E2P49S
Scholium — Part II
Latin
His causam quæ communiter erroris esse statuitur, sustulimus. Supra autem ostendimus falsitatem in sola privatione quam ideæ mutilatæ et confusæ involvunt, consistere. Quare idea falsa quatenus falsa est, certitudinem non involvit. Cum itaque dicimus hominem in falsis acquiescere nec de iis dubitare, non ideo ipsum certum esse sed tantum non dubitare dicimus vel quod in falsis acquiescit quia nullæ causæ dantur quæ efficiant ut ipsius imaginatio fluctuetur. Qua de re vide scholium propositionis 44 hujus partis. Quantumvis igitur homo falsis adhærere supponatur, nunquam tamen ipsum certum esse dicemus. Nam per certitudinem quid positivum intelligimus (vide propositionem 43 hujus cum ejusdem scholio) non vero dubitationis privationem. At per certitudinis privationem falsitatem intelligimus. Sed ad uberiorem explicationem præcedentis propositionis quædam monenda supersunt. Superest deinde ut ad objectiones quæ in nostram hanc doctrinam objici possunt, respondeam et denique ut omnem amoveam scrupulum, operæ pretium esse duxi hujus doctrinæ quasdam utilitates indicare. Quasdam inquam nam præcipuæ ex iis quæ in quinta parte dicemus, melius intelligentur. Incipio igitur a primo lectoresque moneo ut accurate distinguant inter ideam sive mentis conceptum et inter imagines rerum quas imaginamur. Deinde necesse est ut distinguant inter ideas et verba quibus res significamus. Nam quia hæc tria, imagines scilicet verba et ideæ, a multis vel plane confunduntur vel non satis accurate vel denique non satis caute distinguuntur, ideo hanc de voluntate doctrinam scitu prorsus necessariam tam ad speculationem quam ad vitam sapienter instituendam plane ignorarunt. Quippe qui putant ideas consistere in imaginibus quæ in nobis ex corporum occursu formantur, sibi persuadent ideas illas rerum quarum similem nullam imaginem formare possumus, non esse ideas sed tantum figmenta quæ ex libero voluntatis arbitrio fingimus; ideas igitur veluti picturas in tabula mutas aspiciunt et hoc præjudicio præoccupati non vident ideam quatenus idea est, affirmationem aut negationem involvere. Deinde qui verba confundunt cum idea vel cum ipsa affirmatione quam idea involvit, putant se posse contra id quod sentiunt velle quando aliquid solis verbis contra id quod sentiunt affirmant aut negant. Hæc autem præjudicia exuere facile is poterit qui ad naturam cogitationis attendit, quæ extensionis conceptum minime involvit atque adeo clare intelliget ideam (quandoquidem modus cogitandi est) neque in rei alicujus imagine neque in verbis consistere. Verborum namque et imaginum essentia a solis motibus corporeis constituitur, qui cogitationis conceptum minime involvunt. Atque hæc pauca de his monuisse sufficiat, quare ad prædictas objectiones transeo. Harum prima est quod constare putant voluntatem latius se extendere quam intellectum atque adeo ab eodem diversam esse. Ratio autem cur putant voluntatem latius se extendere quam intellectum est quia se experiri aiunt se non majore assentiendi sive affirmandi et negandi facultate indigere ad infinitis aliis rebus quas non percipimus, assentiendum quam jam habemus, at quidem majore facultate intelligendi. Distinguitur ergo voluntas ab intellectu quod finitus hic sit, illa autem infinita. Secundo nobis objici potest quod experientia nihil clarius videatur docere quam quod nostrum judicium possumus suspendere ne rebus quas percipimus, assentiamur; quod hinc etiam confirmatur quod nemo dicitur decipi quatenus aliquid percipit sed tantum quatenus assentitur aut dissentitur. Exempli gratia qui equum alatum fingit, non ideo concedit dari equum alatum hoc est non ideo decipitur nisi simul concedat dari equum alatum; nihil igitur clarius videtur docere experientia quam quod voluntas sive facultas assentiendi libera sit et a facultate intelligendi diversa. Tertio objici potest quod una affirmatio non plus realitatis videtur continere quam alia hoc est non majore potentia indigere videmur ad affirmandum verum esse id quod verum est, quam ad aliquid quod falsum est, verum esse affirmandum; at unam ideam plus realitatis sive perfectionis quam aliam habere percipimus; quantum enim objecta alia aliis præstantiora tantum etiam eorum ideæ aliæ aliis perfectiores sunt; ex quibus etiam constare videtur differentia inter voluntatem et intellectum. Quarto objici potest si homo non operatur ex libertate voluntatis, quid ergo fiet si in æquilibrio sit ut Buridani asina? Famene et siti peribit? Quod si concedam, viderer asinam vel hominis statuam, non hominem concipere; si autem negem, ergo seipsum determinabit et consequenter eundi facultatem et faciendi quicquid velit, habet. Præter hæc alia forsan possunt objici sed quia inculcare non teneor quid unusquisque somniare potest, ad has objectiones tantum respondere curabo idque quam potero breviter. Et quidem ad primam dico me concedere voluntatem latius se extendere quam intellectum si per intellectum claras tantummodo et distinctas ideas intelligant sed nego voluntatem latius se extendere quam perceptiones sive concipiendi facultatem nec sane video cur facultas volendi potius dicenda est infinita quam sentiendi facultas; sicut enim infinita (unum tamen post aliud nam infinita simul affirmare non possumus) eadem volendi facultate possumus affirmare, sic etiam infinita corpora (unum nempe post aliud) eadem sentiendi facultate possumus sentire sive percipere. Quod si dicant infinita dari quæ percipere non possumus? regero nos ea ipsa nulla cogitatione et consequenter nulla volendi facultate posse assequi. At dicunt si Deus vellet efficere ut ea etiam perciperemus, majorem quidem facultatem percipiendi deberet nobis dare sed non majorem quam dedit volendi facultatem; quod idem est ac si dicerent quod si Deus velit efficere ut infinita alia entia intelligeremus, necesse quidem esset ut nobis daret majorem intellectum sed non universaliorem entis ideam quam dedit ad eadem infinita entia amplectendum. Ostendimus enim voluntatem ens esse universale sive ideam qua omnes singulares volitiones hoc est id quod iis omnibus commune est, explicamus. Cum itaque hanc omnium volitionum communem sive universalem ideam facultatem esse credant, minime mirum si hanc facultatem ultra limites intellectus in infinitum se extendere dicant. Universale enim æque de uno ac de pluribus ac de infinitis individuis dicitur. Ad secundam objectionem respondeo negando nos liberam habere potestatem judicium suspendendi. Nam cum dicimus aliquem judicium suspendere, nihil aliud dicimus quam quod videt se rem non adæquate percipere. Est igitur judicii suspensio revera perceptio et non libera voluntas. Quod ut clare intelligatur, concipiamus puerum equum alatum imaginantem nec aliud quicquam percipientem. Quandoquidem hæc imaginatio equi existentiam involvit (per corollarium propositionis 17 hujus) nec puer quicquam percipit quod equi existentiam tollat, ille necessario equum ut præsentem contemplabitur nec de ejus existentia poterit dubitare quamvis de eadem non sit certus. Atque hoc quotidie in somnis experimur nec credo aliquem esse qui putet se, dum somniat, liberam habere potestatem suspendendi de iis quæ somniat, judicium efficiendique ut ea quæ se videre somniat, non somniet et nihilominus contingit ut etiam in somnis judicium suspendamus nempe cum somniamus nos somniare. Porro concedo neminem decipi quatenus percipit hoc est mentis imaginationes in se consideratas nihil erroris involvere concedo (vide scholium propositionis 17 hujus) sed nego hominem nihil affirmare quatenus percipit. Nam quid aliud est equum alatum percipere quam alas de equo affirmare? Si enim mens præter equum alatum nihil aliud perciperet, eundem sibi præsentem contemplaretur nec causam haberet ullam dubitandi de ejusdem existentia nec ullam dissentiendi facultatem nisi imaginatio equi alati juncta sit ideæ quæ existentiam ejusdem equi tollit vel quod percipit ideam equi alati quam habet esse inadæquatam atque tum vel ejusdem equi existentiam necessario negabit vel de eadem necessario dubitabit. Atque his puto me ad tertiam etiam objectionem respondisse nempe quod voluntas universale quid sit quod de omnibus ideis prædicatur quodque id tantum significat quod omnibus ideis commune est nempe affirmationem. Cujus propterea adæquata essentia quatenus sic abstracte concipitur, debet esse in unaquaque idea et hac ratione tantum in omnibus eadem sed non quatenus consideratur essentiam ideæ constituere nam eatenus singulares affirmationes æque inter se differunt ac ipsæ ideæ. Exempli gratia affirmatio quam idea circuli ab illa quam idea trianguli involvit æque differt ac idea circuli ab idea trianguli. Deinde absolute nego nos æquali cogitandi potentia indigere ad affirmandum verum esse id quod verum est quam ad affirmandum verum esse id quod falsum est. Nam hæ duæ affirmationes, si mentem spectes, se habent ad invicem ut ens ad non-ens; nihil enim in ideis positivum est quod falsitatis formam constituit (vide propositionem 35 hujus cum ejus scholio et scholium propositionis 47 hujus). Quare hic apprime venit notandum quam facile decipimur quando universalia cum singularibus, et entia rationis et abstracta cum realibus confundimus. Quod denique ad quartam objectionem attinet, dico me omnino concedere quod homo in tali æquilibrio positus (nempe qui nihil aliud percipit quam sitim et famem, talem cibum et talem potum qui æque ab eo distant) fame et siti peribit. Si me rogant an talis homo non potius asinus quam homo sit æstimandus? dico me nescire ut etiam nescio quanti æstimandus sit ille qui se pensilem facit et quanti æstimandi sint pueri, stulti, vesani, etc. Superest tandem indicare quantum hujus doctrinæ cognitio ad usum vitæ conferat, quod facile ex his animadvertemus. Nempe I° quatenus docet nos ex solo Dei nutu agere divinæque naturæ esse participes et eo magis quo perfectiores actiones agimus et quo magis magisque Deum intelligimus. Hæc ergo doctrina præterquam quod animum omnimode quietum reddit, hoc etiam habet quod nos docet in quo nostra summa felicitas sive beatitudo consistit nempe in sola Dei cognitione ex qua ad ea tantum agenda inducimur quæ amor et pietas suadent. Unde clare intelligimus quantum illi a vera virtutis æstimatione aberrant qui pro virtute et optimis actionibus tanquam pro summa servitute, summis præmiis a Deo decorari exspectant quasi ipsa virtus Deique servitus non esset ipsa felicitas et summa libertas. II° Quatenus docet quomodo circa res fortunæ sive quæ in nostra potestate non sunt hoc est circa res quæ ex nostra natura non sequuntur, nos gerere debeamus nempe utramque fortunæ faciem æquo animo exspectare et ferre : nimirum quia omnia ab æterno Dei decreto eadem necessitate sequuntur ac ex essentia trianguli sequitur quod tres ejus anguli sunt æquales duobus rectis. III° Confert hæc doctrina ad vitam socialem quatenus docet neminem odio habere, contemnere, irridere, nemini irasci, invidere. Præterea quatenus docet ut unusquisque suis sit contentus et proximo auxilio, non ex muliebri misericordia, partialitate neque superstitione sed ex solo rationis ductu prout scilicet tempus et res postulat ut in quarta parte ostendam. IV° Denique confert etiam hæc doctrina non parum ad communem societatem quatenus docet qua ratione cives gubernandi sint et ducendi nempe non ut serviant sed ut libere ea quæ optima sunt, agant. Atque his quæ in hoc scholio agere constitueram, absolvi et eo finem huic nostræ secundæ parti impono in qua puto me naturam mentis humanæ ejusque proprietates satis prolixe et quantum rei difficultas fert, clare explicuisse atque talia tradidisse ex quibus multa præclara, maxime utilia et cognitu necessaria concludi possunt, ut partim ex sequentibus constabit. Finis secundæ partis
English (Elwes 1883)
We have thus removed the cause which is commonly assigned for error. For we have shown above, that falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge involved in ideas which are fragmentary and confused. Wherefore, a false idea, inasmuch as it is false, does not involve certainty. When we say, then, that a man acquiesces in what is false, and that he has no doubts on the subject, we do not say that he is certain, but only that he does not doubt, or that he acquiesces in what is false, inasmuch as there are no reasons, which should cause his imagination to waver (see II. xliv. note). Thus, although the man be assumed to acquiesce in what is false, we shall never say that he is certain. For by certainty we mean something positive (II. xliii. and note), not merely the absence of doubt.
However, in order that the foregoing proposition may be fully explained, I will draw attention to a few additional points, and I will furthermore answer the objections which may be advanced against our doctrine. Lastly, in order to remove every scruple, I have thought it worth while to point out some of the advantages, which follow therefrom. I say "some," for they will be better appreciated from what we shall set forth in the fifth part.
I begin, then, with the first point, and warn my readers to make an accurate distinction between an idea, or conception of the mind, and the images of things which we imagine. It is further necessary that they should distinguish between idea and words, whereby we signify things. These three--namely, images, words, and ideas--are by many persons either entirely confused together, or not distinguished with sufficient accuracy or care, and hence people are generally in ignorance, how absolutely necessary is a knowledge of this doctrine of the will, both for philosophic purposes and for the wise ordering of life. Those who think that ideas consist in images which are formed in us by contact with external bodies, persuade themselves that the ideas of those things, whereof we can form no mental picture, are not ideas, but only figments, which we invent by the free decree of our will; they thus regard ideas as though they were inanimate pictures on a panel, and, filled with this misconception, do not see that an idea, inasmuch as it is an idea, involves an affirmation or negation. Again, those who confuse words with ideas, or with the affirmation which an idea involves, think that they can wish something contrary to what they feel, affirm, or deny. This misconception will easily be laid aside by one, who reflects on the nature of knowledge, and seeing that it in no wise involves the conception of extension, will therefore clearly understand, that an idea (being a mode of thinking) does not consist in the image of anything, nor in words. The essence of words and images is put together by bodily motions, which in no wise involve the conception of thought.
These few words on this subject will suffice: I will therefore pass on to consider the objections, which may be raised against our doctrine. Of these, the first is advanced by those, who think that the will has a wider scope than the understanding, and that therefore it is different therefrom. The reason for their holding the belief, that the will has wider scope than the understanding, is that they assert, that they have no need of an increase in their faculty of assent, that is of affirmation or negation, in order to assent to an infinity of things which we do not perceive, but that they have need of an increase in their faculty of understanding. The will is thus distinguished from the intellect, the latter being finite and the former infinite. Secondly, it may be objected that experience seems to teach us especially clearly, that we are able to suspend our judgment before assenting to things which we perceive; this is confirmed by the fact that no one is said to be deceived, in so far as he perceives anything, but only in so far as he assents or dissents.
For instance, he who feigns a winged horse, does not therefore admit that a winged horse exists; that is, he is not deceived, unless he admits in addition that a winged horse does exist. Nothing therefore seems to be taught more clearly by experience, than that the will or faculty of assent is free and different from the faculty of understanding. Thirdly, it may be objected that one affirmation does not apparently contain more reality than another; in other words, that we do not seem to need for affirming, that what is true is true, any greater power than for affirming, that what is false is true. We have, however, seen that one idea has more reality or perfection than another, for as objects are some more excellent than others, so also are the ideas of them some more excellent than others; this also seems to point to a difference between the understanding and the will. Fourthly, it may be objected, if man does not act from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass? Will he perish of hunger and thirst? If I say that he would, I shall seem to have in my thoughts an ass or the statue of a man rather than an actual man. If I say that he would not, he would then determine his own action, and would consequently possess the faculty of going and doing whatever he liked. Other objections might also be raised, but, as I am not bound to put in evidence everything that anyone may dream, I will only set myself to the task of refuting those I have mentioned, and that as briefly as possible.
To the first objection I answer, that I admit that the will has a wider scope than the understanding, if by the understanding be meant only clear and distinct ideas; but I deny that the will has a wider scope than the perceptions, and the faculty of forming conceptions; nor do I see why the faculty of volition should be called infinite, any more than the faculty of feeling: for, as we are able by the same faculty of volition to affirm an infinite number of things (one after the other, for we cannot affirm an infinite number simultaneously), so also can we, by the same faculty of feeling, feel or perceive (in succession) an infinite number of bodies. If it be said that there is an infinite number of things which we cannot perceive, I answer, that we cannot attain to such things by any thinking, nor, consequently, by any faculty of volition. But, it may still be urged, if God wished to bring it about that we should perceive them, he would be obliged to endow us with a greater faculty of perception, but not a greater faculty of volition than we have already. This is the same as to say that, if God wished to bring it about that we should understand an infinite number of other entities, it would be necessary for him to give us a greater understanding, but not a more universal idea of entity than that which we have already, in order to grasp such infinite entities. We have shown that will is a universal entity or idea, whereby we explain all particular volitions--in other words, that which is common to all such volitions.
As, then, our opponents maintain that this idea, common or universal to all volitions, is a faculty, it is little to be wondered at that they assert, that such a faculty extends itself into the infinite, beyond the limits of the understanding: for what is universal is predicated alike of one, of many, and of an infinite number of individuals.
To the second objection I reply by denying, that we have a free power of suspending our judgment: for, when we say that anyone suspends his judgment, we merely mean that he sees, that he does not perceive the matter in question adequately. Suspension of judgment is, therefore, strictly speaking, a perception, and not free will. In order to illustrate the point, let us suppose a boy imagining a horse, and perceive nothing else. Inasmuch as this imagination involves the existence of the horse (II. xvii. Coroll.), and the boy does not perceive anything which would exclude the existence of the horse, he will necessarily regard the horse as present: he will not be able to doubt of its existence, although he be not certain thereof. We have daily experience of such a state of things in dreams; and I do not suppose that there is anyone, who would maintain that, while he is dreaming, he has the free power of suspending his judgment concerning the things in his dream, and bringing it about that he should not dream those things, which he dreams that he sees; yet it happens, notwithstanding, that even in dreams we suspend our judgment, namely, when we dream that we are dreaming.
Further, I grant that no one can be deceived, so far as actual perception extends--that is, I grant that the mind's imaginations, regarded in themselves, do not involve error (II. xvii. note); but I deny, that a man does not, in the act of perception, make any affirmation. For what is the perception of a winged horse, save affirming that a horse has wings? If the mind could perceive nothing else but the winged horse, it would regard the same as present to itself: it would have no reasons for doubting its existence, nor any faculty of dissent, unless the imagination of a winged horse be joined to an idea which precludes the existence of the said horse, or unless the mind perceives that the idea which it possess of a winged horse is inadequate, in which case it will either necessarily deny the existence of such a horse, or will necessarily be in doubt on the subject.
I think that I have anticipated my answer to the third objection, namely, that the will is something universal which is predicated of all ideas, and that it only signifies that which is common to all ideas, namely, an affirmation, whose adequate essence must, therefore, in so far as it is thus conceived in the abstract, be in every idea, and be, in this respect alone, the same in all, not in so far as it is considered as constituting the idea's essence: for, in this respect, particular affirmations differ one from the other, as much as do ideas. For instance, the affirmation which involves the idea of a circle, differs from that which involves the idea of a triangle, as much as the idea of a circle differs from the idea of a triangle.
Further, I absolutely deny, that we are in need of an equal power of thinking, to affirm that that which is true is true, and to affirm that that which is false is true. These two affirmations, if we regard the mind, are in the same relation to one another as being and not--being; for there is nothing positive in ideas, which constitutes the actual reality of falsehood (II. xxxv. note, and xlvii. note).
We must therefore conclude, that we are easily deceived, when we confuse universals with singulars, and the entities of reason and abstractions with realities. As for the fourth objection, I am quite ready to admit, that a man placed in the equilibrium described (namely, as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain food and a certain drink, each equally distant from him) would die of hunger and thirst. If I am asked, whether such an one should not rather be considered an ass than a man; I answer, that I do not know, neither do I know how a man should be considered, who hangs himself, or how we should consider children, fools, madmen, &c.
It remains to point out the advantages of a knowledge of this doctrine as bearing on conduct, and this may be easily gathered from what has been said. The doctrine is good,
1. Inasmuch as it teaches us to act solely according to the decree of God, and to be partakers in the Divine nature, and so much the more, as we perform more perfect actions and more and more understand God. Such a doctrine not only completely tranquilizes our spirit, but also shows us where our highest happiness or blessedness is, namely, solely in the knowledge of God, whereby we are led to act only as love and piety shall bid us. We may thus clearly understand, how far astray from a true estimate of virtue are those who expect to be decorated by God with high rewards for their virtue, and their best actions, as for having endured the direst slavery; as if virtue and the service of God were not in itself happiness and perfect freedom.
2. Inasmuch as it teaches us, how we ought to conduct ourselves with respect to the gifts of fortune, or matters which are not in our power, and do not follow from our nature. For it shows us, that we should await and endure fortune's smiles or frowns with an equal mind, seeing that all things follow from the eternal decree of God by the same necessity, as it follows from the essence of a triangle, that the three angles are equal to two right angles.
3. This doctrine raises social life, inasmuch as it teaches us to hate no man, neither to despise, to deride, to envy, or to be angry with any. Further, as it tells us that each should be content with his own, and helpful to his neighbour, not from any womanish pity, favour, or superstition, but solely by the guidance of reason, according as the time and occasion demand, as I will show in Part III.
4. Lastly, this doctrine confers no small advantage on the commonwealth; for it teaches how citizens should be governed and led, not so as to become slaves, but so that they may freely do whatsoever things are best.
I have thus fulfilled the promise made at the beginning of this note, and I thus bring the second part of my treatise to a close. I think I have therein explained the nature and properties of the human mind at sufficient length, and, considering the difficulty of the subject, with sufficient clearness. I have laid a foundation, whereon may be raised many excellent conclusions of the highest utility and most necessary to be known, as will, in what follows, be partly made plain.
Modern English
By this we have disposed of what is commonly held to be the cause of error. I showed above that falsity consists solely in the privation that mutilated and confused ideas involve. A false idea, insofar as it is false, therefore involves no certainty. When we say that someone acquiesces in what is false and has no doubts about it, we are not saying he is certain, only that he does not doubt, or that he acquiesces in what is false because there are no causes that would make his imagination waver. See the scholium of P44 of this Part. However much a man is supposed to cling to what is false, we will never say he is certain. For by certainty I understand something positive (E2P43), not merely the absence of doubt. But by the absence of certainty I understand falsity.
There are, however, some further points to note for a fuller explanation of the preceding proposition. Then I must reply to the objections that can be raised against our doctrine, and finally, since I think it worthwhile, I will point out some of the uses of this doctrine. I say 'some,' for the chief ones will be better understood from what I will say in Part 5.
I begin with the first point and ask readers to take care to distinguish between an idea, or conception of the mind, and the images of things we form through imagination. And they must distinguish between ideas and the words by which we signify things. For since these three, images, words, and ideas, are either wholly confused or not distinguished with sufficient care by many people, they have been entirely ignorant of this doctrine of the will, so necessary for understanding both speculation and the wise conduct of life. Those who think that ideas consist in images formed in us by the impact of bodies persuade themselves that ideas of things we cannot form any image of are not ideas at all but mere fictions we invent by the free decree of the will. They therefore look at ideas as if at mute pictures on a panel, and, occupied with this prejudice, they fail to see that an idea, insofar as it is an idea, involves an affirmation or negation. Those who confuse words with ideas, or with the affirmation an idea involves, think they can will something contrary to what they feel when they affirm or deny something in words alone contrary to what they feel. Anyone who attends to the nature of thought will easily shed these prejudices; that nature involves the concept of extension not at all, so one clearly understands that an idea, being a mode of thinking, consists neither in any image of a thing nor in words. For the essence of words and images is constituted solely by bodily motions, which involve the concept of thought not at all.
These few remarks on this matter will suffice. I turn to the objections just mentioned.
The first is that people believe the will extends more widely than the intellect, and is therefore different from it. Their reason for thinking the will extends more widely than the intellect is that they say they find they need no greater faculty of assent, of affirming and denying, to assent to infinitely many things they do not perceive than the faculty they already have, but they do need a greater faculty of understanding. The will is therefore distinguished from the intellect: the intellect is finite, the will infinite.
The second objection is that experience seems to teach with complete clarity that we can suspend our judgment and refrain from assenting to things we perceive, which is also confirmed by the fact that no one is said to be deceived insofar as he perceives something, but only insofar as he assents or dissents. For example, someone who imagines a winged horse does not thereby grant that a winged horse exists, that is, is not deceived, unless he also grants that a winged horse exists. Nothing therefore seems more clearly taught by experience than that the will, the faculty of assent, is free and distinct from the faculty of understanding.
The third objection is that one affirmation seems to contain no more reality than another: that is, we seem to need no greater power to affirm that what is true is true than to affirm that what is false is true. But we perceive that one idea has more reality or perfection than another, the more excellent the objects, the more perfect their ideas. This too seems to point to a difference between will and intellect.
The fourth objection is: if man does not act from freedom of the will, what will happen if the incentives are equally balanced, as with Buridan's ass? Will he perish from hunger and thirst? If I grant this, I seem to be conceiving an ass or a statue of a man, not a man. If I deny it, he then determines himself, and consequently has the faculty to go where he wants and to do whatever he wants.
Beyond these, other objections might perhaps be raised; but since I am not obliged to rehearse everything anyone might dream up, I will confine myself to replying to these, as briefly as I can.
To the first I say: I grant that the will extends more widely than the intellect, if by intellect they mean only clear and distinct ideas, but I deny that the will extends more widely than perception or the faculty of conceiving. Nor do I see why the faculty of willing should be called infinite any more than the faculty of sensing. For just as we can affirm infinitely many things, one after another, since we cannot affirm infinitely many at once, with the same faculty of willing, so we can also sense or perceive infinitely many bodies, one after another, with the same faculty of sensing. If someone objects that there are infinitely many things we cannot perceive, I reply that we cannot reach them by any thinking, and consequently by no faculty of willing. But they say: if God wanted to bring it about that we perceived them too, he would have to give us a greater faculty of perception, but not a greater faculty of willing than he has already given. This comes to the same thing as saying that if God wanted to bring it about that we understood infinitely many other beings, he would certainly have to give us a greater intellect, but not a more universal idea of being than he has given, in order to grasp those same infinite beings. For we have shown that the will is a universal being or idea by which we explain all particular volitions, that is, what is common to them all. Since our opponents therefore believe that this idea common and universal to all volitions is a faculty, it is no wonder they say it extends to infinity beyond the limits of the intellect. For what is universal is predicated equally of one, of many, and of infinitely many individuals.
To the second objection I reply by denying that we have free power to suspend judgment. For when we say that someone suspends judgment, we mean nothing more than that he sees he does not perceive the thing adequately. Suspension of judgment is therefore really a perception, not a free act of will. To understand this clearly, let us conceive a boy imagining a winged horse and perceiving nothing else. Since this imagination of the horse involves the horse's existence (E2P17C), and the boy perceives nothing that would remove that existence, he will necessarily regard the horse as present and will not be able to doubt its existence, though he is not certain of it. We experience this daily in dreams, and I do not think anyone believes that while dreaming he has the free power to suspend judgment about what he dreams and to bring it about that he does not dream what he sees himself dreaming. Yet it happens that even in dreams we suspend judgment, namely when we dream that we are dreaming.
Moreover, I grant that no one is deceived insofar as he perceives, that is, I grant that the mind's imaginations, considered in themselves, involve no error (E2P17S). But I deny that a man makes no affirmation in the act of perceiving. For what is it to perceive a winged horse except to affirm wings of a horse? If the mind perceived nothing beyond the winged horse, it would regard the horse as present to itself: it would have no reason to doubt its existence and no faculty of dissent, unless the imagination of the winged horse were joined to an idea that removes that horse's existence, or unless the mind perceived that the idea it has of the winged horse is inadequate (E2P49S-note4). In that case the mind will either necessarily deny the existence of such a horse or will necessarily doubt it.
With this I think I have also answered the third objection, namely, that the will is something universal predicated of all ideas, and signifies only what is common to all ideas: affirmation. Its adequate essence, insofar as it is thus conceived in the abstract, must be in every idea, and in that respect alone is the same in all, but not insofar as it is considered as constituting the essence of the idea, for in that respect particular affirmations differ from each other as much as ideas themselves do. For example, the affirmation that the idea of a circle involves differs from the affirmation that the idea of a triangle involves as much as the idea of a circle differs from the idea of a triangle.
Furthermore, I absolutely deny that we need equal power of thought to affirm that what is true is true and to affirm that what is false is true. For these two affirmations, if you consider the mind, stand to each other as being to non-being: there is nothing positive in ideas that constitutes the form of falsity (E2P35). Here especially it must be noted how easily we are deceived when we confuse universals with singulars, and beings of reason and abstractions with real things.
As for the fourth objection: I fully grant that a man placed in such equilibrium, perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, and two foods and two drinks equally distant from him, would perish from hunger and thirst. If I am asked whether such a person should be reckoned an ass rather than a man, I say I do not know, just as I do not know how to reckon a man who hangs himself, or how children, fools, and madmen are to be reckoned.
It remains to point out how much knowledge of this doctrine contributes to the conduct of life, which we can easily see from the following. First, it teaches us that we act solely by God's decree and are participants in the divine nature, and the more so as our actions are more perfect and as we understand God more and more. This doctrine, besides giving the mind complete peace, also teaches us in what our highest happiness or blessedness consists: solely in the knowledge of God, by which we are led to do only what love and piety recommend. From this we clearly understand how far those people stray from a true estimate of virtue who expect to be rewarded by God with the highest rewards for their virtue and their best actions, as if virtue and service to God were not themselves happiness and the highest freedom.
Second, it teaches us how we ought to conduct ourselves regarding the gifts of fortune, that is, regarding things not in our power and not following from our nature, namely, to await and endure each face of fortune with an equal mind. For all things follow from the eternal decree of God with the same necessity as it follows from the essence of a triangle that its three angles equal two right angles.
Third, this doctrine benefits social life insofar as it teaches us to hate no one, despise no one, mock no one, be angry with no one, envy no one. And insofar as it teaches each person to be content with what is one's own and to help one's neighbor, not from womanly pity, partiality, or superstition, but from reason's guidance alone, as time and circumstance demand, as I will show in Part 4.
Fourth, this doctrine also contributes not a little to the common society insofar as it teaches how citizens ought to be governed and led, not so that they serve, but so that they freely do what is best.
With this I have completed what I set out to do in this scholium, and I here bring the second part of my work to a close. In it I believe I have explained the nature of the human mind and its properties at sufficient length and with what clarity the difficulty of the matter allows, and I have set out things from which many excellent conclusions, most useful and necessary to know, can be drawn, as will in part be evident from what follows.
End of Part 2