Chapter 8 Section 06

five six It can also be seen that some hearts are extremely respectful of the ancients, while others are eager to love the new; they seek to have a proper disposition, allow them to stick to the middle, neither brag about what the ancients formulated, nor despise the neighbors There are very few people who advocate it.This situation will turn out to be very harmful to science and philosophy; for this affectation of the ancient and the new is really a party sentiment, and it is not a judgment; Blessings—that which is impermanent, and which can only be sought in the light of nature and experience—are eternal. ①We must therefore swear off these factions, and must be careful not to allow the intellect to be prompted by them into a hasty assent. ① See Volume 84. ——Translator Wuqi

To think of nature and bodies in their simple ways fragments and disperses the understanding; to think of their composition and structure crushes and dissolves the understanding.This distinction is clearly seen in the comparison of Leucippus and the school of Democritus with other philosophies.That school is so busy with molecules that it pays little attention to structure; others are so lost in admiring structure that they fail to penetrate to the simplicity of nature. Therefore, these two kinds of speculation should be used alternately, so that the understanding can be both deep and general, so that the above-mentioned disadvantages and some illusions arising from them can be avoided. ①Ancient Greek philosopher (born around 450 BC), founder of the Abdera school (school of Abdera), pioneered atomism; Democritus was the main exponent of this theory. ——Translator 58

To sum up, most of the cave artifacts are born in several situations: either a favorite subject predominates, or there is a tendency to overdo it when making comparisons or distinctions, or there is a preference for a specific age, Or the object of speculation is broad and narrow.These are what we should prepare and guard against in order to screen out and eliminate the illusion of caves.In a nutshell, all who are engaged in the study of nature, please take this sentence as a rule:--Whatever your heart takes care of and is particularly satisfied with should be suspicious, and in dealing with such problems, you should be very careful. Be careful to keep the understanding even and clear.

five nine Market illusions are the most troublesome of the four types of illusions.They creep into the understanding by the union of words and names.Men believe that their reason governs words, but it is equally true that words react upon the understanding; and it is this which makes philosophy and science sophistical and inactive. As far as writing is concerned, it is generally constructed and used according to the faculties of vulgarity, so it always follows the line of distinction that is most shallow to the vulgar understanding.And whenever a more sensitive or more careful understanding would alter those boundaries to conform to the true divisions of nature, writing stood in the way to resist the alteration.Therefore, the lofty and formal discussions of our common scholars often end in arguing about words and names; according to the habits and wisdom of mathematicians, it is more prudent to start discussions from these things, so we must use the method of definition put them into order.But in dealing with natural and material things, definitions do not cure the disease; for definitions themselves consist of words, and those words beget other words.It is still necessary to return to the individual cases, to the orderly series of cases.I will speak of this at once when I discuss the methods and schemes for forming concepts and principles.

Sixty There are two kinds of illusions which words impose upon the understanding.Some are the names of things that do not actually exist (just as some things are not named due to insufficient observations, some "having a name but no reality" are also produced due to absurd assumptions). names of things that exist); some are names of things that exist, but are confused, ill-defined, hastily and irregularly drawn from reality.Of the former category are "Fortune," "The Prime Motivator,"1 "The Orbits of the Planets,"2 "The Element of Fire,"3 and other similar fictions derived from the doctrine of falsehood.Illusions of this kind are more easily dislodged, for to get rid of them all it takes is a firm rejection of the doctrines and their rejection. ① Kachin quoted the explanation in "Instructions for New Tools" and said: Claudius Ptolemy's astronomical system assumes that there is a circle or empty sphere with no outside, and all circles, that is, the orbital circles of planets and stars All inclusive, it itself drives all these circles around the earth every twenty-four hours; it is called the "primordial mover."

——Translator ② Kachin commented: It is conceived that these orbital circles are real crystal-like circles in which the stars are placed; and outside those circles of the planets there is another circle in which all the stars are attached , Milton (John Milton) has a poem: "Those stars are fixed in the orbits of their flight".See line 176 of the fifth volume. ——Translator ③ See Volume 4, 5 and Notes. —Translator As for the latter, that which arises from errors and poor abstractions, it is intricate and deeply rooted.Take the word "damp" as an example, and see how much the several things it refers to agree with each other, and you will see that the word "damp" is just such a symbol, which is loosely and confusedly used by people. It is used indiscriminately to refer to a large number of activities that cannot be reduced to any one constant meaning.It may designate a thing which readily spreads itself around any other body; It can also refer to a thing that is easy to connect and gather itself; it can also refer to a thing that is easy to flow and be moved; it can also refer to a thing that is easy to attach to others. Something that soaks it; it can also refer to something that is easy to make a liquid or a solid that is easy to dissolve.Thus, when you use the word, in one sense, the flame can be said to be moist; in another sense, the air can be said to be not moist; It is said to be damp; if another meaning is used, glass can also be said to be damp.Here, we can easily see that this concept is only abstracted from water and ordinary liquids, and has not been properly verified.

However, there are varying degrees of distortion and error in the text.One of the least erroneous classes is the names of substances, especially those of the lowest class and well-deduced (such as the concepts of "chalk" and "mud" are correct, the concept of "earth" are inappropriate); the most erroneous category concerns active words, such as "becoming," "perishing," "changing," etc.; and the worst erroneous ones are those concerning attributes (words as immediate objects of the senses). attributes), such as "heavy", "light", "thin", "thick" and the like.In all these cases, however, some concepts must be a little better than others, in proportion to the difference in the richness of the objects which come into contact with the human senses.

six one The illusion of the theater is not inherent, nor does it secretly seep into the understanding, but is openly imprinted and accepted by the human mind by the "scripts" of various philosophical systems and the laws of argument that have gone astray.To attempt to argue the matter would be contrary to what I have said before—that there is no point of argument if there is no agreement between me and them in principle and argument. Room ①. And this is good too, because in this way the honor of the ancients is not touched.The ancients were not degraded in any way, for the question between them and me was one of approach.As the saying goes, a lame man who walks on the right road will pass a quick leg who is on the wrong road.Not only that, but the more active and swift a man is when he is running on the wrong road, the farther he is lost.

The course of scientific discovery which I propose depends very little on the sharpness and strength of intelligence, but places all intelligence and understanding on nearly the same level.For example, if you want to draw a straight line or a perfect circle, if you only use your own hands to do it, it depends a lot on the firmness and skill of your hands. Not even any more; the same is true of my plans.But, though it is useless to refute a particular object, I must still speak of the sects and lines of those philosophical systems;3 also of some superficial signs of their unsoundness. ;4 Finally, I shall proceed to list some of the causes of such gross blunders and of such persistent and universal errors. ⑤In this way, the approach to the truth can be made less difficult, and the human understanding will be more willing to cleanse itself and get rid of false appearances. ⑥①See volume three and five. - translator

② Refer to Article 122 of Volume 1. - translator ③ See Articles 62 to 65 of Volume 1. - translator ④ See Articles 71 to 77 of Volume 1. - translator ⑤ See Articles 78 to 92 of Volume 1. - translator ⑥Refer to the end of Volume 70. - translator six two There are many theater illusions, or illusions of theoretical systems, and there can and will be more of them.Had the minds of all ages been so occupied with religion and theology; had not governments, especially monarchical governments, been opposed to this novelty, even to mere thought, that laborious efforts in this field Men are at the peril and injury of their fortunes, not only unrewarded, but even contemptuous and envious;—if it had not been for these, there would no doubt have been many other schools of philosophy, as brilliantly contending with each other. like ancient Greece.Just as many hypotheses can be formulated with respect to celestial phenomena, so of course (and more so) with regard to philosophical phenomena, a great variety of dogmas can be established.In the plays of this philosophical theater you will see the same thing as in the theater of poets, namely, that stories made up for the stage are tighter, more elegant, and more elegant than the true stories of history. In line with what people want to be like.

Generally speaking, when one takes material for philosophy, one takes either a lot out of a few things, or a little out of a lot of things; on the basis of natural history, and make judgments on the authority of too few examples.The rationalist philosophers merely snatched from experience a variety of common instances, without proper verification or serious consideration, and left to intellectual contemplation and excitement to do all the rest. There is another class of philosophers, after having painstakingly and carefully labored over a few experiments, from there venture forth to draw and construct systems, and twist all other facts into monstrous shapes to fit them. . There is a third class of philosophers, who, out of faith and devotion, combine their philosophy with theology and legend; origin. In this way, the mother tree of errors, that is, this erroneous philosophy, can be divided into three types: the sophistical, the empirical, and the superstitious. six three The most striking example of the first category is Aristotle.He corrupted natural philosophy with his logic: he fashioned the world out of categories; distinction to perform the tasks of both enrichment and thinning (that is, to make objects larger or smaller, that is, to occupy more or less space); ③ he asserts that individual objects have their own unique and inherent motions , and if they take part in any other motion, it must be due to an external cause; besides, he imposes countless other arbitrary restrictions on the nature of things.In short, he was far more eager to answer questions in terms of words and affirm something positive than he was to pay attention to the inner truth of things; this is a defect of his philosophy, and other famous systems among the Greeks. A comparison is the most obvious.For example, Anaxagoras’s theory of homogeneous molecules, ④ Liu Kaipas and Democritus’s theory of atoms, ⑤ Parmenides’ theory of heaven, ⑥ Ambido’s Empedocles' theory of love and hate,7 and Heraclitae's doctrine that bodies can be dissolved into undifferentiated fire qualities, and recast into various solids,8 etc.-they all have something natural Philosophers have meanings that belong to the nature of things, to experience, to the taste of objects; while in Aristotle's physics there is almost nothing but the words of logic; In his metaphysics, under this more dignified name, he played with them a little more in the manner of a realist than a nominalist.It is true that in his books9 and problem-collections on animals, as well as in other treatises, experiments are often dealt with, but this fact does not deserve any overestimation.For he first arrives at his conclusions; he does not consult experience, as he should, in order to construct his assertions and principles; experience, but bends experience to fit his vote of consent, leading it along like a captive.In this one count, then, he is even more guilty than the radical abandonment of experience by his modern followers, the scholastics. ①The original Latin text is dialectica. ——Translator ② Kachin pointed out that this may refer to the definition of the mind made by Aristotle in the second volume of the book "DeAnima", Chapter 1, Sections 7 and 11.Note: That definition says, "The mind is the actualization of the potential mind in natural organic objects"; in this way, the mind is divided into two categories, the actual and the potential, that is, the mind is given more afterthoughts. or a genus.The so-called "reality" and "potential" are the words of the secondary concepts.According to the terminology of scholastic logic, all concepts about the nature and category of concrete things and the relationship between concrete things and concrete things are called primary concepts (first intention); Concepts that are related to primary concepts are called second intentions—for example, "actual" versus "potential" are the words that designate this type of relationship. ——Translator ③ Fleur pointed out that this seems to refer to a statement made by Aristotle in the fifth chapter of the fourth volume of the book "Physica".Press: Anaximenes of the Ionian school first proposed concentration and dilution to explain the mutual transformation of certain elements, such as water is concentrated air, and air is diluted water .Aristotle saw this and believed that the two are potentiality and reality, so he transformed the two properties of enrichment and thinning into a pair of concepts of reality and potentiality.Bacon's accusation on this point seems to be that: concentration and dilution are the properties of matter, and they have their own tasks, which are to make objects larger or smaller, that is, to occupy more or less space. What should be observed and studied by natural philosophy; but in Aristotle's physics they are reduced to logical words. This is another point where Aristotle corrupted natural philosophy with his logic. ——Translator ④Ancient Greek philosopher (about 430 BC).The gist of his doctrine is as follows: everything is composed of molecules (homaeomera) homogeneous with it, for example, the molecules of bone are the same as bone, and the molecules of blood are the same as blood, which are called "seeds"; The four elements of fire, air, earth, and water mentioned by Reese are each different from a "root", and each "seed" contains these four elements; that separates or cuts them like an axe", each thing has "parts" of other things in it; as for the difference between "seed" and "seed" and between things, it is because they are different from each other. The "parts" contained in each other are more or less different: this is the ubiquitous theory of Anasargeras' homogeneous molecules. ——Translator ⑤ Regarding these two philosophers, see the footnotes of Volume 51 and Section 57 of Volume 1.The main points of their atomic theory are as follows: All objects are composed of imperceptibly small, indivisible, solid and unchanging molecules, that is, atoms. These atoms have no difference in quality, but only in shape, orientation and arrangement. The infinite variety of properties that form bodies; these atoms, through the void, wander in infinite space, and all things come into being as a result of their movement and accidental bringing together. ——Translator ⑥ Ancient Greek philosopher (sixth to fifth century BC), leader of the Iria school.Aristotle made the following statement in the fifth chapter of the first volume of the book "Metaphysica": Since Pamenides claimed that there is nothing that does not exist except existence, he believed that existence must be one, and other Nothing else exists; yet he is compelled to follow the facts of sight, and supposing that what is one in form is more than one in our perception, he adduces two causes, that is, two principles, that Heat and cold, that is, fire and earth; and rank the former among existence, and the latter among non-existence.Bacon's statement of Pamenides' heaven (coelumetterra) may be based on this. ——Translator ⑦ Ancient Greek philosophers (about 490-430 BC).He put forward the theory of earth, water, air and fire as the four elements, and believed that all things are made by mixing these four; while love and hatred are the cause of motion, and thus the reason for the mixing of these elements. ——Translator ⑧ See the forty-two footnotes in Volume 1. ——Translator ⑨ In terms of biology, Aristotle has "Historia Animalium", "De Partibus Animalium", "De Motuet De Incessu Animalium", "De Generatione Animalium" Waiting to write. - translator six four Empiricism produces dogmas even more monstrous than Sophists or Rationalists.For its basis is not derived from the light of common concepts (which, however feeble and superficial, are nevertheless universal, and which are formed by reference to many things), but only from the narrow darkness of a few experiments. .Such a philosophy, therefore, seems plausible and only accurate to those who are daily occupied with these experiments and whose imagination is tainted by them; Can not be trusted.There are clear examples of this in the alchemists and their dogmas, though at these times it is difficult to find it anywhere else than in the philosophy of Gilbert.A caveat is indispensible with a philosophy of this kind: I have first seen that if people are really moved by my advice, and give themselves to experiment in earnest, and say goodbye to sophistry, they will soon follow the understanding. The great danger conceived by such philosophies is much to be apprehended if the immature impetuosity of the human beings leaps or soars to general things and principles of things.For this disease, we should prepare even now to prevent it. ① See volume five and four and footnotes. ——Translator Six Five The incorporation of superstition and theology into philosophy is far more widespread and most injurious to philosophy, both to the system as a whole and to parts of it.For the human understanding is as easily invaded by the power of the imagination as it is by the power of common concepts.That contentious, sophistical philosophy ensnares the understanding; and this philosophy, because it is fanciful, pompous, and half-poetic, misleads the understanding mostly by flattery.Because people are inherently ambitious in understanding, and they are not weak in will, especially in high-spirited people. There are two examples of this kind of philosophy among the ancient Greeks: Pythagoras is a glaring example, who associated his philosophy with a cruder and clumsier superstition. ; the other is Plato and his school,3 which is more dangerous and more subtle.The same thing happens in other parts of philosophy, when abstract forms are introduced, purposive and primary causes are introduced, intermediate causes are eliminated in most cases, and the like. Condition.At this point we should exercise the utmost vigilance.For there is no greater evil than to worship error as a god; and the ease with which falsehood becomes an object of veneration is a weakness of the intellect's sensibility.And some modern men are indulging in this delusion with such frivolity that they attempt to establish a natural The system of philosophy is "seeking the dead among the living." ⑤ It is this that makes the prohibition and suppression of this system all the more important, because not only absurd philosophies but also evil religions will emerge from this unhealthy amalgamation of man and god.It is therefore only fitting that we give to faith only that which belongs to it, with equanimity. ⑥①See volume 89. ——Translator ②Ancient Greek philosopher (about 572-497 BC); once gathered in Kroton (Kroton) in southern Italy, it was both a religious group and an academic sect, called " "The Pythagoreans" (Pythagoreans), flourished in the last fifty years of the sixth century BC, and gradually died out by the end of the fourth century. Bacon accused him of mixing superstition or religion into philosophy, and called him a mystic (see Volume 1, Article 7). He introduced the concept of religious cleanliness into life and academics: in addition to practicing certain food precepts and certain rituals , and determined that medicine is used to cleanse the body, and music is used to cleanse the soul.He advocated the theory of reincarnation or rebirth.His mathematical philosophy also has mysticism: he believes that the opposition between odd and even numbers is the same as the opposition between form and matter, and that "one" is the same as reason, and "two" is the same as the soul. ——Translator ③Ancient Greek philosopher (428 (7) to 348 (7) BC), born in Athens; studied at Socrates at the age of twenty; traveled at thirty , learned the philosophical knowledge of some schools before Socrates; returned to Athens at 40, founded the Academy (Academy), gathered disciples to give lectures, and Aristotle was one of his disciples. Bacon accused Plato's philosophy of superstitious and religious elements, specifically his doctrine of Reminiscence (see the two dialogues "Meno" and "Phaedo"); but mainly his Absolute Idea in general Say (doctrine of absolute Ideas).Bacon also said that Plato corrupted natural philosophy with natural theology (see Article 96 in Volume 1), which can be used for reference. By the third century AD, Neo-Platonism had further developed the mysterious side of Plato's thought. ——Translator ④ Kachin pointed out that this may refer to Robert Fludd (Robert Fludd, 1574-1637, doctor and theosophist); he wrote the book "Moses Philosophy", It is to build a general outline of physics from the first few chapters of Genesis. There is also Hutchinson (John Hutchinson, 1674-1737, a theological fanatic, author of "Some Thoughts on Religion", which deduces all religions and philosophies from the Bible), also belongs to the This first-rate character. ——Translator ⑤ This idiom comes from the fifth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of Luke.Bacon in "De Augmentis Scientiarum" It is quoted again in the ninth book of the same book. (Note: According to the above reading, it seems that it should be said to be "finding the living among the dead". ——Translator) ⑥ Kachin pointed out that this alludes to the second verse of the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.Fleur reminds us: "We must remember that this sentiment, which has become commonplace in our day, was novel and almost implausible in Bacon's day." - translator six six So much for the pernicious authorities of various systems based either on common concepts, or on a few experiments, or on superstitions, the above sketches.What remains to be said is the false subject matter of speculation, especially in natural philosophy.The human understanding has seen that in mechanical alchemy, the change of objects mainly lies in joining or separating. Contaminated by this perception, it goes on to imagine a similar situation in the general nature of things.From this origin comes the conception of the elements, and of the elements coming together to form natural bodies.Moreover, since people's thoughts naturally move freely, they also encounter different kinds of things, several kinds of animals, several kinds of plants, and several kinds of minerals; , thinking that there are some primordial patterns in nature that nature intends to deduce, while the rest of the tricks are due to nature being hindered and derailed in the process of realizing its work, or due to conflicts and cross-breeding of different species. .By the former conjecture we have what is called the primordial attribute of elementality;1 by the latter conjecture we have the so-called hidden nature2 and the virtues of species; and both belong to the empty program of thought, where the mind rests. Rest, and therefore give up its more solid career. It would be more expedient for physicians to devote themselves to the secondary properties of matter, namely, to attraction, repulsion, thinning, thickening, dilating, converging, dissipating, ripening, and other similar actions; The point schemes (i.e. elemental attributes and species virtues) corrupt their correct observations on these other matters—either reducing these secondary attributes to primordial attributes and their subtle and incommensurable mixtures, or not To push them to third- and fourth-order attributes with deeper and more painstaking observations, and to abort this research--they would have made much greater progress long ago.And the powers of the above kind (I don't say the same, but similar) should not only be sought in the aspect of medicine related to the human body, but should also be sought in the aspects of changes in all other objects. ①Elemental attribute (see Notes 4 and 5 of Juan 1) is called primordial attribute.All other attributes of objects, which are formed by the cooperation and mutual transformation of these primary attributes, are called secondary attributes. ——Translator ② Fleur quotes a passage from Newton's third volume of "Optics": "The so-called hidden nature of Aristotelian school does not refer to various obvious properties, but to say that there are some properties hidden in each object. Some unknowable causes for producing apparent effects. This kind of secret nature hinders the progress of natural science, so modern people reject it. If we are only told that everything has a secret species nature, it will produce obvious results, which is equivalent to telling us nothing.”——Translator But a far bigger problem is that what they take as the object of speculation and inquiry is the “from” of things Some static principles, not some dynamic principles "by which" things come into being. ①The former only tends to talk, while the latter tends to work.Nor is there any value in the conventional distinctions concerning motions in the systems already accepted in natural philosophy, such as so-called coming into being, decay, increase, decrease, change, and displacement.No doubt they mean only this: that a body, while remaining unchanged in all other respects, is moved from its place, and this is "displacement"; If a body changes in its properties, this is "changing"; if a body is changed so that its volume and capacity are different from before, this is "increasing" or "decreasing"; if it changes to such an extent that Both the essence and the substance are changed into something else, which is "generation" and "destruction".All these are mere vulgarities, and do not penetrate into nature at all, for they are only measures and limits of motion, not kinds of motion.What they show is "to what extent", not "by what method" or "from what source".For they suggest nothing of the desire of the body, of the development of its individual molecules; they only begin to mark the distinctions when motion has made things appear to the senses as distinctly different from before. ②That is to say, when they would like to suggest the cause of the motion and establish a division based on it, they only proposed the distinction between natural motion and force motion with extreme negligence; ③This distinction is really derived from popular concepts, because All powerful movements are in fact also natural, and the external energy only causes the natural movements to be different from the usual ones.But, apart from all this, if one observes (for example) that there is a desire in bodies to press against each other, so that the unity of nature will not be greatly dissociated and broken, and create a void; There is a desire in it to maintain its natural volume or expansion, and therefore whenever it is compressed inwards or expanded outwards, it immediately struggles to recover itself, and to repeat itself to its original volume and extent; or And if it be said again that in bodies there is also a desire to converge on bodies of like nature, as thick bodies to the sphere of the earth, and thin bodies to the circumference of the heavens;—then all these and Similar motions are really physical ones; ④ the others are purely logical and philosophic, as is also evident from this comparison. ① Fleur explained that this problem means that people only pay attention to the material and thus ignore the able cause. ——Translator ② Kachin pointed out that what Bacon is criticizing here is exactly the six sports mentioned in Aristotle's "Categories". ——Translator ③ Regarding this point, refer to the third type of movement, that is, free movement, in Article 48 of Volume II, where there is a further explanation. ——Translator ④Refer to Volume 2, Article 48, where Bacon himself listed 19 types of motion that truly belong to the category of physics. —Another and no lesser fault of the translators is that, in their philosophies and speculations, their labors are devoted to the investigation of the first principles of things, and of the highest universals in nature. and processing; and the utility and method of its work are entirely derived from intermediate things.Because of this, on the one hand, people have to abstract nature, so as not to reach the hidden and unformed matter, and on the other hand, they have to dissect nature until it reaches the atoms.And what about these two things?They would have little effect on human welfare, even if they were true.