Part 8

Neither am I concern’d that His manner of joyning many things together may seem to some fitter for the discovery of Truth, than mine, wherein I separate as much as possibly each particular. But let us omit words and speak of things.

_It may be_ (sayes he) _that a Thinking thing is a corporeal thing, the contrary whereof is here assumed and not proved._ But herein he is mistaken, for I never _assumed_ the _contrary_, neither have I used it as a _Foundation_, for the rest of _my Superstructure_, but left it wholly _undetermin’d_ till the _sixth Meditation_, and in that ’tis proved.

Then he tells us rightly, _that we cannot conceive any Act without its subject_, as _thought_ without a _thinking thing_, for what _thinks_ cannot be _nothing_; but then he subjoyns without any Reason, and against the usual manner of speaking, and contrary to all Logick, _that hence it seem to follow, that a thinking thing is a corporeal Being_. Truly the _subjects_ of all _Acts_ are understood under the notion of _substance_, or if you please under the notion of _matter_ (that is to say of _metaphysical matter_) but not therefore under the notion of _Bodies_.

But Logicians and Commonly all Men are used to say, that there are some _Spiritual_, some _Corporeal_ substances. And by the Instance of Wax I only proved that _Colour_, _Consistence_, _Shape_, &c. appertain not to the _Ratio Formalis_ of the Wax; For in that Place I treated neither of the _Ratio Formalis_ of the _Mind_, neither of _Body_.

Neither is it pertinent to the business, that the Philosopher asserts, _That one Thought cannot be the subject of an other thought_, for Who besides Himself ever Imagin’d This? But that I may explain the matter in a few words, ’Tis certain that _Thought_ cannot be without a _Thinking Thing_, neither any _Act_ or any _Accident_ without a _substance_ wherein it resides. But seeing that we know not a _substance immediately by it self_, but by this alone, that ’tis the _subject_ of several _Acts_, it is very consonant to the commands of Reason and Custome, that we should call by _different names_ those _substances_, which we perceive are the _subjects_ of very _different Acts_ or _Accidents_, and that afterwards we should examine, whether those _different names_ signifie _different_ or _one_ and the _same_ thing. Now there are some _Acts_ which we call _corporeal_, as _magnitude_, _figure_, _motion_, and what ever else cannot be thought on without _local extension_, and the _substance_ wherein these reside we call _Body_; neither can it be imagin’d that ’tis one _substance_ which is the _subject_ of _Figure_, and another _substance_ which is the _subject_ of _local motion_, &c. Because all these _Acts_ agree under one common notion of _Extension_. Besides there are other _Acts_, which we call _cogitative_ or _thinking_, as _understanding_, _will_, _imagination_, _sense_, &c. All which agree under the common notion of _thought_, _perception_, or _Conscience_; And the _substance_ wherein they are, we say, is a _thinking thing_, or _mind_, or call it by whatever other name we please, so we do not confound it with _corporeal substance_, because _cogitative Acts_ have no affinity with _corporeal Acts_, and _thought_, which is the common _Ratio_ of _those_ is wholly different from _Extension_, which is the common _Ratio_ of _These_. But after we have formed two _distinct conceptions_ of these two _substances_, from what is said in the sixth Meditation, ’tis easie to know, whether they be _one_ and the _same_ or _different_.

OBJECT. III.

* _Which of them is it, that is distinct from my thought? which of them is it that can be separated from me?_

Some perhaps will answer this Question thus, I my self, who _think_ am distinct from my _thought_, and my _thought_ is _different_ from me (tho’ not _seperated_) as _dancing_ is _distinguished_ from the _Dancer_ (as before is noted.) But if _Des-Cartes_ will prove, that _he_ who _understands_ is the same with his _understanding_, we shall fall into the Scholastick expressions, the _understanding understands_, the _sight sees_, the _Will wills_, and then by an exact analogy, the Walking (or at least the _Faculty_ of walking) shall walk. All which are obscure, improper, and unworthy that perspicuity which is usual with the noble _Des-Cartes_.

ANSWER.

I do not deny, that _I_ who _think_ am _distinct_ from my _thought_, as a _thing_ is _distinguish’d_ from its _modus_ or _manner_; But when I ask, _which of them is it that is distinct from my thought_? this I understand of those various _modes_ of _thought_ there mention’d, and not of _substance_; and when I subjoyn, _which of them is it that can be separated from me_? I only signifie that all those _modes_ or _manners_ of _thinking_ reside in me, neither do I herein perceive what occasion of _doubt_ or _obscurity_ can be imagined.

OBJECT. IV.

* _It remains therefore for me to Confess that I cannot Imagine what this Wax is, but that I conceive in my mind What it is._

There is a great Difference between _Imagination_ (that is) having an _Idea_ of a Thing, and the _Conception of the Mind_ (that is) a _Concluding_ from _Reasoning_ that a thing _Is_ or _Exists_. But _Des-Cartes_ has not Declared to us in what they Differ. Besides, the Ancient Aristotelians have clearly deliver’d as a Doctrine, that _substance_ is not _perceived_ by _sense_ but is _Collected_ by _Ratiocination_.

But what shall we now say, if perhaps _Ratiocination_ be nothing Else but a _Copulation_ or _Concatenation_ of _Names_ or _Appellations_ by this Word _Is_? From whence ’twill follow that we _Collect_ by _Reasoning_ nothing _of_ or _concerning_ the _Nature_ of _Things_, but of the _names_ of _Things_, that is to say, we only discover whether or no we _joyn_ the _Names_ of _Things_ according to the _Agreements_ which at Pleasure we have made concerning their _significations_; if it be so (as so it may be) _Ratiocination_ will depend on _Words_, _Words_ on _Imagination_, and perhaps _Imagination_ as _also Sense_ on the _Motion_ of _Corporeal Parts_; and so the _Mind_ shall be nothing but _Motions_ in some Parts of an _Organical Body_.

ANSWER.

I have here Explain’d the Difference between _Imagination_, and the Meer _Conception_ of the _Mind_, by reckoning up in my Example of the Wax, what it is therein which we _Imagine_, and what it is that we _conceive_ in our _Mind_ only: but besides this, I have explained in an other Place How we _understand_ one way, and _Imagine_ an other way One and the same Thing, suppose a Pentagone or Five sided Figure.

There is in _Ratiocination_ a _Conjunction_ not of _Words_, but of _Things signified_ by _Words_; And I much admire that the _Contrary_ could Possibly enter any Mans Thoughts; For Who ever doubted but that a _Frenchman_ and a _German_ may argue about the _same Things_, tho they use very _Differing Words_? and does not the Philosopher Disprove himself when he speaks of the _Agreements which at pleasure we have made about the significations of Words_? for if he grants that _something_ is _Signified_ by _Words_, Why will he not admit that our Ratiocinations are rather about this _something_, then about _Words_ only? and by the same Right that he concludes the _Mind_ to be a _Motion_, he may Conclude Also that the Earth is Heaven, or What else he Pleases.

OBJECT. V.

_Against the Third Meditation of God._

* _Some of These (viz. ~Humane Thoughts~) are as it were the Images of Things, and to these alone belongs properly the Name of an Idea, as when I Think on a Man, a Chimera, Heaven, an Angel, or God._

When I Think on a _Man_ I perceive an _Idea_ made up of _Figure_ and _Colour_, whereof I may _doubt_ whether it be the _Likeness_ of a _Man_ or not; and so when I think on _Heaven_. But when I think on a Chimera, I perceive an _Image_ or _Idea_, of which I may _doubt_ whether it be the _Likeness_ of any _Animal_ not only at present Existing, but possible to Exist, or that ever will Exist hereafter or not.

But thinking on an _Angel_, there is offer’d to my Mind sometimes the _Image_ of a _Flame_, sometimes the _Image_ of a _Pretty Little Boy_ with _Wings_, which I am certain has no _Likeness_ to an _Angel_, and therefore that it is not the _Idea_ of an _Angel_; But beleiving that there are some Creatures, Who do (as it were) wait upon God, and are Invisible, and Immaterial, upon the _Thing Believed_ or _supposed_ we Impose the _Name_ of _Angel_; Whereas the _Idea_, under which I Imagine an Angel, is compounded of the Ideas of sensible Things.

In the like manner at the Venerable Name of _God_, we have _no Image_ or _Idea_ of God, and therefore we are forbidden to _Worship God_ under any _Image_, least we should seem to _Conceive_ Him that is inconceivable.

Whereby it appears that we have no _Idea_ of _God_; but like one _born blind_, who being brought to the _Fire_, and perceiving himself to be _Warmed_, knows there is _something_ by which he is _warmed_ and Hearing it called _Fire_, he Concludes that _Fire Exists_, but yet knows not of what _shape_ or _Colour_ the Fire is, neither has he any _Image_ or _Idea_ thereof in his _Mind_.

So Man knowing that there must be some _Cause_ of his _Imaginations_ or _Ideas_, as also an other _cause before That_, and so _onwards_, he is brought at last to an _End_, or to a _supposal_ of some _Eternal Cause_, Which because it never _began_ to _Be_ cannot have any other _Cause before it_, and thence he Concludes that ’tis _necessary_ that some _Eternal Thing Exist_: and yet he has no _Idea_ which He can call the _Idea_ of this _Eternal Thing_, but he names this _Thing_, which he believes and acknowledges by the Name _God_.

But now _Des-Cartes_ proceeds from this Position, _That we have an Idea of God in our Mind_, to prove this Theoreme, _That God (that if an Almighty, Wise, Creatour of the World) Exists_, whereas he ought to have explain’d this _Idea_ of _God_ better, and he should have thence deduced not only his _Existence_, but also the _Creation_ of the World.

ANSWER.

Here the Philosopher will have the Word _Idea_ be only Understood for the _Images_ of _Material_ Things represented in a _Corporeal_ Phantasie, by which Position he may Easily Prove, that there can be no Proper _Idea_ of an _Angel_ or _God_. Whereas as I declare every Where, but especially in this Place, that I take the Name _Idea_ for whatever is immediately _perceived_ by the _Mind_, so that when I _Will_, or _Fear_, because at the same time I _perceive_ that I _Will_ or _Fear_, this very _Will_ or _Fear_ are reckon’d by me among the number of _Ideas_; And I have purposely made use of that Word, because It was usual with the Antient Philosophers to signifie the Manner of _Perceptions_ in the _Divine Mind_, altho neither we nor they acknowledge a Phantasie in _God_: and besides I had no fitter Word to express it by.

And I think I have sufficiently explain’d the _Idea_ of _God_ for those that will attend my meaning, but I can never do it fully enough for those that will Understand my Words otherwise then I intend them.

Lastly, what is here added concerning the _Creation_ of the World is wholly beside the Question in hand.

OBJECT. VI.

* _But there are Other (~Thoughts~) That have Superadded Forms to them, as when I Will, when I Fear, when I Affirm, when I Deny; I know I have alwayes (whenever I think) some certain thing as the Subject or Object of my Thought, but in this last sort of Thoughts there is something More which I think upon then Barely the Likeness of the Thing; and of these Thoughts some are called Wills and Affections, and others of them Judgements._

When any one _Fears_ or _Wills_, he has certainly the _Image_ of the _Thing Fear’d_, or _Action Will’d_, but what more a _Willing_ or _Fearing_ Man has in his Thoughts is not explain’d; and tho _Fear_ be a _Thought_, yet I see not how it can be any other then the _Thought_ of the _Thing Fear’d_; For what is the _Fear_ of a _Lion rushing on me_, but the _Idea_ of a Lion Rushing on me, and the _Effect_ (which that _Idea_ produces in the _Heart_) whereby the Man _Fearing_ is excited to that Animal Motion which is called Flight? but now this Motion of _Flying_ is not _Thought_, it remains therefore that in _Fear_ there is no other _Thought_, but that which consists in the _likeness_ of the thing. And the same may be said of _Will_.

Moreover _Affirmation_ and _Negation_ are not without a _voice_ and _words_, and hence ’tis that Brutes can neither _affirme_ or _deny_ not so much as in their Thought, and consequently neither can they judge. But yet the same thought may be in a beast as in a Man; for when we _affirme_ that a Man runs, we have not a _thought_ different from what a Dog has when he sees his Master running; _Affirmation_ therefore or _Negation_ superadds nothing to _meer thoughts_, unless perhaps it adds this thought, that the _names_ of which an _Affirmation_ consists are (to the Person _affirming_) the _Names_ of the _same thing_; and this is not to comprehend in the _thought_ more then the _likeness_ of the _thing_, but it is only comprehending the same _likeness twice_.

ANSWER.

’Tis self evident, That ’tis one thing to _see_ a Lion and at the same time to _fear_ him, and an other thing _only_ to _see_ him. So ’tis one thing to _see_ a Man Running, and an other thing to _Affirme_ within my self (which may be done without a voice) That I _see_ him.

But in all this objection I find nothing that requires an Answer.

OBJECT. VII.

* _Now it remains for me to examine, how I have received this Idea of God, for I have neither received it by means of my senses, neither comes it to me without my forethought, as the Ideas of sensible things use to do, when those things work on the Organs of my sense, or at least seem so to work; Neither is this Idea framed by my self, for I can neither add to, nor detract from it. Wherefore I have only to conclude, that it is innate, even as the Idea of me my self is Natural to my self._

If there be no _Idea_ of _God_, as it seems there is _not_ (and here ’tis not proved that there is) this whole discourse falls to the ground. And as to the _Idea_ of _my self_ (if I respect the _Body_) it proceeds from _Sight_, but (if the _Soul_) there is no _Idea_ of a _Soul_, but we collect by Ratiocination, that there is some inward thing in a Mans Body, that imparts to it _Animal Motion_, by which it _perceives_ and _moves_, and this (whatever it be) without any _Idea_ we call a _Soul_.

ANSWER.

If there be an _Idea_ of _God_ (as ’tis manifest that there is) this whole _Objection_ falls to the ground; and then he subjoyns, _That we have no Idea of the Soul, but collect it by Ratiocination_, ’Tis the same as if he should say, that there is no _Image_ thereof represented in the _Phantasie_, but yet, that there is such a Thing, as I call an _Idea_.

OBJECT. VIII.

* _An other Idea of the Sun as taken from the Arguments of Astronomers, that is consequentially collected by me from certain natural notions._

At the same time we can certainly have but one _Idea_ of the Sun, whether it be look’d at by our eyes, or collected by _Ratiocination_ to be much bigger than it seems; for this last is not an _Idea_ of the Sun, but a proof by Arguments, that the _Idea_ of the _Sun_ would be much larger, if it were look’d at nigher. But at different or several times the _Ideas_ of the Sun may be diverse, as if at one time we look at it with our bare eye, at an other time through a Teloscope; but Astronomical arguments do not make the _Idea_ of the Sun greater or less, but they rather tell us that the _sensible Idea_ thereof is _false_.

ANSWER.

Here also (as before) what he says is not the _Idea_ of the Sun, and yet is described, is that very thing which I call the _Idea_.

OBJECT. IX.

* _For without doubt those Ideas which Represent substances are something more, or (as I may say) have more of objective Reality in them, then those that represent only accidents or modes; and again, that by which I understand a mighty God, Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creatour of all things besides himself, has certainly in it more objective reality, then those by which Finite substances are exhibited._

I have before often noted that there can be no _Idea_ of _God_ or the _Mind_: I will now superadd, That neither can there be an _Idea_ of _Substance_. For _Substance_ (Which is only _Matter Subject_ to _Accidents_ and _Changes_) is _Collected_ only by _Reasoning_, but it is not at all _Conceived_, neither does it _represent_ to us any _Idea_. And if this be true, How can it be said, _That those Ideas which represent to us Substances have in them something More, or More Objective Reality, then those which represent to us Accidents_? Besides, Let _Des-Cartes_ again Consider what he means by ~More Reality~? Can _Reality_ be increas’d or diminish’d? Or does he think that One _Thing_ can be _More A Thing_ then an other Thing? let him Consider how this can be Explain’d to our Understandings with that _Perspicuity_ or Clearness which is requisite in all _Demonstrations_, and Which He Himself is used to present us with upon other Occasions.

ANSWER.

I have often noted before, That that very Thing which is _evidenc’d_ by _Reason_, as also whatever else is perceived by any other Means, is Called by Me an _Idea_. And I have sufficiently explain’d How _Reality_ may be _Encreas’d_ or _Diminish’d_, in the same manner (to wit) as _Substance_ is _More_ a _Thing_, then A _Mode_; and if there be any such things as _Real Qualities_, or _Incomplete Substances_, these are _More Things_ then _Modes_, and _Less Things_ then _Complete Substances_: and Lastly if there be an _Infinite Independent Substance_ this is _More_ a _Thing_, then a _Finite, Dependent Substance_. And all this is self-evident.

OBJECT. X.

* _Wherefore There only Remains the Idea of God; Wherein I must consider whether there be not something Included, which cannot Possibly have its Original from me. By the Word, God, I mean a certain Infinite Substance, Independent, Omniscient, Almighty, by whom both I my self and every thing Else That Is (if any thing do actually exist) was Created; All which attributes are of such an High Nature That the more attentively I consider them, the Less I Conceive my self alone possible to be the Author of these notions; from what therefore has been said I must Conclude there is a God._

Considering the _Attributes_ of _God_, that from thence we may gather an _Idea_ of _God_, and that we may enquire whether there be not something in that _Idea_ which cannot Possibly Proceed from our selves, I discover (if I am not Deceived) that what we think off at the _Venerable name_ of _God_ proceeds neither from our selves, neither is it Necessary that they should have any other _Original_ then from _Outward Objects_. For by the Name of _God_ I understand a ~Substance~, that is, I understand that _God_ Exists (not by an _Idea_, but by Reasoning) ~Infinite~ (that is, I cannot conceive or Imagine Terms or Parts in him so Extream, but I can Imagine others Farther) from whence it follows, that not an _Idea_ of _Gods Infinity_ but of my Own bounds and Limits presents it self at the Word _Infinite_. ~Independent~, That is, I do not conceive any _Cause_ from which _God_ may proceed; from whence ’tis evident that I have no other _Idea_ at the word _Independent_, but the memory of my own _Ideas_ which at Different Times have _Different Beginnings_, and Consequently they must be _Dependent_.

Wherefore, to say that God is _Independent_, is only to say That _God_ is in the Number of those things, the _Original_ whereof I do not Imagine: and so to say that _God_ is _Infinite_, is the same as if we say That He is in the Number of Those Things whose _Bounds_ we do not Conceive: And thus any _Idea_ of _God_ is Exploded, for What _Idea_ can we have without _Beginning_ or _Ending_?

~Omniscient~ or Understanding all things, Here _I_ desire to know, by what _Idea_, _Des-Cartes_ understands _Gods Understanding_? ~Almighty~, I desire also to know by What _Idea Gods Power_ is _understood_? For _Power_ is in Respect of Future Things, that is, Things not Existing. For my Part, I understand _Power_ from the Image or Memory of past Actions, arguing with my self thus, He did so, therefore he was _able_ (or had _Power_) to do so, therefore (continuing the same) he will again have _Power_ to do so. But now all these are _Ideas_ that may arise from _external Objects_.

~Creatour~ of all things, _I_ can frame an _Image_ of _Creation_ from what I see every day, as a Man Born, or growing from a Punctum to that shape and size he now bears; an other _Idea_ then this no man can have at the word _Creatour_; But the _Possibility_ of _Imagining_ a Creation is not sufficient to prove that the world _was created_. And therefore tho it were _Demonstrated_ that some _Infinite Independent Almighty Being_ did _exist_, yet it will not from thence follow that a _Creatour exists_; unless one can think this to be a right inference, we _believe_ that there exists something that has created all other things, therefore the world _was Created_ thereby.

Moreover when he says, that the _Idea_ of _God_, and of our _Soul_ is _Innate_ or _born in us_, I would fain know, whether the _Souls_ of those that _sleep soundly_ do _think_ unless they _dream_; If not, then at that time they have no _Ideas_, and consequently no _Idea_ is _Innate_, for what is _Innate_ to us is never _Absent_ from us.

ANSWER.

None of _Gods_ Attributes can proceed from _outward objects_ as from a _Pattern_, because there is nothing found in God like what is found in _External_, that is, _Corporeal_ things; Now ’tis manifest that whatever we think of in him _differing_ or _unlike_ what we find in them proceeds not from them, but from a cause of that very _diversity_ in our Thought.

And here I desire to know, how this Philosopher deduces _Gods Understanding_ from _outward Things_, and yet I can easily explain what _Idea_ I have thereof, by saying, that by the _Idea_ of _Gods Understanding_ I conceive whatever is the _Form_ of any _Perception_; For who is there that does not perceive that he _understands_ something or other, and consequently he must thereby have an _Idea_ of _understanding_, and by enlarging it _Indefinitely_ he forms the _Idea_ of _Gods Understanding_. And so of his other Attributes.