E2P43S
Scholium — Part II
Latin
In scholio propositionis 21 hujus partis explicui quid sit idea ideæ sed notandum præcedentem propositionem per se satis esse manifestam. Nam nemo qui veram habet ideam, ignorat veram ideam summam certitudinem involvere; veram namque habere ideam nihil aliud significat quam perfecte sive optime rem cognoscere nec sane aliquis de hac re dubitare potest nisi putet ideam quid mutum instar picturæ in tabula et non modum cogitandi esse nempe ipsum intelligere et quæso quis scire potest se rem aliquam intelligere nisi prius rem intelligat? hoc est quis potest scire se de aliqua re certum esse nisi prius de ea re certus sit? Deinde quid idea vera clarius et certius dari potest quod norma sit veritatis? Sane sicut lux seipsam et tenebras manifestat, sic veritas norma sui et falsi est. Atque his me ad has quæstiones respondisse puto nempe si idea vera quatenus tantum dicitur cum suo ideato convenire, a falsa distinguitur, nihil ergo realitatis aut perfectionis idea vera habet præ falsa (quandoquidem per solam denominationem extrinsecam distinguuntur) et consequenter neque etiam homo qui veras præ illo qui falsas tantum ideas habet? Deinde unde fit ut homines falsas habeant ideas? Et denique unde aliquis certo scire potest se ideas habere quæ cum suis ideatis conveniant? Ad has inquam quæstiones me jam respondisse puto. Nam quod ad differentiam inter ideam veram et falsam attinet, constat ex propositione 35 hujus illam ad hanc sese habere ut ens ad non-ens. Falsitatis autem causas a propositione 19 usque ad 35 cum ejus scholio clarissime ostendi. Ex quibus etiam apparet quid homo qui veras habet ideas, homini qui non nisi falsas habet, intersit. Quod denique ultimum attinet nempe undenam homo scire potest se habere ideam quæ cum suo ideato conveniat, id modo satis superque ostendi ex hoc solo oriri quod ideam habet quæ cum suo ideato convenit sive quod veritas sui sit norma. His adde quod mens nostra quatenus res vere percipit, pars est infiniti Dei intellectus (per corollarium propositionis 11 hujus) adeoque tam necesse est ut mentis claræ et distinctæ ideæ veræ sint ac Dei ideæ.
English (Elwes 1883)
I explained in the note to II. xxi. what is meant by the idea of an idea; but we may remark that the foregoing proposition is in itself sufficiently plain. No one, who has a true idea, is ignorant that a true idea involves the highest certainty. For to have a true idea is only another expression for knowing a thing perfectly, or as well as possible. No one, indeed, can doubt of this, unless he thinks that an idea is something lifeless, like a picture on a panel, and not a mode of thinking--namely, the very act of understanding. And who, I ask, can know that he understands anything, unless he do first understand it? In other words, who can know that he is sure of a thing, unless he be first sure of that thing? Further, what can there be more clear, and more certain, than a true idea as a standard of truth? Even as light displays both itself and darkness, so is truth a standard both of itself and of falsity.
I think I have thus sufficiently answered these questions--namely, if a true idea is distinguished from a false idea, only in so far as it is said to agree with its object, a true idea has no more reality or perfection than a false idea (since the two are only distinguished by an extrinsic mark); consequently, neither will a man who has a true idea have any advantage over him who has only false ideas. Further, how comes it that men have false ideas? Lastly, how can anyone be sure, that he has ideas which agree with their objects? These questions, I repeat, I have, in my opinion, sufficiently answered. The difference between a true idea and a false idea is plain: from what was said in II. xxxv., the former is related to the latter as being is to not--being. The causes of falsity I have set forth very clearly in II. xix. and II. xxxv. with the note. From what is there stated, the difference between a man who has true ideas, and a man who has only false ideas, is made apparent. As for the last question--as to how a man can be sure that he has ideas that agree with their objects, I have just pointed out, with abundant clearness, that his knowledge arises from the simple fact, that he has an idea which corresponds with its object--in other words, that truth is its own standard. We may add that our mind, in so far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God (II. xi. Coroll.); therefore, the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God.
Modern English
In (E2P21S) I explained what the idea of an idea is. But it should be noted that the preceding proposition is sufficiently plain by itself. No one who has a true idea is unaware that a true idea involves the highest certainty. To have a true idea means nothing other than knowing a thing perfectly, or as well as possible. Nor can anyone doubt this, unless he thinks that an idea is something mute, like a picture on a panel, rather than a mode of thinking, that is, the very act of understanding. And I ask: who can know that he understands something unless he first understands it? Who can know that he is certain of something unless he is first certain of it? What, besides a true idea, can be clearer and more certain as a standard of truth? As light makes both itself and darkness visible, so truth is the standard of itself and of falsity.
With this I think I have answered the following questions: if a true idea is distinguished from a false idea only by agreeing with its object, does a true idea have any more reality or perfection than a false one, since they differ only by an external label? And if so, does a person with true ideas have any advantage over one who has only false ideas? How do people come to have false ideas? And how can anyone know for certain that he has ideas agreeing with their objects?
On the difference between a true and a false idea: it follows from (E2P35) that the former stands to the latter as being stands to non-being. The causes of falsity I showed clearly from (E2P19) through (E2P35) with its scholium, and from what is shown there the difference between a person who has true ideas and one who has only false ideas also becomes apparent.
As for the last question, how anyone can know that he has an idea agreeing with its object, I have just shown, more than sufficiently, that this arises from the sole fact that he has an idea agreeing with its object, that is, from truth being its own standard. We may add that our mind, insofar as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God (E2P11C); therefore the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as God's ideas.