|
LOVE. I see, Brother, that both my essence
and perfection depend on your perfection;
and since the perfection of the object which
you have conceived is your perfection, while
from yours again mine proceeds, so tell me
now, I pray you, whether you have conceived
such a being as is supremely perfect, not
capable of being limited by any other, and
in which I also am comprehended.
UNDERSTANDING. I for my part consider Nature only in its totality as infinite, and supremely perfect, but you, if you have any doubts about it, ask Reason, she will tell you. REASON. To me the truth of the matter is indubitable, for if we would limit Nature then we should, absurdly enough, have to limit it with a mere Nothing;[N1] we avoid this absurdity by stating that it is One Eternal Unity, infinite, omnipotent, &c., that is, that Nature is infinite and that all is contained therein; and the negative of this we call Nothing. [Note N1]: A and B continue: moreover under the following attributes, namely, that it is "One, Eternal, infinite through itself;" we avoid ... DESIRE. Ah indeed! it is wondrously congruous to suppose that "Unity" is in keeping with the "Difference" which I observe everywhere in Nature. But how? I see that thinking substance has nothing in common with "extended substance", and that the one limits [not] the other; and if, in addition to these substances, you want to posit yet a third one which is perfect in all respects, then look how you involve yourself in manifest contradictions; for if this third one is placed outside the first two, then it is wanting in all the attributes which belong to those two, but this can never be the case with a whole outside of which there is nothing. Moreover if this being is omnipotent and perfect, then it must be such because it has made itself, and not because another has made it; that, however, which could produce both itself and yet another besides would be even more omnipotent. And lastly, if you call it omniscient then it is necessary that it should know itself; and, at the same time, you must know that the knowledge of oneself alone is less than the knowledge of oneself together with the knowledge of other substances. All these are manifest contradictions. I would, therefore, have advised Love to rest content with what I show her, and to look about for no other things. LOVE. What now, O dishonourable one, have you shown me but what would result in my immediate ruin. For, if I had ever united myself with what you have shown me, then from that moment I should have been persecuted by the two archenemies of the human race, namely, "Hatred" and "Remorse", and sometimes also by "Oblivion"; and therefore I turn again to Reason only to proceed and stop the mouths of these foes. REASON. What you say, O Desire, that there are different substances, that, I tell you, is false; for I see clearly that there is but "One, which exists through itself, and is a support to all other attributes." And if you will refer to the material and the mental as substances, in relation to the modes which are dependent on them, why then, you must also call them modes in relation to the substance [N1] on which they depend: for they are not conceived by you as existing through themselves. And in the same way that willing, feeling, understanding, loving, &c., are different modes of that which you call a thinking substance, in which you bring together and unite all these in one,[N2] so I also conclude, from your own proofs, that "Both Infinite Extension and Thought together with all other infinite attributes" (or, according to your usage, other "substances") are only modes of the "One, Eternal, Infinite Being, who exists through himself;" and from all these we posit, as stated, "An Only One" or a "Unity" outside which nothing can be imagined to be.[N3] [Note N1]: A: substances; B: substance. [Note N2]: A: all which you bring to one, and make one from all these; B: to which you bring all and make them into one.
[Note N3]: B: ... One, Eternal, self-subsisting Being in which all is
one and united, and outside which unity nothing can be imagined to be.
REASON. I see decidedly how you muster all your friends against me, and that, after the method usually adopted by those who oppose the truth, you are designing to achieve by quibbling what you have not been able to accomplish with your fallacious reasoning. But you will not succeed in winning Love to your side by such means. Your assertion, then, is, that the cause (since it is the Originator of the Effects) must therefore be outside these. But you say this because you only know of the "transeunt" and not of the "immanent cause", which by no means produces anything outside itself, as is exemplified by the Understanding, which is the cause of its ideas. And that is why I called the understanding (in so far as, or because, its ideas depend on it[N1]) a "cause"; and on the other hand, since it consists of its ideas, a "whole": so also God "is both an Immanent Cause with reference to his works or creatures, and also a whole, considered from the second point of view." [Note N1]: So in B:. A: it depends on its ideas. |
|
|
|
|
| Slack padding. |