannot derive some certain proof of the existence of
corporeal objects.
And first of all I shall recall to my memory those matters which I
hitherto held to be true, as having perceived them through the senses,
and the foundations on which my belief has rested; in the next place I
shall examine the reasons which have since obliged me to place them in
doubt; in the last place I shall consider which of them I must now
believe.
First of all, then, I perceived that I had a head, hands, feet, and
all other members of which this body—which I considered as a part,
or possibly even as the whole, of myself—is composed. Further I was
sensible that this body was placed amidst many others, from which it
was capable of being affected in many different ways, beneficial and
hurtful, and I remarked that a certain feeling of pleasure accompanied
those that were beneficial, and pain those which were harmful. And in
addition to this pleasure and pain, I also experienced hunger, thirst,
and other similar appetites, as also certain corporeal inclinations
towards joy, sadness, anger, and other similar passions. And outside
myself, in addition to extension, figure, and motions of bodies, I
remarked in them hardness, heat, and all other tactice qualities, and,
further, light and colour, and scents and sounds, the variety of which
gave me the means of distinguishing the sky, the earth, the sea, and
generally all the other bodies, one from the other. And certainly,
considering the ideas of all these qualities which presented themselves
to my mind, and which alone I perceived properly or immediately, it was
not without reason that I believed myself to perceive objects quite
different from my thought, to wit, bodies from which those ideas
proceeded; for I found by experience that these ideas presented
themselves to me without my consent being requisite, so that I could
not perceive any object, however desirous I might be, unless it were
present to the organs of sense; and it was not in my power not to
perceive it, when it was present. And because the ideas which I
received through the senses were much more lively, more clear, and
even, in their own way, more distinct than any of those which I could
of myself frame in meditation, or than those I found impressed on my
memory, it appeared as though they could not have proceeded from my
mind, so that they must necessarily have been produced in me by some
other things. And having no knowledge of those objects excepting the
knowledge which the ideas themselves gave me, nothing was more likely
to occur to my mind than that the objects were similar to the ideas
which were caused. And because I likewise remembered that I had
formerly made use of my senses rather than my reason, and recognised
that the ideas which I formed of myself were not so distinct as those
which I perceived through the senses, and that they were most
frequently even composed of portions of these last, I persuaded myself
easily that I had no idea in my mind which had not formerly come to me
through the senses. Nor was it without some reason that I believed
that this body (which be a certain special right I call my own)
belonged to me more properly and more strictly than any other; for in
fact I could never be separated from it as from other bodies; I
experienced in it and on account of it all my appetites and affections,
and finally I was touched by the feeling of pain and the titillation of
pleasure in its parts, and not in the parts of other bodies which were
separated from it. But when I inquired, why, from some, I know not
what, painful sensation, there follows sadness of mind, and from the
pleasurable sensation there arises joy, or why this mysterious pinching
of the stomach which I call hunger causes me to desire to eat, and
dryness of throat causes a desire to drink, and so on, I could give no
reason excepting that nature taught me so; for there is certainly no
affinity (that I at least can understand) between the craving of the
stomach and the desire to eat, any more than between the perception of
whatever causes pain and the thought of sadness which arises from this
perception. And in the same way it appeared to me that I had learned
from nature all the other judgments which I formed regarding the
objects of my senses, since I remarked that these judgments were formed
in me before I had the leisure to weigh and consider any reasons which
might oblige me to make them.
But afterwards many experiences little by little destroyed all the
faith which I had rested in my senses; for I from time to time observed
that those towers which from afar appeared to me to be round, more
closely observed seemed square, and that colossal statues raised on the
summit of these towers, appeared as quite tiny statues when viewed from
the bottom; and so in an infinitude of other cases I found error in
judgments founded on the external senses. And not only in those
founded on the external senses, but even in those founded on the
internal as well; for is there anything more intimate or more internal
than pain? And yet I have learned from some persons whose arms or legs
have been cut off, that they sometimes seemed to feel pain in the part
which had been amputated, which made me think that I could not be quite
certain that it was a certain member which pained me, even although I
felt pain in it. And to those grounds of doubt I have lately added two
others, which are very general; the first is that I never have believed
myself to feel anything in waking moments which I cannot also sometimes
believe myself to feel when I sleep, and as I do not think that these
things which I seem to feel in sleep, proceed from objects outside of
me, I do not see any reason why I should have this belief regarding
objects which I seem to perceive while awake. The other was that being
still ignorant, or rather supposing myself to be ignorant, of the
author of my being, I saw nothing to prevent me from having been so
constituted by nature that I might be deceived even in matters which
seemed to me to be most certain. And as to the grounds on which I was
formerly persuaded of the truth of sensible objects, I had not much
trouble in replying to them. For since nature seemed to cause me to
lean towards many things from which reason repelled me, I did not
believe that I should trust much to the teachings of nature. And
although the ideas which I receive by the senses do not depend on my
will, I did not think that one should for that reason conclude that
they proceeded from things different from myself, since possibly some
faculty might be discovered in me—though hitherto unknown to me—
which produced them.
But now that I begin to know myself better, and to discover more
clearly the author of my being, I do not in truth think that I should
rashly admit all the matters which the senses seem to teach us, but, on
the other hand, I do not think that I should doubt them all
universally.
And first of all, because I know that all things which I apprehend
clearly and distinctly can be created by God as I apprehend them, it
suffices that I am able to apprehend one thing apart from another
clearly and distinctly in order to be certain that the one is different
from the other, since they may be made to exist in separation at least
by the omnipotence of God; and it does not signify by what power this
separation is made in order to compel me to judge them to be different:
and, therefore, just because I know certainly that I exist, and that
meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to
my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly
conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a
thinking thin [or a substance whose whole essence or nature is to
think]. And although possibly (or rather certainly, as I shall say in
a moment) I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined,
yet because, on the one side, I have a clear and distinct idea of
myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as,
on the other, I possess a distinct idea of body, inasmuch as it is only
an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that this I [that is to
say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely
distinct from my body, and can exist without it.
I further find in myself faculties imploying modes of thinking
peculiar to themselves, to wit, the faculties of imagination and
feeling, without which I can easily conceive myself clearly and
distinctly as a complete being; while, on the other hand, they cannot
be so conceived apart from me, that is without an intelligent substance
in which they reside, for [in the notion we have of these faculties,
or, to use the language of the Schools] in their formal concept, some
kind of intellection is comprised, from which I infer that they are
distinct from me as its modes are from a thing. I observe also in me
some other faculties such as that of change of position, the assumption
of different figures and such like, which cannot be conceived, any more
than can the preceding, apart from some substance to which they are
attached, and consequently cannot exist without it; but it is very
clear that these faculties, if it be true that they exist, must be
attached to some corporeal or extended substance, and not to an
intelligent substance, since in the clear and distinct conception of
these there is some sort of extension found to be present, but no
intellection at all. There is certainly further in me a certain
passive faculty of perception, that is, of receiving and recognising
the ideas of sensible things, but this would be useless to me [and I
could in no way avail myself of it], if there were not either in me or
in some other thing another active faculty capable of forming and
producing these ideas. But this active faculty cannot exist in me
[inasmuch as I am a thing that thinks] seeing that it does not
presuppose thought, and also that those ideas are often produced in me
without my contributing in any way to the same, and often even against
my will; it is thus necessarily the case that the faculty resides in
some substance different from me in which all the reality which is
objectively in the ideas that are produced by this faculty is formally
or eminently contained, as I remarked before. And this substance is
either a body, that is, a corporeal nature in which there is contained
formally [and really] all that which is objectively [and by
representation] in those ideas, or it is God Himself, or some other
creature more noble than body in which that same is contained
eminently. But, since God is no deceiver, it is very manifest that He
does not communicate to me these ideas immediately and by Himself, nor
yet by the intervention of some creature in which their reality is not
formally, but only eminently, contained. For since He has given me no
faculty to recognise that this is the case, but, on the other hand, a
very great inclination to believe [that they are sent to me or] that
they are conveyed to me by corporeal objects, I do not see how He could
be defended from the accusation of deceit if these ideas were produced
by causes other than corporeal objects. Hence we must allow that
corporeal things exist. However, they are perhaps not exactly what we
perceive by the senses, since this comprehension by the senses is in
many instances very obscure and confused; but we must at least admit
that all things which I conceive in them clearly and distinctly, that
is to say, all things which, speaking generally, are comprehended in
the object of pure mathematics, are truly to be recognised as external
objects.
As to other things, however, which are either particular only, as,
for example, that the sun is of such and such a figure, etc., or which
are less clearly and distinctly conceived, such as light, sound, pain
and the like, it is certain that although they are very dubious and
uncertain, yet on the sole ground that God is not a deceiver, and that
consequently He has not permitted any falsity to exist in my opinion
which He has not likewise given me the faculty of correcting, I may
assuredly hope to conclude that I have within me the means of arriving
at the truth even here. And first of all there is no doubt that in all
things which nature teaches me there is some truth contained; for by
nature, considered in general, I now understand no other thing than
either God Himself or else the order and disposition which God has
established in created things; and by my nature in particular I
understand no other thing than the complexus of all the things which
God has given me.
But there is nothing which this nature teaches me more expressly
[nor more sensibly] than that I have a body which is adversely affected
when I feel pain, which has need of food or drink when I experience the
feelings of hunger and thirst, and so on; nor can I doubt there being
some truth in all this.
Nature also teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst,
etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but
that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I
am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it
that I seem to compose with it one whole. For if that were not the
case, when my body is hurt, I, who am merely a thinking thing, should
not feel pain, for I should perceive this wound by the understanding
only, just as the sailor perceives by sight when something is damaged
in his vessel; and when my body has need of drink or food, I should
clearly understand the fact without being warned of it by confused
feelings of hunger and thirst. For all these sensations of hunger,
thirst, pain, etc. are in truth none other than certain confused modes
of thought which are produced by the union and apparent intermingling
of mind and body.
Moreover, nature teaches me that many other bodies exist around
mine, of which some are to be avoided, and others sought after. And
certainly from the fact that I am sensible of different sorts of
colours, sounds, scents, tastes, heat, hardness, etc., I very easily
conclude that there are in the bodies from which all these diverse
sense-perceptions proceed certain variations which answer to them,
although possibly these are not really at all similar to them. And
also from the fact that amongst these different sense-perceptions some
are very agreeable to me and others disagreeable, it is quite certain
that my body (or rather myself in my entirety, inasmuch as I am formed
of body and soul) may receive different impressions agreeable and
disagreeable from the other bodies which surround it.
But there are many other things which nature seems to have taught
me, but which at the same time I have never really received from her,
but which have been brought about in my mind by a certain habit which I
have of forming inconsiderate judgments on things; and thus it may
easily happen that these judgments contain some error. Take, for
example, the opinion which I hold that all space in which there is
nothing that affects [or makes an impression on] my senses is void;
that in a body which is warm there is something entirely similar to the
idea of heat which is in me; that in a white or green body there is the
same whiteness or greenness that I perceive; that in a bitter or sweet
body there is the same taste, and so on in other instances; that the
stars, the towers, and all other distant bodies are of the same figure
and size as they appear from far off to our eyes, etc. But in order
that in this there should be nothing which I do not conceive
distinctly, I should define exactly what I really understand when I say
that I am taught somewhat by nature. For here I take nature in a more
limited signification than when I term it the sum of all the things
given me by God, since in this sum many things are comprehended which
only pertain to mind (and to these I do not refer in speaking of
nature) such as the notion which I have of the fact that what has once
been done cannot ever be undone and an infinitude of such things which
I know by the light of nature [without the help of the body]; and
seeing that it comprehends many other matters besides which only
pertain to body, and are no longer here contained under the name of
nature, such as the quality of weight which it possesses and the like,
with which I also do not deal; for in talking of nature I only treat of
those things given by God to me as a being composed of mind and body.
But the nature here described truly teaches me to flee from things
which cause the sensation of pain, and seek after the things which
communicate to me the sentiment of pleasure and so forth; but I do not
see that beyond this it teaches me that from those diverse
sense-perceptions we should ever form any conclusion regarding things
outside of us, without having [carefully and maturely] mentally
examined them beforehand. For it seems to me that it is mind alone,
and not mind and body in conjunction, that is requisite to a knowledge
of the truth in regard to such things. Thus, although a star makes no
larger an impression on my eye than the flame of a little candle there
is yet in me no real or positive propensity impelling me to believe
that it is not greater than that flame; but I have judged it to be so
from my earliest years, without any rational foundation. And although
in approaching fire I feel heat, and in approaching it a little too
near I even feel pain, there is at the same time no reason in this
which could persuade me that there is in the fire something resembling
this heat any more than there is in it something resembling the pain;
all that I have any reason to believe from this is, that there is
something in it, whatever it may be, which excites in me these
sensations of heat or of pain. So also, although there are spaces in
which I find nothing which excites my senses, I must not from that
conclude that these spaces contain no body; for I see in this, as in
other similar things, that I have been in the habit of perverting the
order of nature, because these perceptions of sense having bee placed
within me by nature merely for the purpose of signifying to my mind
what things are beneficial or hurtful to the composite whole of which
it forms a part, and being up to that point sufficiently clear and
distinct, I yet avail myself of them as though they were absolute rules
by which I might immediately determine the essence of the bodies which
are outside me, as to which, in fact, they can teach me nothing but
what is most obscure and confused.
But I have already sufficiently considered how, notwithstanding the
supreme goodness of God, falsity enters into the judgments I make.
Only here a new difficulty is presented—one respecting those things
the pursuit or avoidance of which is taught me by nature, and also
respecting the internal sensations which I possess, and in which I seem
to have sometimes detected error [and thus to be directly deceived by
my own nature]. To take an example, the agreeable taste of some food
in which poison has been intermingled may induce me to partake of the
poison, and thus deceive me. It is true, at the same time, that in
this case nature may be excused, for it only induces me to desire food
in which I find a pleasant taste, and not to desire the poison which is
unknown to it; and thus I can infer nothing from this fact, except that
my nature is not omniscient, at which there is certainly no reason to
be astonished, since man, being finite in nature, can only have
knowledge the perfectness of which is limited.
But we not unfrequently deceive ourselves even in those things to
which we are directly impelled by nature, as happens with those who
when they are sick desire to drink or eat things hurtful to them. It
will perhaps be said here that the cause of their deceptiveness is that
their nature is corrupt, but that does not remove the difficulty,
because a sick man is none the less truly God's creature than he who is
in health; and it is therefore as repugnant to God's goodness for the
one to have a deceitful nature as it is for the other. And as a clock
composed of wheels and counter-weights no less exactly observes the
laws of nature when it is badly made, and does not show the time
properly, than when it entirely satisfies the wishes of its maker, and
as, if I consider the body of a man as being a sort of machine so built
up and composed of nerves, muscles, veins, blood and skin, that though
there were no mind in it at all, it would not cease to have the same
motions as at present, exception being made of those movements which
are due to the direction of the will, and in consequence depend upon
the mind [as apposed to those which operate by the disposition of its
organs], I easily recognise that it would be as natural to this body,
supposing it to be, for example, dropsical, to suffer the parchedness
of the throat which usually signifies to the mind the feeling of
thirst, and to be disposed by this parched feeling to move the nerves
and other parts in the way requisite for drinking, and thus to augment
its malady and do harm to itself, as it is natural to it, when it has
no indisposition, to be impelled to drink for its good by a similar
cause. And although, considering the use to which the clock has been
destined by its maker, I may say that it deflects from the order of its
nature when it does not indicate the hours correctly; and as, in the
same way, considering the machine of the human body as having been
formed by God in order to have in itself all the movements usually
manifested there, I have reason for thinking that it does not follow
the order of nature when, if the throat is dry, drinking does harm to
the conservation of health, nevertheless I recognise at the same time
that this last mode of explaining nature is very different from the
other. For this is but a purely verbal characterisation depending
entirely on my thought, which compares a sick man and a badly
constructed clock with the idea which I have of a healthy man and a
well made clock, and it is hence extrinsic to the things to which it is
applied; but according to the other interpretation of the term nature I
understand something which is truly found in things and which is
therefore not without some truth.
But certainly although in regard to the dropsical body it is only
so to speak to apply an extrinsic term when we say that its nature is
corrupted, inasmuch as apart from the need to drink, the throat is
parched; yet in regard to the composite whole, that is to say, to the
mind or soul united to this body, it is not a purely verbal predicate,
but a real error of nature, for it to have thirst when drinking would
be hurtful to it. And thus it still remains to inquire how the
goodness of God does not prevent the nature of man so regarded from
being fallacious.
In order to begin this examination, then, I here say, in the first
place, that there is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch
as body is by nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely
indivisible. For, as a matter of fact, when I consider the mind, that
is to say, myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking thing, I cannot
distinguish in myself any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one
and entire; and although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole
body, yet if a foot, or an arm, or some other part, is separated from
my body, I am aware that nothing has been taken away from my mind. And
the faculties of willing, feeling, conceiving, etc. cannot be properly
speaking said to be its parts, for it is one and the same mind which
employs itself in willing and in feeling and understanding. But it is
quite otherwise with corporeal or extended objects, for there is not
one of these imaginable by me which my mind cannot easily divide into
parts, and which consequently I do not recognise as being divisible;
this would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or soul of man is
entirely different from the body, if I had not already learned it from
other sources.
I further notice that the mind does not receive the impressions
from all parts of the body immediately, but only from the brain, or
perhaps even from one of its smallest parts, to wit, from that in which
the common sense is said to reside, which, whenever it is disposed in
the same particular way, conveys the same thing to the mind, although
meanwhile the other portions of the body may be differently disposed,
as is testified by innumerable experiments which it is unnecessary here
to recount.
I notice, also, that the nature of body is such that none of its
parts can be moved by another part a little way off which cannot also
be moved in the same way by each one of the parts which are between the
two, although this more remote part does not act at all. As, for
example, in the cord ABCD [which is in tension] if we pull the last
part D, the first part A will not be moved in any way differently from
what would be the case if one of the intervening parts B or C were
pulled, and the last part D were to remain unmoved. And in the same
way, when I feel pain in my foot, my knowledge of physics teaches me
that this sensation is communicated by means of nerves dispersed
through the foot, which, being extended like cords from there to the
brain, when they are contracted in the foot, at the same time contract
the inmost portions of the brain which is their extremity and place of
origin, and then excite a certain movement which nature has established
in order to cause the mind to be affected by a sensation of pain
represented as existing in the foot. But because these nerves must
pass through the tibia, the thigh, the loins, the back and the neck, in
order to reach from the leg to the brain, it may happen that although
their extremities which are in the foot are not affected, but only
certain ones of their intervening parts [which pass by the loins or the
neck], this action will excite the same movement in the brain that
might have been excited there by a hurt received in the foot, in
consequence of which the mind will necessarily feel in the foot the
same pain as if it had received a hurt. And the same holds good of all
the other perceptions of our senses.
I notice finally that since each of the movements which are in the
portion of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected brings
about one particular sensation only, we cannot under the circumstances
imagine anything more likely than that this movement, amongst all the
sensations which it is capable of impressing on it, causes mind to be
affected by that one which is best fitted and most generally useful for
the conservation of the human body when it is in health. But
experience makes us aware that all the feelings with which nature
inspires us are such as I have just spoken of; and there is therefore
nothing in them which does not give testimony to the power and goodness
of the God [who has produced them ]. Thus, for example, when the
nerves which are in the feet are violently or more than usually moved,
their movement, passing through the medulla of the spine to the inmost
parts of the brain, gives a sign to the mind which makes it feel
somewhat, to wit, pain, as though in the foot, by which the mind is
excited to do its utmost to remove the cause of the evil as dangerous
and hurtful to the foot. It is true that God could have constituted
the nature of man in such a way that this same movement in the brain
would have conveyed something quite different to the mind; for example,
it might have produced consciousness of itself either in so far as it
is in the brain, or as it is in the foot, or as it is in some other
place between the foot and the brain, or it might finally have produced
consciousness of anything else whatsoever; but none of all this would
have contributed so well to the conservation of the body. Similarly,
when we desire to drink, a certain dryness of the throat is produced
which moves its nerves, and by their means the internal portions of the
brain; and this movement causes in the mind the sensation of thirst,
because in this case there is nothing more useful to us than to become
aware that we have need to drink for the conservation o our health; and
the same holds good in other instances.
From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme
goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it is composed of mind
and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception.
For if there is any cause which excites, not in the foot but in some
part of the nerves which are extended between the foot and the brain,
or even in the brain itself, the same movement which usually is
produced when the foot is detrimentally affected, pain will be
experienced as though it were in the foot, and the sense will thus
naturally be deceived; for since the same movement in the brain is
capable of causing but one sensation in the mind, and this sensation is
much more frequently excited by a cause which hurts the foot than by
another existing in some other quarter, it is reasonable that it should
convey to the mind pain in the foot rather than in any other part of
the body. And although the parchedness of the throat does not always
proceed, as it usually does, from the fact that drinking is necessary
for the health of the body, but sometimes comes from quite a different
cause, as is the case with dropsical patients, it is yet much better
that it should mislead on this occasion than if, on the other hand, it
were always to deceive us when the body is in good health; and so on in
similar cases.
And certainly this consideration is of great service to me, not
only in enabling me to recognise all the errors to which my nature is
subject, but also in enabling me to avoid them or to correct them more
easily. for knowing that all my senses more frequently indicate to me
truth than falsehood respecting the things which concern that which is
beneficial to the body, and being able almost always to avail myself of
many of them in order to examine one particular thing, and, besides
that, being able to make use of my memory in order to connect the
present with the past, and of my understanding which already has
discovered all the causes of my errors, I ought no longer to fear that
falsity may be found in matters every day presented to me by my senses.
And I ought to set aside all the doubts of these past days as
hyperbolical and ridiculous, particularly that very common uncertainty
respecting sleep, which I could not distinguish from the waking state;
for at present I find a very notable difference between the two,
inasmuch as our memory can never connect our dreams one with the other,
or with the whole course of our lives, as it unites events which happen
to us while we are awake. And, as a matter of fact, if someone, while
I was awake, quite suddenly appeared to me and disappeared as fast as
do the images which I see in sleep, so that I could not know from
whence the form came nor whither it went, it would not be without
reason that I should deem it a spectre or a phantom formed by my brain
[and similar to those which I form in sleep], rather than a real man.
But when I perceive things as to which I know distinctly both the
place from which they proceed, and that in which they are, and the time
at which they appeared to me; and when, without any interruption, I can
connect the perceptions which I have of them with the whole course of
my life, I am perfectly assured that these perceptions occur while I am
waking and not during sleep. And I ought in no wise to doubt the truth
of such matters, if, after having called up all my senses, my memory,
and my understanding, to examine them, nothing is brought to evidence
by any one of them which is repugnant to what is set forth by the
others. For because God is in no wise a deceiver, it follows that I am
not deceived in this. But because the exigencies of action often
oblige us to make up our minds before having leisure to examine matters
carefully, we must confess that the life of man is very frequently
subject to error in respect to individual objects, and we must in the
end acknowledge the infirmity of our nature.
|