E5Pref

Preface — Part V

Latin

(not aligned in this witness)

English (Elwes 1883)

At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics, which is concerned with the way leading to freedom. I shall therefore treat therein of the power of the reason, showing how far the reason can control the emotions, and what is the nature of Mental Freedom or Blessedness; we shall then be able to see, how much more powerful the wise man is than the ignorant. It is no part of my design to point out the method and means whereby the understanding may be perfected, nor to show the skill whereby the body may be so tended, as to be capable of the due performance of its functions. The latter question lies in the province of Medicine, the former in the province of Logic. Here, therefore, I repeat, I shall treat only of the power of the mind, or of reason; and I shall mainly show the extent and nature of its dominion over the emotions, for their control and moderation. That we do not possess absolute dominion over them, I have already shown. Yet the Stoics have thought, that the emotions depended absolutely on our will, and that we could absolutely govern them. But these philosophers were compelled, by the protest of experience, not from their own principles, to confess, that no slight practice and zeal is needed to control and moderate them: and this someone endeavoured to illustrate by the example (if I remember rightly) of two dogs, the one a house--dog and the other a hunting--dog. For by long training it could be brought about, that the house--dog should become accustomed to hunt, and the hunting--dog to cease from running after hares. To this opinion Descartes not a little inclines. For he maintained, that the soul or mind is specially united to a particular part of the brain, namely, to that part called the pineal gland, by the aid of which the mind is enabled to feel all the movements which are set going in the body, and also external objects, and which the mind by a simple act of volition can put in motion in various ways. He asserted, that this gland is so suspended in the midst of the brain, that it could be moved by the slightest motion of the animal spirits: further, that this gland is suspended in the midst of the brain in as many different manners, as the animal spirits can impinge thereon; and, again, that as many different marks are impressed on the said gland, as there are different external objects which impel the animal spirits towards it; whence it follows, that if the will of the soul suspends the gland in a position, wherein it has already been suspended once before by the animal spirits driven in one way or another, the gland in its turn reacts on the said spirits, driving and determining them to the condition wherein they were, when repulsed before by a similar position of the gland. He further asserted, that every act of mental volition is united in nature to a certain given motion of the gland. For instance, whenever anyone desires to look at a remote object, the act of volition causes the pupil of the eye to dilate, whereas, if the person in question had only thought of the dilatation of the pupil, the mere wish to dilate it would not have brought about the result, inasmuch as the motion of the gland, which serves to impel the animal spirits towards the optic nerve in a way which would dilate or contract the pupil, is not associated in nature with the wish to dilate or contract the pupil, but with the wish to look at remote or very near objects. Lastly, he maintained that, although every motion of the aforesaid gland seems to have been united by nature to one particular thought out of the whole number of our thoughts from the very beginning of our life, yet it can nevertheless become through habituation associated with other thoughts; this he endeavours to prove in the Passions de l'ame, I.50. He thence concludes, that there is no soul so weak, that it cannot, under proper direction, acquire absolute power over its passions. For passions as defined by him are "perceptions, or feelings, or disturbances of the soul, which are referred to the soul as species, and which (mark the expression) are produced, preserved, and strengthened through some movement of the spirits." (Passions de l'ame, I.27). But, seeing that we can join any motion of the gland, or consequently of the spirits, to any volition, the determination of the will depends entirely on our own powers; if, therefore, we determine our will with sure and firm decisions in the direction to which we wish our actions to tend, and associate the motions of the passions which we wish to acquire with the said decisions, we shall acquire an absolute dominion over our passions. Such is the doctrine of this illustrious philosopher (in so far as I gather it from his own words); it is one which, had it been less ingenious, I could hardly believe to have proceeded from so great a man. Indeed, I am lost in wonder, that a philosopher, who had stoutly asserted, that he would draw no conclusions which do not follow from self--evident premisses, and would affirm nothing which he did not clearly and distinctly perceive, and who had so often taken to task the scholastics for wishing to explain obscurities through occult qualities, could maintain a hypothesis, beside which occult qualities are commonplace. What does he understand, I ask, by the union of the mind and the body? What clear and distinct conception has he got of thought in most intimate union with a certain particle of extended matter? Truly I should like him to explain this union through its proximate cause. But he had so distinct a conception of mind being distinct from body, that he could not assign any particular cause of the union between the two, or of the mind itself, but was obliged to have recourse to the cause of the whole universe, that is to God. Further, I should much like to know, what degree of motion the mind can impart to this pineal gland, and with what force can it hold it suspended? For I am in ignorance, whether this gland can be agitated more slowly or more quickly by the mind than by the animal spirits, and whether the motions of the passions, which we have closely united with firm decisions, cannot be again disjoined therefrom by physical causes; in which case it would follow that, although the mind firmly intended to face a given danger, and had united to this decision the motions of boldness, yet at the sight of the danger the gland might become suspended in a way, which would preclude the mind thinking of anything except running away. In truth, as there is no common standard of volition and motion, so is there no comparison possible between the powers of the mind and the power or strength of the body; consequently the strength of one cannot in any wise be determined by the strength of the other. We may also add, that there is no gland discoverable in the midst of the brain, so placed that it can thus easily be set in motion in so many ways, and also that all the nerves are not prolonged so far as the cavities of the brain. Lastly, I omit all the assertions which he makes concerning the will and its freedom, inasmuch as I have abundantly proved that his premisses are false. Therefore, since the power of the mind, as I have shown above, is defined by the understanding only, we shall determine solely by the knowledge of the mind the remedies against the emotions, which I believe all have had experience of, but do not accurately observe or distinctly see, and from the same basis we shall deduce all those conclusions, which have regard to the mind's blessedness.

Modern English

I turn at last to the remaining part of the Ethics, which concerns the way that leads to freedom. Here, then, I shall treat the power of reason, showing what reason can do against the affects and what the mind's freedom or blessedness is, from which we shall see how much the wise man surpasses the ignorant. How the intellect ought to be perfected, or by what art the body should be maintained so that it can perform its functions properly, does not belong here; the latter falls under medicine, the former under logic. I shall therefore treat, as I have said, only the power of the mind or reason, and above all I shall show the extent and nature of its dominion over the affects for restraining and moderating them. For we have already demonstrated above that we do not have absolute dominion over them.

The Stoics, however, thought the affects depend entirely on our will and that we can command them absolutely. But experience protested, and they were compelled, not by their own principles, to admit that considerable practice and effort is needed to restrain and moderate them. Someone tried to show this by the example of two dogs (if I remember correctly): a house-dog and a hunting-dog. By training it was possible at last to make the house-dog hunt, and the hunting-dog, on the contrary, to leave off chasing hares.

Descartes inclines considerably to this view. He maintained that the soul or mind is united chiefly to a particular part of the brain, namely to what is called the pineal gland, by means of which the mind perceives all the motions excited in the body and external objects, and which the mind can move in various ways by the mere act of will alone. He maintained that this gland is suspended in the middle of the brain in such a way that the slightest movement of the animal spirits can move it. He further maintained that this gland is suspended in the middle of the brain in as many different ways as the animal spirits impinge upon it, and that as many different impressions are made upon it as there are different external objects that drive the animal spirits toward it. Hence, if the gland is afterward suspended in one way or another by the will of the soul, which moves it variously, in the way it was once suspended by the spirits agitated in one way or another, then the gland will drive and direct those animal spirits in the same manner as before, when repelled by a similar position of the gland.

He also maintained that each act of will in the mind is united by nature to a certain motion of the gland. For example, if someone has the will to look at a remote object, this will cause the pupil to dilate; but if the person merely thinks of dilating the pupil, it does the will no good, because nature has not joined the motion of the gland that serves to drive the spirits toward the optic nerve in the way suited to dilating or contracting the pupil with the will to dilate or contract it, but only with the will to look at remote or near objects. Finally, he maintained that even though each motion of this gland appears by nature to be connected with one particular thought among all our thoughts from the beginning of life, these motions can nonetheless be joined by habit to other thoughts, which he tries to prove in article 50 of Part 1 of the Passions of the Soul. From this he concludes that there is no soul so weak that it cannot, when properly directed, acquire absolute power over its passions. For passions, as he defines them, are 'perceptions or feelings or disturbances of the soul that are referred to it specifically and that — note well — are produced, preserved, and reinforced by some motion of the spirits' (see article 27 of Part 1 of the Passions of the Soul). But since we can join any motion of the gland, and consequently of the spirits, to any act of will, and the determination of the will depends entirely on our own power, if we determine our will with firm and steady judgments according to which we want to direct the actions of our life, and join the motions of the passions we wish to acquire to those judgments, we shall acquire absolute dominion over our passions.

This is the view of that most illustrious man (as far as I can gather from his words), a view I could hardly have believed came from so great a man, had it been less acute. I am genuinely astonished that a philosopher who had firmly resolved to deduce nothing except from self-evident principles, to affirm nothing except what he clearly and distinctly perceived, and who had so often reproached the scholastics for wishing to explain obscure matters through occult qualities, should adopt a hypothesis more occult than any occult quality. What does he understand, I ask, by the union of mind and body? What clear and distinct concept does he have of thought most intimately united with some tiny portion of extended matter? I would certainly like him to have explained this union through its proximate cause. But he had conceived the mind as so distinct from the body that he could not assign any particular cause either for this union or for the mind itself, and was forced to have recourse to the cause of the whole universe, that is, to God.

Furthermore, I should very much like to know how many degrees of motion the mind can impart to that pineal gland, and with what force it can hold it suspended. For I do not know whether this gland is moved more slowly or more quickly by the mind than by the animal spirits, and whether the motions of the passions that we have firmly joined to steady judgments cannot be disjoined from them again by bodily causes, in which case it would follow that even if the mind firmly resolved to face danger and joined the motions of boldness to this resolve, yet at the sight of the danger the gland might be suspended in such a way that the mind could think of nothing but flight. And indeed, since there is no proportion between will and motion, there is also no comparison between the power of the mind and the power or strength of the body, and consequently the strength of the one can in no way be determined by the strength of the other. Add to this that this gland is not found situated in the middle of the brain in such a way that it can be moved so easily and in so many ways, and that not all the nerves extend as far as the cavities of the brain.

Finally, I omit everything he asserts concerning the will and its freedom, since I have shown abundantly that his premises are false. Therefore, since the power of the mind, as I showed above, is defined by the intellect alone, we shall determine the remedies for the affects — which I believe all have experienced but not accurately observed or clearly seen — by the knowledge of the mind alone, and from that same knowledge we shall deduce everything that concerns its blessedness.