按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
13。 Spinoz。 Ethices； P。 V。 Prop。 XXXVI。 Schol。 Prop。 XXXVIL Demonstr。； Prop。 XXXVIII。 et
Schol。 pp。 293…295。
14。 Spinoz。 Ethices； P。 II。 Prop。 XL。 Schol。 II。 pp。 113； 114。
15。 Spinoz。 Ethices； P。 II。 Prop。 XLIV。 et Coroll。 II。 pp。 117； 118； Prop。 XLV。 p。 119； P。 V。
Prop。 XXX。 p。 289： P。 II。 Prop。 XXXII。 p。 107。
16。 Spinoz。 Ethices； P。 V。 Prop。 XIV。 p。 280； Prop。 VI。 p。 275； Prop。 XXVII。 pp。 287； 288；
Prop。 XXXII。 Coroll。； Prop。 XXXV。 pp。 291； 292。
Section Two： Period of the Thinking Understanding
Chapter I。 — The Metaphysics of the Understanding
A 3。 MALEBRANCHE
The philosophy of Malebranche is in point of matter entirely identical with that of Spinoza； but it
has another； a more religious and more theological form； on account of this form it never
encountered the opposition met with by Spinoza； and for the same reason Malebranche has never
been reproached with Atheism。
Nicholas Malebranche was born at Paris in 1638。 He was sickly and deformed in body； and was
hence brought up with great care。 He was diffident and loved solitude； in his twenty…second year
he entered the congrégation de l’ oratoire； a sort of spiritual order； and devoted himself to the
sciences。 In passing a bookseller’ s shop he happened accidentally to see Descartes’ work De
homine； he read it；and it interested him greatly — so much so that the reading of it brought on
severe palpitation and he was forced to cease。 This decided his future life； there awoke in him an
irrepressible inclination for Philosophy。 He was a man of most noble and gentle character； and of
the most genuine； and unswerving； piety。 He died at Paris in 1715； and in； the seventy…seventh
year of his age。（1）
His principal work bears the title： De la recherche de la vérité。 One part of it is entirely
metaphysical； but the greater part is altogether empirical。 For instance； Malebranche in the first
three books treats logically and psychologically of the errors in sight and hearing； in the imagination
and understanding。
a。 What is most important in this book is his idea of the origin of our knowledge。 He says： “The
essence of the soul is in thought； just as that of matter is in extension。 All else； such as sensation；
imagination and will； are modifications of thought。” He thus begins with two sides； between which
he sets an absolute chasm； and then he follows out in detail the Cartesian idea of the assistance of
God in knowledge。 His main point is that “the soul cannot attain to its conceptions and notions
from external things。” For when I and the thing are clearly independent of one another and have
nothing in common； the two can certainly not enter into relation with one another nor be for one
another。 “Bodies are impenetrable； their images would destroy one another on the way to the
organs。” But further： “The soul cannot beget ideas from itself； nor can they be inborn；” for as
“Augustine has said； ‘ Say not that ye yourselves are your own light。’ ” But how then comes
extension； the manifold； into the simple； into the spirit； since it is the reverse of the simple； namely
the diverse？ This question regarding the association of thought and extension is always an
important one in Philosophy。 According to Malebranche the answer is； “That we see all things in
God。” God Himself is the connection between us and them； and thus the unity between the thing
and thought。 “God has in Him the ideas of all things because He has created all； God is through
His omnipresence united in the most intimate way with spirits。 God thus is the place of spirits；” the
Universal of spirit； “just as space” is the universal； “the place of bodies。 Consequently the soul
knows in God what is in Him；” bodies； “inasmuch as He sets forth” （inwardly conceives）
“created existence； because all this is spiritual； intellectual； and present to the soul。〃（2） Because
things and God are intellectual and we too are intellectual； we perceive them in God as they are；
so to speak； intellectual in Him。 If this be further analyzed it in no way differs from Spinozism。
Malebranche indeed in a popular way allows soul and things to subsist as independent； but this
independence vanishes away like smoke when the principle is firmly grasped。 The catechism says：
“God is omnipresent；” and if this omnipresence be developed Spinozism is arrived at； and yet
theologians then proceed to speak against the system of identity； and cry out about Pantheism。
b。 We must further remark that Malebranche also makes the universal； thought； the essential； by
placing it before the particular。 “The soul has the Notion of the infinite and universal： it knows
nothing excepting through the Idea which it has of the infinite； this Idea must hence come first。 The
universal is not a mere confusion of individual ideas； it is not a union of individual things。”
According to Locke the individual from which the universal is formed precedes （infra； p。 299）；
according to Malebranche the universal Idea is what comes first in man。 “If we wish to think of
anything particular we think first of the universal；” it is the principle of the particular； as space is of
things。 All essentiality precedes our particular conceptions； and this essentiality comes first。 “All
essential existences （essences） come before our ordinary conception； they cannot be such
excepting by God’ s presence in the mind and spirit。 He it is who contains all things in the
simplicity of His nature。 It seems evident that mind would not be capable of representing to itself
the universal Notions of species； kind； and suchlike； if it did not see all things comprehended in
one。” The universal is thus in and for itself； and it does not take its rise through the particular。
“Since each existent thing is an individual； we cannot say that we see something actually created
when； for example； we see a triangle in general；” for we see it through God。 “No account can be
given of how spirit knows abstract and common truths； excepting through the presence of Him
who can enlighten spirit in an infinite way；” because He is in and for Himself the universal。 “We
have a clear idea of God；” of the universal： “We can have such only through union with Him； for
this idea is not a created one；” but is in and for itself。 As with Spinoza； the one universal is God；
and in so far as it is determined； it is the particular； we see this particular only in the universal； as
we see bodies in space。 “We already have a conception of infinite Being； inasmuch as we have a
conception of Being without regard to whether it is finite or infinite。 To know a finite we must limit
the infinite； and this last must thus precede。 Thus spirit perceives all in the infinite； this is so far from
being a confused conception of many particular things that all particular conceptions are merely
participations in the universal Idea of infinitude — in the same way that God does not receive this
Being from〃 finite “creatures； but；” on the contrary； “all creatures only subsist through Him。〃（3）
c。 As regards the turning of the soul to God； Malebranche says what Spinoza said from his ethical
point of