Chapter 7 6. Meditation on the First Philosophy

Also known as "On the Existence of God and the Real Difference Between the Soul and Body of Man" introduction The term first philosophy was first coined by Aristotle, and the author followed Aristotle's usage, and also called the knowledge about the basic principles of philosophy "first philosophy".Questions about God and the soul are fundamental questions of philosophy.The existence of God can not only be deduced from the Bible, but also can be proved through natural reason, but only through natural reason can more people be convinced.The knowledge of God comes not from elsewhere but from ourselves, from a simple consideration of the nature of our minds.The purpose of this article is to prove the existence of God and the immortality of the soul so that those who do not believe in religion will believe without doubt in the existence of God.But the God the author refers to is the God of epistemology, not the God in the Bible; the soul is a kind of cognitive subject, not the kind of soul saved or punished by God.The six meditations in this article elaborate the author's basic philosophical propositions in detail, and are one of the important treatises on the study of Descartes' philosophical thoughts.

The first thing that a meditative theory can arouse doubts is because I have long felt that I have accepted as true a mass of false opinions since my infancy, and that I have since established them on some very dubious principles. Nothing can be raised without being very dubious, very unreliable, so I think that if I want to establish something solid and permanent in science, I have to seriously spend my life Clearing out all the opinions that I have always believed to be true, and starting again fundamentally will not work.But the scope of the work seemed too great to me, and I waited until I had reached a sufficiently mature age, so mature that I could no longer hope that there would be a time after that when it would be more appropriate to carry out the work, This has caused me to procrastinate so long, until I thought that if I did not spend the rest of my life in action, but in thinking, I would be making a great mistake.

And now, having freed my mind from all distractions, and enjoying a steady rest in a quiet solitude, I shall come seriously and freely to make a generalization of all my old opinions. liquidation.However, in order to achieve this purpose, it is not necessary to prove these old views wrong, because then I may never achieve the purpose.Reason tells me, however, that I should take no more faith in what is not entirely certain than what I think is manifestly false, and that it is enough for me to find even the slightest doubt in them. Throw them all away.This way, I don't need to bring them in and check them one by one, because that would be a never-ending job.But the tearing down of the foundations must bring the rest of the edifice down with it, so I will start first with the principles on which all my old views were based.

Hitherto, whatever I have accepted as truest and most reliable, I have received from or through the senses.I have sometimes felt, however, that these senses are deceitful; and prudence never fully trusts that which once deceives us. But though the senses sometimes deceive us about things that are indistinct and remote, there may be many others, though we know them through the senses, and have no reason to doubt them: here I am, for instance, sitting by the fire Beside, wearing an inner robe, holding this paper in both hands, and things like that.How can I deny that these hands and this body are mine? Unless perhaps I am compared with those madmen whose brains are so disturbed and clouded by the black vapor of bile that they often They fancied themselves kings; though they were naked, they often imagined themselves in red and gold; or they fancied themselves basins, jugs, or that their bodies were glass.But why, those are madmen, and if I were compared with them, I would be no less absurd than they are.

Nevertheless, I must take into account here that I am human, and that I sleep and appear in dreams in exactly the same and sometimes even more absurd ways that madmen do when they are awake.How many times have I dreamed at night that I am in this place, clothed, by the fire, though naked under my bed!I now really think that I am not looking at this paper with sleepy eyes, and that my shaking head is not dizzy, I stretch out this hand deliberately and consciously, I feel this hand, and appear in The situation in the dream seems not so clear, nor so clear.But when I think about it, I recall that I have often been deceived by such false appearances in my sleep, and when I think of this, it becomes clear to me that there are no sure signs, no fairly reliable signs that can lead to It clearly distinguishes between waking and sleeping.This startled me so much that I almost believed I was sleeping.

Let us now assume, then, that we are asleep, that all these individual instances, that we open our eyes, that we shake our heads, that we reach out our hands, etc., are mere illusions; The whole body may not be what we see it to be.Nevertheless, at least it must be admitted that the things that appear in our dreams are like books, they can only be made by imitating something real, so that at least the ordinary things, such as eyes, head, hands, and the rest of the body Parts are not imaginary things, but real, existing things.For, to be honest, when painters paint mermaids and sheep with the utmost skill and grotesque shapes, they cannot, after all, add to them entirely novel shapes and qualities; or even if their imagination reaches a level of absurdity enough to concoct something so novel that we have never seen anything like it, and so that their work presents to us a sense of pure fiction. Come with something absolutely unreal.But at least the colors that make up such things should always be real.In the same way, even if these ordinary things, such as eyes, heads, hands, and the like, are imaginary, it must be admitted that there are simpler and more general things that are real and exist, and by the mixture of these things, No more, no less, just as the mixture of certain real colors forms all the images of the things that exist in our minds, whether these things are real and real, or imaginary and grotesque.The properties of bodies in general, and their extension, and the shape, magnitude, or magnitude, and number of things of extension are of this class;

That is why we may not be wrong to conclude from what has been said above that physics, astronomy, medicine, and all other sciences which deal with complex things of all kinds are dubious and unreliable; Science, and other sciences of a similar nature, since they deal with very simple and general things, without much regard for their existence in nature, contain something certain.For, whether I am awake or asleep, two and three always add up to the number five, and a square can never have more than four sides, and such obvious truths as this do not seem to raise any doubt. possibility of error or unreliability.

Nevertheless, it has long been in my mind that there is a God, who is all-powerful, who created and brought me into being as I am.But who can assure me that this God has not done this, that there is no earth, no sky, no extended body, no shape, no size, no place, and yet I have the feeling of all these things , and all of these exist only as I see them?Also, just as I sometimes judge other people to be wrong even about what they think they know best, so it may be that God intended me to add two and three, or count the sides of a square, Or err on the side of judging what's easier (if one can think of anything easier than that).But maybe God didn't mean to let me get that wrong, because he's said to be the best.Nevertheless, if it is contrary to his goodness to make me so that I always be wrong, it seems absolutely contrary to his goodness to allow me to be wrong sometimes, so I cannot doubt that He will allow me to do this.  Here perhaps someone would rather deny the existence of a God so powerful than believe that everything else is unreliable.But let us not yet oppose them, but assume on their side that all that is said here about a God is nonsense.Nevertheless, whatever they presume of my condition and existence, they ascribe it to some fate or fate, or to chance, or to a succession and union of things. Anyway, since blunders and mistakes are imperfections, it is certain that the more incompetent authors they assign to my sources, the more likely I am to be imperfect so that I am always wrong.Of course I have no answer to such reasons; but I am compelled to admit that there is not a single opinion which I had earlier believed to be true which I cannot now doubt, not from indiscretion or rashness, but from compulsion. Strong, well-thought-out reasons.Therefore, if I want to find something permanent and certain in science, I must henceforth not judge these ideas any more than I do things that are immediately wrong, no. They add more trust.

But it is not enough merely to make these notices, I must also be careful to remember them; They have the right, let them take possession of my mind against my will, and become almost masters over my convictions.As long as I consider them as they really are, that, as I have just pointed out, they are somehow dubious, yet quite probable, there is all the more reason to believe them. Without denying them, I can never break the habit of acknowledging and trusting them.It is for this reason, I think, that if I conversely try to deceive myself by pretending that all these opinions are false and fanciful, until, after weighing them over and over, they do not overwhelm my own. If my mind is biased to one side or the other, so that my judgment will not be swayed by bad habits in the future, and I will not abandon the correct path that can lead to understanding the truth and go astray, then I will be more cautious.Because I really believe that there can be neither danger nor mistakes on this road, and I really believe that I cannot allow too much mistrust today, because the problem now is not one of action, but only of contemplation and knowledge.I shall therefore assume, instead of a true God (who is the supreme source of truth), some monster, as cunning and deceitful as he is, who has exhausted his wits to deceive me.I want to think that heaven, earth, air, colours, shapes, sounds, and all external things we see are but some illusions and deceptions by which he deceived me into credulity.I want to see myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no senses of any kind, and falsely believe that I have these things.I will hold firmly to this thought, and if by this means I do not know any truth, at least I am capable of not judging.It is for this reason that I take care not to believe anything wrong, and prepare me mentally for all the cunning of this great liar, so that he will never be able to force anything on me, no matter what he does. How powerful, how cunning.

But this plan was very laborious, and due to a certain inertia, I fell back into my usual way of life unconsciously.Like a slave who enjoys a fictitious liberty in his sleep, and when he begins to suspect that his liberty is but a dream and dreads waking up, he complicates these pleasurable visions in order to be deceived for a long time In the same way, I myself have fallen back into my old ideas without knowing it, and I am afraid to wake up from this stupor, and I am afraid that the hard work that will follow after this restful tranquility will not only fail. What light did it bring to me in understanding the truth? On the contrary, even all the dark clouds that had just been stirred up over these difficult problems could not clear it up.

The Second Meditation On the Nature of the Spirit in Man, and on the Easier Knowing of Spirits Than Bodies My meditations of yesterday filled my mind with so many doubts that I shall never be able to forget them hereafter.But I can't see any way to get rid of them, it's like falling into a very deep pool all at once, and being so frightened that I can neither keep my feet on the bottom nor swim up and float myself to the surface .Nevertheless, I will try to continue on the path I have traveled yesterday, avoiding anything I can imagine that is a little bit dubious, as if I knew it was absolutely wrong.I'm going to keep going on this road until I know for sure that there is nothing reliable in this world. Archimedes only asked for a fixed and reliable point to move the earth from its original position to another place.In the same way, if I am fortunate enough to find even one certainty, I have a right to great hopes.So I assumed that everything I saw was false.I persuaded myself to treat as if none of the things my false memory offered me had ever existed.I think I have no senses whatsoever, and that body, shape, extension, motion, and place are but figments of my mind.So what can be considered to be true at first?Maybe there is nothing more than nothing reliable in the world. But how do I know that there is anything beyond what I have just judged to be unreliable?Is there no God, or some other power, to put these thoughts in my heart?This is not necessarily the case; for perhaps I can generate these thoughts myself.So at least I, am I not something?But I have denied that I have senses and a body.Nevertheless, I hesitate, because what conclusions can be drawn from this?Am I so dependent on my body and senses that I can't do without them?But I have convinced myself that there is nothing, no sky, no earth, no spirit, and no body; have I not also convinced myself that I do not exist?Absolutely not; if I've ever convinced myself of something, or merely thought of something, there can be no doubt that I exist.But there was a very powerful, very cunning liar, I don't know what, who was always trying to trick me with all his tricks.Therefore, if he deceives me, there can be no doubt that I exist; and he can deceive me as much as he pleases, and he will never make me nothing if I think of me as something.And so, after having considered all this well above, and having examined all things carefully, the conclusion must be drawn at last, and must be taken as certain, that the proposition that there is I, I exist, every time When I say it, or think it in my mind, the proposition must be true. But I still don't quite know what I am who really knows I exist, so I must be careful in the future not to take something else The more reliable and the more obvious is mistaken in this perception.It is for this reason that, before I have the above thoughts, I reconsider what I used to think I was, and I remove from my old views everything that can be impacted by the reasons I have just stated. rooted out, so that what remains happens to be entirely reliable and certain.So what did I think I was?No doubt, I thought I was alone.But what is a person?Am I talking about a rational animal?Of course not, because after that, I have to ask what is an animal and what is rational, and in this way we will fall into an endless number of other more complicated and troublesome problems without knowing it. and I don't want to waste the little time and leisure I have left obsessing over details like this.But here I am going to reflect further on those thoughts that were formerly born in me (thoughts that were only born out of my own nature when I was thinking about my existence), and I first regarded myself as a person with a face. , hand, arm, and such a whole machine of bone and flesh, as seen from a corpse, which I once called the body.Besides, I thought that I ate, walked, felt, thought, and I ascribed all my actions to the soul; Come to think of it, that's what I imagined it to be, something very thin, fine, like a gust of wind, or a flame, or a very thin gas, that penetrated and spread to the coarser parts of me inside.As for body, I never doubted its nature; for I thought I knew it very clearly, and if I were to explain it according to the concepts I then had, I would describe it thus: Bodies, I mean everything that can be defined by a shape; it can be contained somewhere, it can fill a space, and from there exclude every other body; it can be by touch, or by sight, or by hearing, Either by taste, or by smell; it can be moved in several ways, not by itself, but by something outside it, by which it is touched and pressed, and thus moved.For such superiorities as the powers of automatism, feeling, and thinking, etc., which I never thought should be ascribed to the properties of bodies, were, on the contrary, very much to me to see such functions appearing in certain bodies. Strange. Now, however, I assume that there is some extremely powerful, and if you may say so, extremely vicious and cunning being, who uses all his strength and cunning to deceive me, then what am I?Can I be sure that I possess a little of what I have just ascribed to objectness?I pondered further on this, I went over these things in my mind, and I didn't find any of them that I could say existed in my mind without me needing to enumerate them all.So let’s take those attributes of the soul as an example, and see if any of them are in my heart.The first two are eating and walking. If I really have no body, I can neither walk nor eat.The other is feeling, but without a body, you can’t feel, unless I thought that I felt a lot of things in my dreams before, but after waking up, I realized that I didn’t actually feel.The other is thinking. Now I think thinking is an attribute of me, only it cannot be separated from me.With me, I exist, which is reliable; but how long?I exist as long as I think; for if I cease to think, it is probable that I cease to be at the same time.I now deny anything that is not necessarily true, and therefore strictly speaking I am only a thinking thing, that is to say, a spirit, an intellect, or a reason, the meaning of these names was unknown to me before.Then I am a real thing, a real thing; but what kind of thing is it?I said: it is a thinking thing.or what?I'm going to use my imagination again to see if I'm something a little bit more than what people call a human body made up of limbs; I'm not a thin, pervasive, permeating the air in my limbs; I am not the wind, nor the breath, nor the vapour, nor anything else I can invent and imagine, for I have assumed that none of these things exist and, without changing this assumption, I feel Doesn't prevent me from actually knowing that I'm a thing. But can it also be the same: those things which I assume do not exist because I do not know them are no different from what I know.I have no idea.I will not discuss this point now, I can only judge those things that I know: I have realized that I exist, and now I ask what is the self that has recognized that I exist.But this conception and knowledge of myself depends, strictly speaking, neither upon those things of which I do not yet know the existence, nor upon any imaginary figment and fabrication, which is quite reliable. of.Moreover, the words fiction and imagination show that I am wrong; for if I imagine myself as a thing, then in fact I am fiction, because imagination is nothing else but to think of a physical thing. shape or image.Now that I know for sure that I exist, I know also that all those images, and in general everything that one ascribes to objects, are likely to be nothing more than dreams or fantasies.Second, I see clearly that if I say I am going to engage my imagination in order to see more clearly who I am, it is the same as saying I am awake now and I see something solid and real, but Since I did not see clearly enough, it was equally irrational that I should sleep on purpose so that my dreams would make it more real and more obvious to me.In this way I realize with certainty that what I can conceive imaginatively does not belong to my knowledge of myself; It is necessary to make it stop comprehending in this way, change the course, and take another path. So what am I?is a thinking thing.What is a thinking thing?That is to say, a thing that is doubting, apprehending, affirming, denying, willing, unwilling, imagining, and feeling.Of course, if all these things belonged to my nature, it would not be less.But why are these things not part of my nature?Don't I just doubt almost everything, yet know and grasp certain things, confirm and affirm that only these things are true, deny everything else, would like and wish to know more, don't want to be deceived, and even sometimes can't help Imagine many things, like the one that feels many things through the medium of some organs of the body?Is there not one thing in all of this that is as real as that there is I, that I do exist? Is it not in these attributes that I am always asleep, and that the One who makes me exist tries to deceive me with all his might? Is there no one that can be separated from my thinking, or can it be said that it is separated from myself?For it is so obvious, I am doubting, understanding, and hoping, that there is no need to add anything here to explain it.And of course I also have the ability to imagine, because even if it may happen (as I once assumed) that what I imagine is not real, this ability to imagine is still real. In my heart, and made a part of my thinking.In short, I am the one who is feeling, that is to say, as if receiving and knowing things through the sense organs, for in fact I see light, hear sound, and feel heat.But someone will say to me: these phenomena are false, I am sleeping.Even if it is so, at least I seem to feel that I can see it, hear it, and it is hot. This is always true.Really, this is what I call feeling in my mind, which in the proper sense is thinking.From here I started to see who I am a little more clearly than before. But I can't help believing that I know more clearly those corporeal things whose images are made by my thinking and which fall on the senses than I, who do not fall on the imagination and don't know which part, although I It is indeed a very strange thing that what is doubtful, what is outside of me, should be known to me more clearly and more easily than what is true, true, and of my own nature.But I saw what it was: my mind was wandering, and I could not confine myself within the correct limits of truth.Let us let him loose the rein once more, so that we can take the rein slowly and properly later on, so that we can more easily control and control him. Let us begin by considering that which is most recognizable, and which we believe to be most clearly understood, that is, objects which we touch and see.I don't mean objects in general (because the notion of "general" is usually vague), but consider a particular object.Take, for example, a piece of wax just out of the hive: it has not lost the sweetness of the honey it contains, retains a little of the fragrance it has picked up from the flowers, its color, shape, size are distinct, its It's hard, cool, easy to touch, and if you tap it, it makes a little noise.In short, everything that can make people clearly understand an object is here. But, as I speak, someone takes it to the fire: what remains is gone, the aroma is gone, its color has changed, its shape has changed, its size has increased, it It became liquid, it was too hot to touch, and it didn't make any sound even if you knocked on it.Does the original wax continue to exist after this change has occurred?It must be admitted that it continues to exist, and no one can deny this.So what was it that I knew so clearly on this piece of wax before?Of course it cannot be what I feel on this wax through the medium of the senses, for everything pertaining to taste, smell, sight, and hearing is changed, but the original wax continues to exist.Maybe it's this thing I'm thinking of now, that is to say wax, not this sweetness of honey, nor this scent of flowers, nor this white color, nor this shape, nor this sound, Rather, it is merely a body which has just been represented under those forms and which is now represented under other forms.But what, exactly, was I imagining when I took it in this way?Let us ponder the matter over, and remove everything that is not wax, and see what remains.Of course, there are only things that are extended, flexible, and changeable.So what does it mean to be flexible and changeable?Am I imagining that this round piece of wax can become square and from square to triangular?Of course not, no, because I understand it as possible to accept countless changes like this, but I can use my imagination to recognize countless changes one by one, so the concept of wax I have cannot be imagined. function to do it. So what is this extension?Doesn't it also not recognize it?For it grows as the wax melts, grows still larger when the wax is completely melted, and grows still larger as the heat increases.I should not have grasped wax clearly and as it really is, had it not occurred to me that wax is capable of accepting, by extension, more variety than I can imagine.So I must confess what this piece of wax is that I cannot even comprehend with my imagination, only my intellect can comprehend it.I mean this particular piece of wax, because as for the general wax, it's more obvious.So what is this wax that only the intellect or the spirit can comprehend?Of course it was the piece of wax that I saw, that I touched, that I imagined, that I first knew.Note, however, that the perception of it, or the action by which we perceive it, is not seeing, nor touching, nor imagining, never, though it seemed so before, but merely seeing with the mind, which This inspection can be one-sided, vague, as it was before, or clear and distinct; as it is now, according to how much or less I pay attention to those things that are in it or make up it. But I cannot be too surprised when I consider how feeble my mind is, and how unconsciously it tends to be wrong.For even though I consider all this in my own mind without words, words limit me, and I almost let the words of common speech introduce errors; for if people bring us the original wax, we say we see that this is A piece of wax, rather than we judge that it is that piece of wax, since it has the same color and the same shape.From here, if I had not happened to watch passers-by in the street from a window, and when I saw them, I could not but say that I saw people, as I said I saw wax, then I would almost conclude that : People know wax with their eyes, not just with their spirit.But what did I see from the window?No more than some hats and coats, and under the hats and coats may be some ghosts or some disguised people, who can move only by springs.But I judged that these were real people, so that, by the judgment of my mind alone, I understood what I thought I saw with my eyes. If a person wants to improve his understanding to a level higher than that of ordinary people, he should consider it shameful to find fault with the forms and words spoken by ordinary people.Let me leave nothing else to consider: whether what I first saw, with my senses, or at least, as they say, with common sense, that is to say, with my imagination, was no better than what I now grasped? Thus, after examining more precisely what it is and how it can be known, it is apprehended more clearly and more fully.It would be ridiculous to even doubt this.For what is clear and distinct in this first perception, which cannot equally fall upon the senses of the worst animal? But when I separate the wax from its appearance, it is like taking off its clothes. That way I consider it starkly, though, of course, there may still be some errors in my judgment, but I cannot grasp it as such without the human spirit. But what shall I say about this spirit, that is to say about myself (for until now I have recognized nothing but that I am a spirit)?I said, what am I going to say about this me who seems to grasp the wax so distinctly?Do I not know myself more truly, more accurately, more clearly and distinctly?For if, because I see wax, it follows that there is wax, or that wax exists, then of course it is all the more evident that I am, or that I exist, because I see wax.For, it may be that what I see is not actually wax; it may be that I don't even have eyes to see; , this thinking me is not something, this is impossible.In the same way, if I conclude that wax exists because I have touched it, the result is the same, that I exist; and if I conclude that it exists because my imagination leads me to believe it, I always come to the same conclusion.What I say here about wax applies also to everything outside me and outside me. 那么，如果说蜡在不仅经过视觉或触觉，同时也经过很多别的原因而被发现了之后，我对它的概念和认识好像是更加清楚、更加分明了，那么，我不是应该越发容易、越发分明地认识我自己了吗？因为一切用以认识和领会蜡的本性或别的物体的本性的理由都更加容易、更加明显地证明我的精神的本性。除了属于物体的那些东西以外，在精神里还有很多别的东西能够有助于阐明精神的本性，那些东西就不值得去提了。 可是，我终于不知不觉地回到了我原来想要回到的地方；因为，既然事情现在我已经认识了，真正来说，我们只是通过我们心里的理智功能，而不是通过想象， 也不是通过感官来领会物体，而且我们不是由于看见了它，或者我们摸到了它才认识它，而只是由于我们用思维领会它，那么显然我认识了没有什么对我来说比我的精神更容易认识的东西了。可是，因为几乎不可能这么快就破除一个旧见解；那么，我最好在这里暂时打住，以便经过这么长的沉思，我把这一个新的认识深深地印到我的记忆里去。 第三个沉思论上帝及其存在现在我要闭上眼睛，堵上耳朵，脱离开我的一切感官，我甚至要把一切物体性的东西的影像都从我的思维里排除出去，或者至少(因为那是不大可能的)我要把它们看作是假的。这样一来，由于我仅仅和我自己打交道，仅仅考虑我的内部，我要试着一点点地进一步认识我自己，对我自己进一步亲热起来。我是一个在思维的东西，这就是说，我是一个在怀疑、在肯定、在否定，知道的很少，不知道的很多， 在爱、在恨、在愿意、在不愿意、也在想象、在感觉的东西。因为，就像我刚才说过的那样，即使我所感觉和想象的东西也许决不是在我以外，在它们自己以内的， 然而我确实知道我称之为感觉和想象的这种思维方式，就其仅仅是思维方式来说， 一定是存在和出现在我心里的。而且我刚才说得虽然不多，可是我认为已经把我真正知道的东西，或至少是我直到现在觉得我知道了的东西，全部都说出来了。 现在我要更准确地考虑一下是否在我心里也许就没有我还没有感觉的其他认识。我确实知道了我是一个在思维的东西，但是我不是因此也就知道了我需要具备什么，才能使我确实知道什么事情吗?在这个初步地认识里，只有我认识的一个清楚、明白的知觉。老实说，假如万一我认识得如此清楚、分明的东西竟是假的，那么这个知觉就不足以使我确实知道它是真的。从而我觉得我已经能够把“凡是我们领会得十分清楚、十分分明的东西都是真实的”这一条定为总则。 虽然如此，我以前当作非常可靠、非常明显而接受和承认下来的东西，后来我又都认为是可疑的、不可靠的。那些东西是什么呢?是地、天、星辰以及凡是我通过我的感官所感到的其他东西。可是，我在这些东西里边曾领会得清楚、明白的是什么呢?当然不是别的，无非是那些东西在我心里呈现的观念或思维，并且就是现在我还不否认这些观念是在我心里。可是还有另外一件事情是我曾经确实知道的， 并且由于习惯的原因使我相信它，我曾经以为看得非常清楚，虽然实际上我并没有看出它，即有些东西在我以外，这些观念就是从那里发生的，并且和那些东西一模一样。我就是在这件事情上弄错了；或者，假如说我也许是按照事实真相判断的， 那也决不是对我的判断的真实性的原因有什么认识。 可是当我考虑有关算学和几何学某种十分简单、十分容易的东西，比如三加二等于五，以及诸如此类的其他事情的时候，我不是至少把它们领会得清清楚楚，确实知道它们是真的吗?当然，假如从那以后，我认为可以对这些东西怀疑的话，那一定不是由于别的理由，而只是因我心里产生这样一种想法：即也许是一个什么上帝，他给了我这样的本性，让我甚至在我觉得是最明显的一些东西上弄错。但是每当上述关于一个上帝的至高无上的能力的这种见解出现在我的思维里时，我都不得不承认，如果他愿意，他就很容易使我甚至在我相信认识得非常清楚的东西上弄错。可是反过来，每当我转向我以为领会得十分清楚的东西上的时候，我是如此地被这些东西说服，以致我自己不由得说出这样的话：他能怎么骗我就怎么骗我吧，只要我想我是什么东西，他就决不能使我什么都不是；或者既然现在我存在这件事是真的，他就决不能使我从来或者有那么一天没有存在过；他也决不能使三加二之和多于五或少于五，或者在我看得很清楚的诸如此类的事情上不能像我所领会的那个样子。 并且，既然我没有任何理由相信有个什么上帝是骗子，既然我还对证明有一个上帝的那些理由进行过考虑，因此仅仅建筑在这个见解之上的怀疑理所当然是非常轻率的，并且是(姑且这么说)形而上学的。可是，为了排除这个理由，我应该在一旦机会来到的时候，检查一下是否有一个上帝；而一旦我找到了有一个上帝，我也应检查一下他是否是骗子。因为如果不认识这两个事实真相，我就看不出我能够把任何一件事情当作是可靠的。而为了我能够有机会去做这种检查而不致中断我给我自己提出来的沉思次序，即从在我心里首先找到的概念一步步地推论到后来可能在我心里找到的概念，我就必须在这里把我的全部思维分为几类，必须考虑在哪些类里真正有真理或有错误。 在我的各类思维之中，有些是事物的影像。只有这样一些思维才真正适合观念这一名称：比如我想起一个人，或者一个怪物，或者天，或者一个天使，或者上帝本身。除此而外，另外一些思维有另外的形式，比如我想要，我害怕，我肯定，我否定；我虽然把某种东西领会为我精神的行动的主体，但是我也用这个行动把某些东西加到我对于这个东西所具有的观念上；属于这一类思维的有些叫做意志或情感，另外一些叫做判断。 至于观念，如果只就其本身而不把它们牵涉到别的东西上去，真正说来，它们不能是假的；因为不管我想象一只山羊或一个怪物，在我想象上同样都是真实的。 也不要害怕在情感或意志里边会有假的，即使我可以希望一些坏事情，或者甚至这些事情永远不存在，但是不能因此就说我对这些事情的希望不是真的。 这样，就只剩下判断了。在判断里我应该小心谨慎以免弄错。而在判断里可能出现的重要的和最平常的错误在于我把在我心里的观念判断为和在我以外的一些东西一样或相似；因为，如果我把观念仅仅看成是我的思维的某些方式或方法，不想把它们牵涉到别的什么外界东西上去，它们当然就不会使我有弄错的机会。在这些观念里边，我认为有些是与我俱生的；有些是外来的，来自外界的；有些是由我自己做成的和捏造的。因为，我有领会一般称之为一个东西，或一个真理，或一个思想的功能，我觉得这种功能不是外来的，而是出自我的本性的；但是，如果我现在听见了什么声音，看见了太阳，感觉到了热，那么一直到这时候我判断这些感觉都是从存在于我以外的什么东西发出的。最后，我觉得人鱼，鹫马以及诸如此类的其他一切怪物都是一些虚构和由我的精神凭空捏造出来的。可是也许我可以相信所有这些观念都是属于我称之为外来的、来自我以外的这些观念，或者它们都是与我俱生的，或者它们都是由我做成的；因为我还没有清楚地发现它们的真正来源。我现在要做的主要事情是，在有关我觉得来自我以外的什么对象的那些观念，看看有哪些理由使我不得不相信它们是和这些对象一样的。 第一个理由是：我觉得这是自然告诉我的；第二个理由是：我自己体会到这些观念是不以我的意志为转移的，因为它们经常不由自主而呈现给我，就像现在，不管我愿意也罢，不愿意也罢。我感觉到了热，而由于这个原因就使我相信热这种感觉或这种观念是由于一种不同于我的东西，即由于我旁边火炉的热产生给我的。除了判断这个外来东西不是把什么别的，而是把它的影像送出来印到我心里以外，我看不出有什么我认为更合理的了。 现在我必须看一看这些理由是否过硬，是否有足够的说服力。当我说我觉得这是自然告诉我的，我用自然这一词所指的仅仅是某一种倾向，这种倾向使我相信这个事情，而不是一种自然的光明使我认识这个事情是真的。这二者之间有很大的不同，因为对于自然的光明使我看到的都是真的这件事，我一点都不能怀疑，就像它刚才使我看到由于我怀疑这件事，我就能够推论出我存在一样。在辨别真和假上， 我没有任何别的功能或能力能够告诉我说，这个自然的光明指给我的是真的东西并不是假的，让我能够对于那种功能或能力和对于自然的光明同样地加以信仰。可是，至于倾向，我觉得它们对我来说也是自然的，我时常注意到，当问题在对善与恶之间进行选择的时候，倾向使我选择恶的时候并不比使我选择善的时候少；这就是为什么在关于真和假上，我也并不依靠倾向的原故。 至于另外的理由，即这些观念既然不以我的意志为转移，那么它们必然是从别处来的，我认为这同样没有说服力。因为我刚才所说的那些倾向是在我心里，尽管它们不总是和我的意志一致，同样，也许是我心里有什么功能或能力，专门产生这些观念而并不借助于什么外在的东西，虽然我对这个功能和能力还一无所知；因为事实上到现在我总觉得当我睡觉的时候，这些观念也同样在我心里形成而不借助于它们所表象的对象。最后，即使我同意它们是由这些对象引起的，可也不能因此而一定说它们应该和那些对象一样。相反，在很多事例上我经常看到对象和对象的观念之间有很大的不同。比如对于太阳，我觉得我心里有两种截然不同的观念；一种来源于感官的，应该放在我前面所说的来自外面的那一类里；根据这个观念，我觉得它非常小。另外一个是从天文学的道理中，也就是说，从与我俱生的某些概念里得出来的，或者是由我自己用什么方法制造出来的，根据这个观念，我觉得太阳比整个地球大很多倍。我对太阳所领会的这两个观念当然不能都和同一的太阳一样；理性使我相信直接来自它的外表的那个观念是和它最不一样的。 所有这些，足够使我认识，直到现在我曾经相信有些东西在我以外，和我不同，它们通过我的感官，或者用随便什么别的方法，把它们的观念或影像传送给我， 并且给我印上它们的形象，这都不是一种可靠的、经过深思熟虑的判断，而仅仅是从一种盲目的、卤莽的冲动得出来的。 可是还有另外一种途径可以用来考虑一下在我心里有其观念的那些东西中间， 是否有些是存在于我以外的，比如，如果把这些观念看作只不过是思维的某些方式，那么我就认不出在它们之间有什么不同或不等，都好像是以同样方式由我生出来的。可是，如果把它们看作是影像，其中一些表示这一个东西，另外一些表示另外一个东西，那么显然它们彼此之间是非不同的。因为给我表象实体的那些观念，无疑地比仅仅给我表象样式或偶性的那些观念更多一点什么东西，并且本身包括着( 姑且这样说)更多的客观“客观的”(objectif)，或“客观地”(objectivement)， 在17世纪的涵义和今天的涵义不同。在笛卡尔的用法是：仅就其在观念上的存在而言的就叫作“客观的”，或“客观地”存在。在17世纪，“客观的”的词的反义词不是“主观的”，而是“真实的”或“形式的”。实在性，也就是说，通过表象而分享程度更大的存在或完满性。再说，我由之而体会到一个至高无上的、永恒的、 无限的、不变的、全知的、全能的、他自己以外的一切事物的普遍创造得到的上帝的那个观念，我说，无疑在他本身里比给我表象有限的实体的那些观念要有更多的客观实在性。 现在，凭自然的光明显然可以看出，在动力的亚里士多德哲学里四种原因之一。亚里士多德的四因是：(1)质料因，(2)形式因，(3)动力因，(4)目的因。、总的原因里一定至少和在它的结果里有更多的实在性：因为结果如果不从它的原因里， 那么能从哪里取得它的实在性呢?这个原因如果本身没有实在性，怎么能够把它传给它的结果呢？