Chapter 2 To the Holy Masters and Masters of the Seminary of Paris

Gentlemen: Whereas my motives for proposing this book to you are just, and I am convinced that you will have just cause for placing it under your auspices when you understand my purpose in writing it, therefore, for To make it somewhat recommendable to you, I thought it best to briefly explain to you how I intended it. I have always believed that the two issues of God and the soul are the main issues that should be argued on philosophical rather than theological grounds.Because, although for some religious people like us, faith alone is enough to make us believe that there is a God, and that the human soul does not die with the body, but we do not believe in any religion, not even any morals. Certainly we cannot persuade those who have not first proved these two things by natural reasons.In particular, sinful actions often bring so much more good to people in this life than moral actions, that, if not for a restraint in conduct out of fear of God's punishment and longing for rewards in the world to come, it would be very easy. Few people would rather do good than do evil.Yes, we must believe that there is a God, because the "Bible" says so; at the same time, we must believe in the "Bible", because it comes from God (this is because: "faith" is a gift from God, Since God has given us the grace to believe in other things, he can also give us the grace to believe in himself), but this reason cannot be raised with non-believers, because they will think that we are here The above commits what logicians call a circular argument.

① That is, not theology, but human reason. ——Translator (All the round code notes below are added by the translator) In truth, I have seen that you, and all theologians, not only know with certainty that the existence of God can be proved by natural reasons, but also that knowledge of God as deduced from the Bible is The knowledge of many creatures is much clearer, and is in fact very easy to acquire; and he who does not have it is sinful.As it is said in the thirteenth chapter of "Wisdom": "Their ignorance is unforgivable, because if they know so much about the things of the world, how can they not learn more from them. How easily do you recognize the supreme Lord?" In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is said that they are "unforgivable", and in the same chapter it is said: "The knowledge of God is clearly It exists in their hearts in vain."This is like telling us that everything that can be used to know God can be pointed out by such reasons. It is enough to find these reasons in our own hearts, and we do not need to look elsewhere. Give us these reasons.It is for this reason that I think it is not inappropriate for me to suggest here what method and what method must be adopted to make it easier and more certain to know God than to know the things of the world. ②

①Christian terms, that is, "things in the world", because Christianity believes that everything in the world is created by God. ② French second edition (the French version that has not been personally reviewed by Descartes): "...It is enough to observe the nature of our spirit. It is for this reason that I propose here how and in what way we can not jump out of our I do not think it would be contrary to a philosopher's duty to know God for himself more easily and surely than we know the things of the world." As for the soul, many people think that it is not easy to know its nature. Some people even dare to say that, according to various human reasons, we believe that it dies with the body, and only faith tells us that it does not.Nevertheless, since they were condemned at the eighth session of the Lateran Synod under the auspices of Leo X, and Christian philosophers were specifically ordered to refute the arguments of those To shed light on the truth, and therefore I dare to undertake that task in this book.

① Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (1513-1521). Besides, I know many non-believers who refuse to believe that there is a God, and that the human soul is different from the body, mainly because they say that no one has ever been able to prove either of these things.I do not agree with them, but I think, on the contrary, that most of the reasons which have been advanced by so many great men on these two questions, if well understood, suffice for proof, and that nothing more can be found. new reasons of proof come; but I still think that if, philosophically, out of curiosity and carefulness, some of the best and stronger reasons are found again, and then arranged in a Nothing can be done in philosophy that is more beneficial than this in a very clear and precise order, so that in the future everyone can firmly confirm that these are some real proofs.

① "Out of curiosity", the second French edition is missing. ② "more powerful", the second edition of the French is missing. In the end, since many people have pinned their hopes on me, they know that I have developed a certain solution to various problems in science, which is honestly not new, because there is nothing older than truth Yes; but they know that I have used it with considerable success on other occasions, so I consider it my duty to try it on this one.I have written all the possible words on this issue in this collection.It is not my intention here to collect all the questions that might be raised to justify our problem, since I never thought it necessary to do so, and none of those reasons are plausible; I simply It is the first and main reasons which I dare to regard as very obvious and very solid arguments.I would add further that I do not think there is any way in which a human being can discover a better argument than this.The importance of this matter, and the fact that it concerns the glory of God, compel me to speak here a little more freely than usual.

①In the second edition of French: "I therefore consider it my duty to conduct an experiment on a problem of such importance." ②French second edition: "Everything I can find in this respect". ③French second edition: "To such a great question". Even so, my reasons, though solid and obvious as I think them, I do not think everyone understands.But it's the same with geometry.In geometry we are left with arguments from Archimedes, Apollonius, Papus, and many others, which are generally accepted to be very solid and obvious, because if we take them separately See, what they contain is very recognizable, and the conclusion and premises fit together well here and there.But these arguments are a bit too long, and all require concentration to think, so only a few people can understand them.In the same way, I think that the arguments I have used in this book, although as sound and as obvious as those in geometry, and even more sound and obvious than those in geometry, I am afraid that many people will not be quite enough. Understand, on the one hand, because these arguments are also a little too long, and they are related to each other;To be honest, there are not as many people in the world who are good at metaphysical thinking as there are people who are good at geometric thinking.Furthermore, there is a difference: In geometry, where it is considered impossible to advance without a sound argument, people who are not completely expert in this field often make the mistake of affirming some wrong argument in order to show that they understand it. Arguments, not faults in negating some valid arguments.Not so in philosophy.In philosophy, everyone thinks that all philosophical propositions are problematic, so only a few people are willing to pursue the truth; what's worse, many people don't take the liberty to question the most obvious truths in order to gain the reputation of being talented. Carry out insane attacks.

It is for this reason, gentlemen, that however persuasive my reasons may be, since they belong to the sphere of philosophy, they have no hope of producing much in intellectual circles unless they are placed under your aegis. Effect. For your college is so highly regarded, and the name of Solpenna is so prestigious, that no other order has ever been so praised, not only in regard to faith, but since the Holy Synod. and that in human philosophy it is generally agreed that nowhere else can a firmer, more informed, more careful, complete judgment be found.I have no doubt, therefore, that if you will take care of this work, you will be willing to revise it first (I am self-aware of my shortcomings and ignorance, so I am not sure that there is nothing wrong in it); Fill in the gaps, improve what is not good enough, and take the trouble to add a more substantial explanation where necessary, or at least tell me so that I can work on it further, so that I can use it to prove that there is a God and The reasons for the distinction of the soul from the body are so clear and distinct that I do believe that they may be cited, and must be regarded as very accurate arguments, and if you dare to take pains to do this a statement that they are true and reliable, the erroneous views that no doubt have occurred on these two subjects will soon be purged from all minds, for the truth will make all learned men agree with your judgment, and admit Your authorities, and the supercilious, unlearned and incorrectly average atheists, will no longer maintain their spirit of confrontation, or perhaps fear to appear to have seen scholars accepting these reasons as arguments. They are ignorant of these reasons, so they themselves will accept them; and finally, the rest will easily surrender to so many examples that no one can doubt the existence of God and the relationship between soul and body. Dare to doubt the real and real difference between them.

① "Sorbonne" was originally a building at the University of Paris, France, named after the original architect, theologian Robert Sorbonne (1201-1274).In the Descartes era, Solpone was the alias of the Paris Theological Seminary (like "Red Mansion" was the alias of Peking University during the "May 4th" Movement). Since the early 19th century, it has become the headquarters of the University of Paris. Now it is Home of the Faculties of Arts and Sciences of the University of Paris. You have seen what confusion the doubt of faith creates, and it is now up to you to judge what the results will be if faith is well established!It would be foolish, however, if I were here to throw the cause of God and religion down upon you, who have been its strongest supports.