Chapter 9 Section 07

six seven There is also a capriciousness in those philosophical systems, in granting or withholding assent, which should also warn the understanding; More or less helps to establish and perpetuate the illusion. There are two kinds of such excesses: the first is manifested by those who take lightly to decide, and thus make all sciences arbitrary and prescriptive; the other by those who deny We are able to know something, thereby initiating a kind of aimless and ultimately unreachable inquiry.Of the two, the former suppresses the understanding, the latter weakens it. ① The philosophy of Aristotle, after destroying all other philosophies by hostile refutation (as the Atuman kings did to their brethren), established laws on all points; having done so, He then goes on to personally raise some new problems that he has suggested, and solve them in the same way.In this way, there is nothing that is not certain, that is not already decided.This practice still holds and is practiced among his successors to this day. ① Regarding the division of these two schools of thought, it was proposed at the beginning of the preface. ——Translator On the other hand, the Platonist school advocated the theory of incomprehensibility. 1 This school first ridiculed and despised the older sophists, Protagoras, 2 Hippias, and others, and held them most scandalous in that Be skeptical about everything.But the New Academic School is making a dogma out of this, and is advocating it as a kind of doctrine. ④Although they say that they have never destroyed any research, as Pyrrho and his followers did, they admit that although nothing can be claimed as truth, there are things that can be claimed as probabilities. quest; though this method of theirs seems more even than that of compulsive judgment; yet, notwithstanding this, as soon as the mind has despaired of seeking truth, it becomes less concerned with all things; the result is People get distracted from contentious debates and discussions, as if drifting from object to object, instead of insisting on advancing on a serious investigation.In fact, as I said at the outset and have always insisted, the human senses and understanding, though weaker, should not be deprived of their authority, but should be aided. ⑥①The original text uses the word acatalepsia in Juan Sanqi and here.According to Kachin, Bacon himself translated this word into incomprehensibleness in his book "Advancement of Learning".

Note: Bacon used this word to refer to such a theory: he believes that natural things are incomprehensible, especially that sensory knowledge is uncertain and unreliable.Plato's theory of ideas denies that there can be any definite things in the sensory world, and there can be any real knowledge, so Bacon said he advocated this theory.This is different from the "agnosticism" that Kant talked about later, which regards things in themselves as the "beyond shore" beyond the reach of human cognition, so it is tried to be translated as "inexplicable theory". ——Translator ②The master of the ancient Greek sophists (about 480-410 BC); he has a famous saying that "man is the measure of all things." ——Translator ③ One of the ancient Greek sophists, known for his erudition and versatility, he created a set of mnemonics. ——Translator ④The New School School developed into skepticism and eclecticism, which flourished in the third and second centuries BC, and its main representatives were Arcesilaus and Carneades . ——Translator ⑤Ancient Greek philosopher (about 365-275 BC]; a complete skeptic, who believes that the true nature of things is impossible to know, so everything can only be doubted Judgment should be made. In this way, of course any research is destroyed. - Translator ⑥ See Article 126. - Translator 68

About several types of illusions and their auxiliary wings, they are generally as above.We must reject all these things with firm and serious resolution, and the understanding may be completely liberated and cleansed; That is to say, no one can walk in except as a child. ①①Kachin pointed out that the phrase "one cannot enter the gate of the kingdom of heaven unless one is like a child" comes from the third verse of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of Matthew. ——Translator Six Nine Evil arguments are, so to speak, the fortress and defense of illusion.The argument we have in logic1 is nothing more than making the world the slave of human thought,2 and human thought is the slave of words. ③ In fact, the argument is actually philosophy and science itself.For as the argument is, according to whether it is well established or badly established, so is the speculative and philosophical system that follows it.Now, all the way from senses and objects to principles and conclusions, the arguments we use are deceitful and incompetent.There are four parts to this process, with an equal number of errors.

First, the impressions of the senses are themselves false, because the senses are useless and deceive us.But the defect of the senses is to be made up, its deceptions to be corrected. ④ ① The original text of the Latin version is dialectica. ——Translator ② See Volume 5, 4, and 6, 3 and 2. ——Translator ③ Refer to Articles 43, 59, and 60 of Volume 1. ——Translator ④Refer to volumes 37, 41, 50, 67, and 126. ——Translator The second point is to extract concepts from sensory impressions. This is done very badly, so that the concepts are all unclear and confusing, but in fact they should be clear and have clear boundaries. ①Thirdly, the current method of induction is useless. It deduces the principles of science by simple enumeration, instead of using the method of elimination and qualitative decomposition (or separation) as it should. ②Finally, the fourth point, the method of discovery and proof, that is, the method of first establishing the most general principles and then examining and proving intermediate principles according to them, is the mother of all errors and the curse of all science. . ③As for these things, I am only briefly mentioning them now, and I will discuss them in more detail when I propose the real way to explain nature after repairing and purifying the human mind. ④①See volume 15, 16, and 60. ——Translator ② See volume 1, 17 and 1052. ——Translator ③Refer to volume 1, 19, and 1042. ——Translator ④ For a detailed discussion, see Articles 100 to 106 in Volume 1. ——Translator 70

The best argument is of course experience, as long as it does not go beyond actual experiments.For it would be absurd to apply our experience to other circumstances which we think are similar, except by a proper and orderly process.But the way people do experiments now is blind and stupid. ①They wandered away without a fixed distance, and only learned from things that happened by accident. Therefore, although they traveled far and wide, they encountered many things but made little progress; sometimes they were full of hope, sometimes they were full of hope. And distracted, and always feeling that there is always something to be found ahead.As far as the general situation is concerned, people always do experiments carelessly, as if they are playing games; they only slightly change the known experiments, and when things do not respond, they get bored and give up.Even those who devote themselves to experiment more seriously, earnestly, and toil, devote their labors to one experiment, as Gilbert did with the magnet, and the chemist with gold.

This kind of progress is really a small attempt and a clumsy design.For it will be unsuccessful to inquire into the nature of a thing only in relation to that thing itself; our inquiry must be enlarged to become more common. ②Even if men sometimes try to extract some kind of science or theory from their experiments, they almost always turn to practice with excessive impetuosity and untimely eagerness.This is not just for the sake of the effectiveness and results of practice, but also because they are eager to obtain a kind of assurance from some new achievements that they know that it is worth moving on; it is also because they are eager to show their heads in front of the world. , thereby increasing people's trust in the business they are engaged in.Thus, like Atalanta, they ran into the side roads to pick up the golden apples, and at the same time disturbed their course, and the victory escaped from their hands. ③In the real journey of experience, in the process of advancing experience to produce new works, we must take God's wisdom and order as our model.Let’s see that God only created light on the first day of creation, and devoted the entire day to this work, without creating any material entities.Similarly, we should first try to discover the real reason and principle from various experiences, and we should first pursue the experiment of "light" instead of the experiment of "effect". ④Because the various principles, if correctly discovered and established, will provide tools for practice, not one after another, but in piles, and there will be rows and rows of deeds behind them.As for some paths of experience, which are blocked and trapped just like judgments are blocked and trapped, I will talk about them later; That's all.Now, in the order of the questions at hand, I have to say something about two other points: one is the signs just mentioned (the signs that the current speculative and philosophical systems are in a bad state), and the other is that This is the reason why this situation, which at first glance seems strange and unbelievable, exists. ⑦Signing out signs breeds assent; explaining reasons relieves people of astonishment: both things greatly contribute to the easier and milder work of weeding out falsehoods from the understanding. ① Kachin pointed out that here are four problems that people often have when doing experiments: 1. There is a lack of a method of selection and orientation (this needs to be rescued by some cases with priority); 2. The force is weak, and there is no Sufficient variety; 3. Only pursue one experiment or one topic, ignoring all others; 4. Eager to get practical application. ——Translator ② See volume 88. ——Translator ③ Kachin pointed out that this metaphor is Bacon's favorite.Note: The story goes like this: Atalanta is a beautiful Greek princess who is famous for her swift feet.For all suitors, if they can win the race, they will be married, and if they lose, they will die.In the end, a famous Hippomenes took the risk.He had a few golden apples provided by the God of Love, and threw them to the side of the road to lure her to pick them up.She still took the lead after picking it up for the first time; after repeated temptations, she finally fell behind in the race walking process, and it was obtained by the suitor. ——Translator ④ See Volume 1, Articles 99, 117, and 121. ——Translator ⑤ See Volume 82 and 83, and see Articles 98 to 103 in Volume 1. ——Translator ⑥ See Articles 71 to 77 below. ——Translator ⑦ See Articles 78 to 92 below. ——Translator Qiyi

Most of the science we have comes from the Greeks.The additions by Roman, Arab, or later authors were small and of little importance; and whatever additions were made, they were based on the discoveries of the Greeks. ① Now let us see that the wisdom of the Greeks is discursive, and they are quite indulging in debate; and this is exactly the kind of wisdom that is most contrary to the inquiry of truth.Thus it appears that the title of Sophist, though dismissed contemptuously by those who wish to be called philosophers, is deflected to the ancient rhetoricians Gorgias, 2 Plutagoras, Hippias. People such as Polus and Plato are actually applicable to all such people, including Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, ③ Epicurus, ④ Dieuphra Theophrastus ⑤ and their successors Chrysippus, ⑥ Carneades ⑦ and others.The only difference between these two groups is that the former are roaming and profit-seeking, traveling from city to city, offering their wisdom for sale and charging a price; Fixed residences, opened schools to teach their philosophy without receiving payment.Although these two kinds of people are not equal in other respects, they are both discursive, they both make things into disputes, they both set up philosophical sects and even heresies and fight over them; so their doctrines are mostly just (such as Dionysius (Dionysius) quite rightly sneers at Plato) "the talk of the bored old man to the ignorant youth". ⑧But the earlier Greek philosophers, such as Epidocris, Anasageras, Leucapas, Democritus, Pamenides, Heraclitus, Ninophanes ( Xenophanes, 9 Philolaus 10, and others (as for Pythagoras, I leave him alone as a mystic), 11, so far as we know, had no schools; but more silently, more seriously, and more simply—that is, with less ostentation and ostentation—into the inquiry of truth.For this reason, too, they appear to me to be more successful; but their achievements are overshadowed in the course of time by those trivial people who have more to cater to the faculties and tastes of the world: time is like a river, always It is to pass on to us the light and puffy things and let the heavy things sink. ⑿ But despite this, they are still not completely free from the common faults of their nation. They still indulge too much in ambition and vanity, and want to establish sects to sensationalize the public.And if the investigation of truth is skewed to such trivial matters, it will inevitably lead to despair.

There is another layer here that must not be neglected, and that is, as the Egyptian monks gave the Greeks a testimonial, or rather a prophecy, saying: "They are forever children, neither ancient in knowledge nor ancient in history." Knowledge". ⒀Indeed, they really have the characteristics of children, quick to babble, but unable to produce; because their wisdom is rich in words and poor in actions.In this light, some indications from the source and origin of current philosophy are not good. ① Fleur commented that this kind of blame is too much.The least we can say is that the Romans must have invented some mechanical artifice to build roads, aqueducts, bridges, theaters, etc. of that magnitude.The Arabs invented the numbers, algebra, and distillation methods used today; they also made contributions to medicine; and the research of chemistry was also started by them. ——Translator ② Gao Jiasi (about 480-375 BC), born in Sicily (Sicily), lived in Athens; famous orator, rhetorician and philosopher, is a sophist One of the important representatives. ——Translator ③Ancient Greek philosopher (341-270 BC); founded in Athens, called the Epicurean School; he believed that seeking pleasure is the natural purpose of life, and the soul Pleasure in the aspect of life is much higher than pleasure in the aspect of material or senses. ——Translator ④Ancient Greek philosopher (about 340-265 BC); founded in Stoa (Stoa), called the Stoic School (Stoic School), which said that it is based on following reason and suffering Le do nothing in the main. ——Translator ⑤ Dieuphrastas (370-287 BC); Aristotle's great disciple and successor; very rich works, with "On Human Character" as the most important most noticeable. ——Translator ⑥ Chrisibos (280-209 BC); after Cleanthes, he was the leader of the Stoic school. ——Translator ⑦ Carnidis (about 215-125 BC); after Assisi, he was the leader of the New Academy.

——Translator ⑧ Kachin points out that what is mentioned here is the old Dionysias (both Dionysias and his son, both tyrants of Syracuse); his meeting with Plato and his utterance, See Chapter 18 of the third volume of "Biographies of Philosophers" by Diogenes Leysias. ——Translator ⑨ Ancient Greek philosophers (about 570-480 BC).He examined natural phenomena and believed that all living things have a root, and that plants and animals have their own natural roots.He is said to have said the following: "The gods of the Ethiopians are dark-skinned and flat-nosed; the gods of the Thrace are fair-looking and blue-eyed; and their gods would be cows if they could paint."— —Translator 10 One of the late Pythagorean scholars. ——Translator ⑾ See Juan 65 and footnotes. ——Translator ⑿ Kachin pointed out that it is an absurd fallacy to compare the existence and abolition of academic truth with frivolous and heavy phenomena; and Bacon seems to be quite happy with this argument, saying so in a volume of seven or seven articles, in "Advancement This is also stated in the books "of Learning" and "Filum Labyrinthi". ——Translator ⒀ This sentence comes from Plato's dialogue collection "Timaeus".

seven two ① The properties of time and age give no better indication than the properties of nations and nations.For at that time men had only a narrow and impoverished knowledge of either time or place, which was the worst, especially for those who depended on experience.Going back more than a millennium, they have no history worthy of the name, but only fables and rumors of antiquity.As for the regions and districts of the world, they knew only a small part; they generally called all those in the North Scythians, and all those in the West Celtic. (Celts); (3) they knew nothing of Africa beyond Aethiopia in the south, and of Asia beyond the Ganges in the east; still less of the parts of the New World, Not even heard of in hearsay or more well-founded rumors; more than that, there are various climates and regions in the world, and countless peoples breathe and live in them, which they call uninhabitable; The travels of men like Democritus, Plato, and Pythagoras,4 were really nothing more than a country walk, not a long journey, but they spoke of it as a feat.In our time, on the other hand, the limits of many parts of the New World and of the parties of the Old World are already known, and our storehouse of experience has increased to an infinite number.Thus, if we (like the astrologers) draw signs from the dates of birth of those philosophical systems, nothing great can be deduced from them. ① See Volume 84. ——Translator ②The so-called Scythia in ancient times included a large area in southeastern Europe and western Asia to the east; people living in this area were of many races, collectively called the Scythia. ——Translator ③ In prehistoric times, Western Europe was invaded twice by Aryan (Aryan) tribes, and now these immigrants are collectively called Celts. ——Translator ④ Kachin noted that Democritus had traveled to most of Asia, and some people said that he had even been to India and Isiobia.Plato only visited Sicily, Egypt and Cyrene.Pythagoras traveled to Egypt, Arabia, Phenicia, Babylon, and possibly India. ——Translator Seven Three

Of all signs, none is more certain or more eminent than those seen in fruit.For fruits and deeds are, so to speak, the guarantors and collaterals of philosophical truths.Behold, from all those systems of the Greeks, and from the separate sciences derived from them, after so many years, no experiment can be pointed out which tends to relieve and benefit the human condition, nor Not a single experiment is really attributable to thinking and philosophical theory.Celsus1 admits this frankly and intelligently, when he tells us that the experimental part of the discoveries of medicine precedes them, and afterward they are philosophized, pursued and pursued. not by a reverse process, from philosophy and the knowledge of causes to the discovery and development of its experimental part. ②It is no wonder, then, that among those inventors whom the Egyptians honored with divine honor and ceremonies, there were more idols of animals than of men; for the animals, by their natural instincts, had A lot of discoveries are made, while people with their rational discussions and conclusions find little or nothing at all. ① Celsus was a famous Roman doctor in the time of Augustus (or later).He follows the method of Hippocrates, observing and contemplating the movements of nature, and restricting them without violating them.Author of "On Medicine" ("De Medicina"), a valuable material for the study of ancient medicine. ——Translator ② In this passage, Celsus does not express his own opinion; on the contrary, he expresses the opinion held by the empirical school in medicine, which is exactly what he opposes.Bacon repeats this misquotation several times in his writings. The efforts of the chemists have, it is true, yielded some fruits,* but by chance, by the way, or by varying experiments, as mechanics do, and not by any artifice or artifice. produced by the theory.For the theories they formulate do not so much help experiments as they confuse them.As for those who practice what they call natural illusions, they can produce very few discoveries, which are superficial and deceptive.So, just as in religion we are warned to show our beliefs by works, so in philosophy we are to judge a system of doctrine by its fruit; and if the system produces no fruit, We should declare it worthless, and still more should we declare it, when instead of producing grapes and olives, etc., it bears thorns and thistles of contention and disputation. ① Kachin pointed out that they had already invented alcohol, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, volatile alkali, gunpowder and other things; although this cannot be compared with the invention of modern chemistry, it cannot be underestimated. ——Translator Seven Four We shall also draw signs from the growth and progress of philosophical systems and of the various sciences.Whatever is founded on nature grows and increases; whatever is founded on opinion changes but does not increase.Therefore, if those doctrines were not like a plant that tore off its roots, but remained tightly connected to the natural womb and continued to draw nourishment from there, then it would not be possible for the passage of two thousand years as we are now seeing. situation, it cannot be: The sciences of all kinds have stood and remained almost unchanged in their place, and instead of growing visibly, have, on the contrary, only flourished for a while in the hands of their original founders and then declined.Look at all kinds of mechanical alchemy, since they are built on nature and the light of experience, the opposite is true. They (as long as they keep their popularity) are always flourishing and growing, as if there is a kind of The breath of life; they are rough at first, then more convenient, then embellished, and are always improving. seven five Yet another indication (which is not so much evidence as evidence, and the strongest of all evidences), is the confession of those authorities whom one now follows.Even those who have the courage and self-confidence to make laws for all things, when they are more calm, often complain of the subtlety of nature, the incomprehensibility of things, and the weakness of the human heart.If they stop at this point, then, while some timid natures will be frightened and will not go forward in their search, some more enthusiastic and energetic people will be more excited and go forward.But they were not content to merely ridicule themselves; they went on to assume that everything beyond their own or their teacher's knowledge was simply beyond the bounds of the possible, and declared it as if on the authority of their art. That is incomprehensible or impossible; thus they most arbitrarily and most indiscriminately turn their discovery of impotence into a false accusation against nature itself, into despair over the rest of the world. This is where the Neo-Academy, which adheres to the doctrine of inexplicable theory and condemns the world to eternal darkness, comes from this.Hence also the view that the real distinction of the Form or of things (which is in fact the law of mere action) is beyond human reach and cannot be found.From this also comes an opinion in the department of motion and motion, that the heat of the sun and the heat of fire are quite different in kind,--lest it be imagined that anything meaningful can be enacted and formed by the motion of fire. something like a work of nature.From this comes another notion that the work of man is only to combine, and the work of mixing is none other than nature, ②—this is again lest people will demand from technology what power can produce and change natural objects.From this sign, then, men may well be warned against mingling their careers and labors with dogmas which not only despair but lead to despair. ①The formula mentioned here is the Baconian formula, which is completely different from the formula negated in Juan Wuyi. See preceding article and footnote. ——Translator ② This refers to Gailun. In his article "De Naturalisbus Facultatibus", he once opposed the inner forming power of nature and the external action of alchemy.See volume 4, where Bacon affirms the same proposition which he denies here. seven six One other indication, which should not be overlooked, is that the fact that there have previously been such great divisions among philosophers, and such a variety of schools, sufficiently shows that the path from the senses to the understanding is not a well-defined path. and the common ground of philosophy, the nature of things, is cut and fragmented into so many vague and complex fallacies.At these times, differences of opinion on first principles and on the system as a whole have largely disappeared, but in some parts of philosophy there are still countless questions and disputes.From this it is clear that there is nothing exact or sound, either in the systems themselves, or in the manner of argument. seven seven The general opinion is that there is always a great deal of agreement about Aristotle's philosophy anyway. For as soon as it was published, the system of the old philosophers perished, and nothing better came after; so it seemed that it was so well established that it received two generations in its retinue. .I have an answer to this view.In the first place, the common notion that the old system died out with the writings of Aristotle is fundamentally wrong; The work is still intact. ① Only later, when the barbarians flooded the Roman Empire and drowned human learning, the systems of Aristotle and Plato floated on the waves of time like a few empty and lighter planks. was preserved.As for the level of unanimous agreement, if we investigate more clearly, people are also deceived.For true consent is the agreement of free judgments when they are properly tested.However, people's agreement with Aristotle's philosophy is mostly based on preconceived judgments and relying on the authority of others; so this is just a kind of obedience and conformity, not agreement.Again, even if it were a genuine and widespread assent, we should not regard assent as a sure and solid proof, but, on the contrary, it is in fact only a strong presumption.And of all judgments, judgments based on consent are worst in matters of knowledge (except theology, except politics, for there is a vote).For, as I said before, that which pleases the multitude is only that which strikes the imagination, or binds the understanding in chains of common concepts. ③① Kachin testified that not only the works of the earlier Greek philosophers favored by Bacon survived intact, but also the works of the Stoics and Epicureans, as well as the works of the Neo-Platonists The same is true. ——Translator ② Bacon does not mean that a majority vote is necessarily correct and valid on theological and political issues; More weight on purely academic issues. (Concerning the point of voting on theological questions, Kachin points out that Bacon no doubt meant that some church councils decided on doctrinal and disciplinary questions by vote of their participants, even as the Council of Nice It is the use of a majority vote to affirm the true creed against Arianism.——Translator) ③ See Volume 1, Article 28. ——Translator Therefore, we can justly transfer Phocion's words on moral problems to knowledge problems: if a person has the approval and applause of the crowd, he should immediately check what mistake he may have made . ①①Fuchon was a general and statesman in ancient Athens who opposed the democracy of Athens.The quote here comes from Verchon in the Lives of Great Men by Plutarch. ——From the translator’s point of view, this sign can be said to be the most unfavorable one. The above seven sections discuss the signs of current philosophy and science from the sources, fruits, progress, self-confessions of the founders, and general approval of them, showing that their truth and soundness are not good. . ①①In both the original (Kachin Annotated Version) and the English translation, these sentences are arranged after the previous sentence, and are not divided into sections; this division into sections is done by the translator for the sake of eye-catching according to the meaning and structure of the text. - Translator Section 08 seven eight We shall now go on to explain the causes of these errors, and of their perpetuation through the ages; the causes are many and powerful. Having said this, one will no longer wonder how the considerations I have advanced have hitherto escaped attention; but only how they have at last entered someone's mind to-day and have become the subject of his thought; For my own part, I honestly consider it to be the result of some happy chance rather than any superiority of my talent, the product of time rather than wisdom. ① Now let’s talk about the first reason, the so-called so many years, if we weigh them carefully, they will shrink to a very small range.Of the twenty-five centuries that memory and scholarship stretch, we have difficulty picking out six that were fertile or conducive to science.For in time as in land there are wastelands and deserts.There are only three academic revolutions, that is, three academic periods, that can be properly counted: the first period was with the Greeks, the second period was with the Romans, and the third period was with us, the nations of Western Europe; Each of these issues is barely two centuries old.As for the years intervening between these three periods, they were not very prosperous so far as science flourished.Neither the Arabs nor the scholastics can be mentioned, who in these interim periods did not so much increase the weight of science as wear it down like a battered road with a mass of treatises. The meagerness of scientific progress, then, may rightly be said, first of all, to be due to the limited past time which was favorable to science. ① Refer to Article 122 of Volume 1. ——Translator Seven Nine The second point, and another great cause which appears from all sides, is that even in those ages when human intelligence and learning were most advanced (if they could be called advanced), people used only the smallest part of hard work for nature. philosophical aspect. And it is this philosophy that should be respected as the great mother of science.Because if all alchemy and all science are pulled out of this root, even though they are polished and tailored to be practical, they will not grow. ①Now behold, it is well known that, since Christianity gained faith and gained power, the great majority of intelligent men have devoted themselves to theology; richly furnishes this enterprise; and this theological preoccupation chiefly occupies that third period or period of history belonging to us Western Europeans; and at this time the literature is beginning to flourish, and religious controversies are beginning to arise, This reinforces the situation again. On the other hand, when it comes to the previous period, the second period with the Romans as the main body, the thinking and labor of philosophers at that time were mainly used and consumed in moral philosophy (moral philosophy is to pagans, as Theology is the same for us).并且，在那些时候，最优秀的才智之士又普遍投身于公共事务之中；这是因为罗马帝国的广度需要大量的人去服务。至于再说到希腊时期中自然哲学看来算是最发达的年代，那只不过是短短一瞬的时间；因为在早期，所谓七哲，②除泰利斯（Thales）③外，都是投身于道德学和政治学的；而在后期，当苏格拉底把哲学从天上拉到地上以后，④道德哲学就更空前地流行，从而使人心对自然哲学背离得愈远了。 ①参看一卷七四条。 ——译者②希腊七哲是：（一）梭伦（Solon），他的格言是“认识你自己”；（二）契罗（Chilo），他的格言是“考虑结局”；（三）泰利斯，他的格言是“凡有担保的人就是稳固的人”；（四）毕亚斯（Bias），他的格言是“多数人是坏的”；（五）克留勃拉（Cleobulus），他的格言是“避免极端”；（六）庇塔喀斯（Pittacus），他的格言是“紧捉时机”；（七）勃吕安德（Periander），他的格言是“在勤劳努力面前没有不可能的事”。 ——译者③泰利斯（公元前第六世纪），希腊哲学家，属米勒塔学派（Milesian School）。 据说他曾预言到公元前五八五年五月二八日的日食。据亚里斯多德称述，他首先提出了宇宙有一种单一的物质元素的设想，并且说那就是水。——译者④克钦指出，这话出于西塞罗所着“Disputationes Tuscalanae”一书第五卷第四章第十节。——译者还不止此，即使在自然研究发达的时期，由于人们的无谓争论和夸炫新意，也使得那个时期本身败坏而无结果。 这样看来，在那三个时期当中，自然哲学在很大程度上不是被人忽视，就是受到阻碍。我们既已看到这点，那么，对于人们之不会在其所不注意的事物上面做出什么进展也就不必感到诧异了。①①这几句话在原本和英译本都未分节；这样分节，是译者擅自处理的。——译者八○ 此外还须添述一个原因，就是：自然哲学即使在对它注意的人们中间，特别在那后两个时期，也始终不曾拥有一个摆脱一切而全力从事的研究者（除开某个在僧房中从事研究的僧侣或某个在别墅中从事研究的士绅），①而一直是被仅仅当作通到其他事物的便道或桥梁来对待的。这样，这个伟大的科学之母就因横来的侮辱而被贬黜到仆役的职务上，只去伺候医学或数学的业务，也只去以一种打底子的染料来浸染幼稚而不成熟的智慧，使它以后更适于接受他种色染。实在讲来，除非把自然哲学贯彻并应用到个别科学上去，又把个别科学再带回到自然哲学上来，那就请人们不必期待在科学当中，特别是在实用的一部分科学当中，会有多大进步。因为缺少了这个，则天文学、光学、音乐学、一些机械性方术以及医学自身——还不止此，人们将更觉诧异的是连道德哲学、政治哲学和逻辑科学也都在内——一并都将缺乏深刻性，而只在事物的表面上和花样上滑溜过去。因为这些个别科学在一经分了工而建立起来之后，已是不再受到自然哲学的营养的了；而其实，自然哲学从它对于运动、光线、声音、物体的结构和装配以及人的情感和理智的知觉等等的真正思辨当中，是应当能够抽获对个别科学灌注新鲜力量和生机的方法的。这样看来，科学既已与它的根子分离开来，则它之不复生长也就毫无足怪了。①克钦指出，前者无疑是指在牛津书斋中的罗杰·培根，后者或许是指笛卡儿（Descartes）。 eight one 科学过去之所以仅有极小的进步，还有一个重大的、有力的原因，就是下面这点。 大凡走路，如果目标本身没有摆正，要想取一条正确的途径是不可能的。科学的真正的、合法的目标说来不外是这样：把新的发现和新的力量惠赠给人类生活。但对于这一点，绝大多数人却没有感到，他们只是雇佣化的和论道式的；只偶然有智慧较敏、又贪图荣誉的工匠投身于新发明，而他这样做时多半是以自己的财产为牺牲。 一般说来，人们绝无以扩增方术和科学的总量为己任之意，所以即在手边已有的总量当中，他们所取和所求的也不外那对他们的演讲有用，能使他们得利、得名或取得类此便宜的一点东西。即使在大群之中居然有人以诚实的爱情为科学而追求科学，他的对象也还是宁在五花八门的思辨和学说而不在对真理的严肃而严格的搜求。又即使偶然有人确以诚意来追求真理，他所自任的却又不外是那种替早经发现的事物安排原因以使人心和理解力得到满足的真理，而并不是那种足以导致事功的新保证和原理的新光亮的真理。这样说来，既然科学的目的还没有摆对，那么人们在办法上之发生错误就不足为奇了。 八二 正如人们已把科学的目的和目标摆错了，同样，即令他们把目标摆对了，他们所选取的走向那里的道路又是完全错误而走不通的。谁要正确地把情况想一下，就会看到这样一件很可诧异的事：从来竟不曾有一个人认真地从事于借一种布置井然的实验程序径直从感官出发来替人类理解力开辟一条道路；而竟把一切不是委弃于传说的迷雾，就是委弃于争论的漩涡，再不然就是委弃于机会的波动以及模糊而杂乱的经验的迷宫。现在，让任何人沉静地和辛勤地考查一下人们在对事物进行查究和发现时所惯走的是什么道路，他必定会看出，首先是一个极其简单而质朴的发现方法，一个最通常的方法。它不外是这样：当人们从事于发现什么事物时，他首先要找出和看一看别人以前对这事物所曾发表过的一切说法，然后自己就开始沉思，以其智慧的激荡和活动来吁请，亦可说是来召唤他自己的元精来给以神示。这种方法是完全没有基础的，是只建筑在一些意见上面而为意见所左右的。 其次，又或许有人把逻辑①召进来替他做这发现。但逻辑除在名称上外是与这事无关的。因为逻辑的发明并不在发现出方术所由以构成的一些原则和主要的原理，而只在发现出看来是协合于那些原则和原理的一些事物。假如你是更好奇一些，更诛求一些和更好事一些，硬要去追问逻辑是怎样检定和发明原则或始基原理，则它的答复是众所皆知的：它只是把你推到你对于每一个方术的原则所不得不有的信任上去。①本节中的“逻辑”，在原书中均为dialectica。——译者最后还剩下单纯经验这一条道路。这种经验，如果是自行出现的，就叫作偶遇；如果是着意去寻求的，就叫作实验。 但这种经验只不过是如常言所说的脱箍之帚，只不过是一种暗中摸索，一如处在黑暗中的人摸触其周围一切以冀碰得一条出路；而其实他不如等到天明，或点起一支蜡烛，然后再走，要好得多。真正的经验的方法则恰与此相反，它是首先点起蜡烛，然后借蜡烛为手段来照明道路；这就是说，它首先从适当地整列过和类编过的经验出发，①而不是从随心硬凑的经验或者漫无定向的经验出发，②由此抽获原理，然后再由业经确立的原理进至新的实验；这甚至象神谕在其所创造的总体上的动作一样，那可不是没有秩序和方法的。③这样看来，人们既经根本误入歧途，不是把经验完全弃置不顾，就是迷失于经验之中而在迷宫里来回乱走，那么，科学途程之至今还未得完整地遵行也就无足深怪了。而一个安排妥当的方法呢，那就能够以一条无阻断的路途通过经验的丛林引达到原理的旷地。①参看一卷一○二条。——译者②随心硬凑的经验，原文为praepostera，克钦注释说，这是说人心先定了主见，然后去找适合于它的事例；一卷六三条在批判亚里斯多德的实验时对此有详细的论述。 关于所谓漫无定向的经验，参看一卷七○条第一点。——译者③参看一卷七○条末节。——译者八三 还有一种见解或虚骄之气，虽系屹立已久但确很虚妄而有害，也无端地加强了上述的毛病。这就是：人们认为，若与那种局于感官、限于物质的一些实验和特殊的东西保持长久而密切的接触，就有损于人心的尊严；特别是因为那些东西要搜求是费力的，要沉思是不值的，要讲述是粗俗讨厌的，要实践是不够旷放的，而其数目又是无限，其精微处又是过于纤细。这样，对于经验，且不说是予以放弃或处理不善，乃竟是以鄙视的态度而加以排斥；因而最后就走到了这样一种地步：真正的道路不只是被放弃了，而竟是被锁断和堵绝了。 八四 人们之所以在科学方面停顿不前，还由于他们象中了盅术一样被崇古的观念，被哲学中所谓伟大人物的权威，和被普遍同意这三点所禁制住了。关于最后一点，我在前面已经讲过。①说到所谓古，人们对它所怀抱的见解是很粗疏而且无当于这字眼本身的。 因为只有世界的老迈年龄才算是真正的古，而这种高龄正为我们自己的时代所享有，并不属于古人所生活过的世界早期；那早期对于我们说来虽是较老，从世界自身说来却是较幼的。②我们向老年人而不向青年人求教有关人类事物的更多的知识和较成熟的判断，因为老年人经验丰富，所见所闻所思想的事物都是多而且博，这是很对的；同样，我们也有理由希望从我们的这个年代——只要它知道自己的力量并愿奋发表现出来——得到远多于从古代所能得到的东西，因为它正是这个世界的较高年龄，其中已堆积和贮藏着许多实验和观察。①见一卷七七条。——译者②这点见解在培根虽非引述而来，也或许并非袭自前人，但在培根以前或同时的一些作家中确有不少所见略同的说法。其中可指称的，有吉尔伯忒、伽利略、堪帕奈拉（Campanella）所着“Apologiapro Galileo”一书和勃鲁诺（Giordano Bruno）所着“Cenadi Cenere”一书。至于以历史早期为世界的幼年之说，更见于伊斯德拉（Esdras）的着作第二卷；又，一五四六年出版的开斯曼（Casmann）所着“Problemata Marina”一书中也有此说。（克钦又指出，塞尼卡〔Seneca〕亦有较晚时期才真是较老年龄的想法，曾为罗杰·培根在“Opus Majus”一书中所称引。——译者）在我们的时代，由于人们的经常的远航和远游，自然中可能对哲学引进新光亮的许多事物已经摆明和发现出来，这一点也不能是毫无所谓的。很明确，在我们这时代，当物质的地球的方域——就是说，大地、海洋以及星宿等方域——业经大开和敞启，而我们智力的地球若仍自封于旧日一些发现的狭窄界限之内，那实在是很可差的了。 至于说到权威一层，人们若如此折服于作家而却否认时间的权利，这只表明他智力薄弱；因为时间乃是众作家的作家，甚且是一切权威的作家。有人把真理称作时间之女，①而不说是权威之女，这是很对的。①见吉里阿斯（Aulus Gellius）所着“Noctes Atticoe”一书第十二卷第十一章。 这样看来，人们的力量既经这样被古老、权威和同意这三种盅术所禁制，他们于是就变得虚萎无力（象中了魔魇的人一样），不能追伴事物的性质，这也就不足诧异了。①①这里的分节，是译者擅自处理的。——译者八五 指使人们的努力满足而停止于现有发现的还不止上述崇古、权威和同意三点，另外还有一点就是对于人类所久已保有的一些事功本身的赞赏。因为人们看到机械性方术所提供人们利用的供应是怎样繁多和美好，自然会多倾向于赞赏人类的富有而少有感于他之所缺乏；就不复想到人们对于自然的创造性的观察和动作（这些乃是那一切繁多花样的生命和动因）实在不多而且也不是深入掘得的；也就不复想到其余一切能事不过只是耐心以及手和工具的精微而规矩的运动——就以制造钟表（当作例子）来说，这无疑是一件精微而细密的工作：其机轮似在模仿天体的轨道，其往复有序的运动似在模仿动物的脉息；可是即使象这样的工作，它所依据的有关自然的原理也不过只是一两条。 再说，你如果就着文化性方术的精化程度，或甚至亦就着那有关对自然质体加工的机械性方术的精化程度来考察一下；具体地说，关于前者，就是把天文学中关于天体运动的发现，音乐学中关于谐音学的发现和文法学中关于字母系列中各个字母的发现（中国人至今还未采用）等类之事观察一下；关于机械性事物者，就是把拔克斯（Bacchus）和西律斯（Ceres）①的工作上的发现即制酒和制面包的方术的发现，关于珍馐美味的发现，以及关于蒸馏法和类似东西的发现等等也观察一下；并且与此同时你如果再想一想这些方术之达到现有的完美程度系经过何等漫长的时间（除蒸馏法外，它们都是很古的②），再想一想（如上面所讲关于钟表的话）这些方术所借于对自然的观察和有关自然的原理者是何等之少，还想一想这些方术之得以发明又是怎样轻易地和明显地出于偶然的提示；你如果这样考察一番，你对人类的情况就将停止惊叹，而相反倒会发生悯伶，因为你看到了在这多岁月的进程当中方术和发明方面竟有这大的饥荒和歉收。可是以上所提到的这些发现却还是在哲学和知识性方术之前的。这样看来，假如必须说出实情，就应当说，当唯理的和教条的科学一经开始，那有用事功的发现就告结束了。①拔克斯是希腊神话中的酒神，其形象是坐一辆驯虎所驾的车子，手执一条缠满了常春藤叶子的长矛。西律斯在希腊神话中称为地母，是司农的女神，凡大地之上的一切谷物果实皆她所赐。——译者②据说坡森（Porson）曾肯定，蒸馏法是古人早就知道的。狄汤（Dutens）在《Originedes Decouvertes》一书中亦主张此说。 再看，假如有人又从作坊转入图书馆而惊异于所见书籍门类之浩繁，那么只须请他把它们的实质和内容仔细检查一下，他的惊异一定就会调转方向。因为，他一经看到那些无尽的重复，一经看到人们老是在说着和做着前人所已经说过和已经做过的东西，他就将不复赞叹书籍的多样性，反要惊异于那直到现在还盘踞并占有人心的一些题目是何等地贫乏。 假如他再往下把那些可称怪异而不妥靠的方术看一看，把炼金家们和幻术家们的工作更切近地考察一下，则他或将简直不知应当对他们笑还是应当对他们哭。炼金家是在培育着永久的希望，事情不成时，总是归咎于自己的某种错误：不是恐怕自己没有充分了解这个方术或其着作者的语意（因而他就转向对古法和秘传的追求），就是恐怕自己在制炼中在分量上或时间上有毫厘分秒的差池（因而他就把试验无限地重复下去）；而同时，当他在试验过程的一些机会中居然达到一点新的或尚属有用的结论时，他又认真地把它们看作是大功将至，以它们来餍足其如饥如渴的心，把它们极度地张大起来，而尽将余事寄于希望之中。诚然，炼金家们不是没有许多的发现，不是没有带给人们以有用的发明；不过他们的情节却如寓言中所讲的一个老人的故事：那老人以其葡萄园中的窖金遗给诸子，而故称不知确切地点，诸子于是就辛勤地从事于翻掘园地，虽然没有找到什么金子，可是葡萄却由于这次翻掘而变得更加丰茂了。 再说到自然幻术的一流人物，他们是以交感和反感①来解释一切事物的；这乃是以极无聊的和最怠惰的构想来把奇异的性德和动作强赋于质体。假如他们也曾产出一些事功，那也只是旨在标奇取誉而不是旨在得用致果的一些东西。②至于说到迷信的幻术（假如我们也必须说到它的话），特别应当指出，它不过只是那些荒诞迷信的方术在各民族、各时代以及各宗教中所曾从事过或玩耍过的某一特项而已。这些都是可以揭过不谈的。①关于培根对交感和反感的见解以及他自己所讲的自然的感应性，参看二卷五○条第六点。——译者②关于培根对自然幻术的见解，参看一卷七三条、二卷九条和三一条末节。——译者综上所述，人们对于丰富的见解正是形成贫乏的原因，这也是没有什么奇怪的。①①这里的分节，是译者擅自处理的。——译者八六 进一步讲，人们这种对于知识和方术的赞赏——这种赞赏本身是很脆弱而且近于幼稚的——又被那处理和传授科学的人们的一种手法和造作所加强着。这就是说，他们在把科学提到世人眼前时系如此出以虚夸和卖弄，又如此加以装扮和粉饰，竟把科学弄得真似各部齐全，已告完工。你若看一看它们的方法和门类，它们确似已经应有尽有，包罗其所能包。虽然这些门类是内容窳败，仅如空箱，但在常人看来总是表现着一个完整科学的形式和计划的。应当指出，那最早和最古的寻求真理的人们却是带着较好的信条，也带着较好的前程，乐于把他们从对事物的思辨中所集得的并且意在储以备用的知识装在语录里面，也就是说，装在简短而零散的语句里面，而并不用造作的方法编串起来，也不号称或自命包罗了全部方术。不过若就现状言现状，人们既把传给他们的东西当作早臻完美全备，就不复在其中寻求进步，那是并无足怪的。 八七 还有一层，这些旧体系的信誉又在新体系提倡者的虚妄和轻浮的衬托之下而获得了不少的增添，特别以在自然哲学的活动的、实践的部门中为尤甚。世间历来不乏侈谈者流和梦呓之辈，部分出于轻信，部分出于欺骗，在人类面前许了不少愿，说什么能使人延年益寿，能使人减少病痛，能修整残缺肢体，能迷骗感官；又宣称有方术足以约束和刺激感情，足以启发和提高智能，足以变化质体，足以任意加强和放大各种运动，足以在空气中造成印象和引起变化，足以把天体力量引取下来而加以处理；又宣称还有方术能预言未来事物，能把远处的事物搬近，能使隐秘的事物显现；以及其他种种。 关于这些胡吹的许愿家，我们可以大致无误地这样来论断：在哲学方面，他们的这种虚妄与真正方术之间的差别，正如在历史方面，该撒（Julius Caesar）或亚力山大大帝（Alexander the Great）的业绩与高卢的亚马地（Amadisde Gaul）①或不列颠的亚脱（Arthur of Britain）②的业绩是不可同日而语一样。当然因为这些杰出的将军们确曾实际做出了比那些虚构的英雄们在杜撰中所做到的还要伟大的事情，还特别因为那些事情又是以并非荒诞怪异的行动为手段和方法来做出的。 当然，真正历史的信誉若因其有时曾为寓言所伤、所诬而遭到贬抑，那是不公平的。 但同时我们也要知道，一些新的拟议，特别是当它们连带涉及新的事功之时，由于那些骗子们过去亦曾作过同样企图之故就引起人们成见上的很大反感而遭到反对，那也是不足怪的；因为那些骗子们的过度虚妄以及由此而引起的厌恶，对于一切真正从事这种企图的人的伟大用心，迄今还是有其破坏性的影响的。①“高卢的亚马地”是中世纪一部有名的散文体传奇，第一版于一五一九年印行。 本事概略如下：号称“狮骑士”的亚马地爱上了大不列颠的公主欧吕安娜（Oriana），可是她已被许婚于罗马皇帝，而亚马地又救公主于难，于是情敌发生了冲突。罗马皇帝率军舰来战，战败被杀，亚马地取得了胜利。——译者②传说中的亚脱十五岁就做了不列颠王，正当第六世纪撒克逊人（Saxon）入侵的年代，他率其骑士战胜攻取，开疆拓土，其英雄业绩遂汇为《圆桌故事》（“The RoundTable”）一书；诗人探尼生（Tennyson）曾为此作《亚脱王之歌》。——译者八八 使知识受制更甚的还在于人类气魄的渺小及其所任工作的微细和琐屑。而尤其坏的是，这气魄渺小本身却还带着一种傲慢和自尊的神气。 首先，我们看到，在一切方术中都有一个共同的并已成为很熟习的伎俩，就是作者总把自己方术的弱点诿责于自然，这就是说，凡为其方术所不能达到的，他就以那个方术自身为权威断言那在自然中是不可能的。当然，如使各该方术自任裁判，那就没有一个方术能被判处。再看，现在时髦的哲学又在抚育着某些教义，其宗旨（如果审慎地考查起来）乃在对人们劝说，凡困难的事物，凡足以支配和征服自然的事物，都是不能期之于方术或人的劳力的；如前面所论日热火热不同类的学说，以及关于混合工作的学说，就是属于此例。 这些事情，正确地看来，完全导向对人类权力的无理限制，导向一种经过考虑的和出于人为的绝望；这不仅搅害了希望的预测，并且还切断了努力的动脉和鞭策，把经验本身的许多机会都抛掷掉；①而所以致此的原由，则在于人们把自己的方术认为已臻尽善尽美，也在于人们有一种糟糕的虚荣心，要使人相信，凡迄今尚未发现和尚不了解的事物在此后也永不能发现和永不能了解。 即使有人相当地投身于事实，努力要找出一点新的东西，他们的目的和意愿却又局限于仅仅查究和做出某一发现而不傍及其他，如磁石的性质，海潮的涨落，天体的系统，以及诸如此类的事物，看来多少有些奥秘而一向又未理出什么成绩的事物。而其实，要仅就某一事物自身来查究该事物的性质，这乃是最笨不过的做法。因为同一性质可以在某些事物当中是隐而不露，而在另一些事物当中则是显而易见；正因如此，于是在前者就产生惊奇，在后者则刺激不起注意。即如我们在黏合性这一性质上所见的情况就是这样：在木头或石头当中，黏合性是看不出的，我们也就在“坚实”这一名称之下将它滑放过去，也不进一步探讨连续性的分离或分解又为何得以避免；而关于水泡，则因我们有见于它形成了薄膜，又很古怪地形成了半圆，以致连续性的分解得以暂时避免，遂认为是极尽微妙之事。总之，事实上有些在某些事物中看来是隐秘的而在另些事物中则属显着而周知的性质，人们的实验和思想若永远仅仅投在前一些事物上，那么他就永远不会认识到其中的这些性质。①关于以上各点，参看一卷七五条。——译者但是一般地说来，在机械学方面，如果有人只消把一些旧的发现精化一下，装饰一下；或者把几个合为一个；或者把它们装配得更合于实用；或者把作品的容积改得比前较大或较小一些；或者有其他类此的情形，那也就算是新的发现了。 这样看来，人们既是自足和自喜于这样琐细而带有稚气的工作，甚至还想象自己在其中已经是在努力追求着，假如还不是已经完成着，什么了不起的大事，那么，高贵的和对人类有价值的发明之至今不得出现也就不足为奇了。