Chapter 4 sequence

sequence I think the most useful and incomplete of all kinds of human knowledge is the knowledge about "people" [2].I dare say that the meaning of the maxim on the only inscription in the temple of Delphi is more important and more profound than all the great works of the moralists.I therefore regard the title of this essay as one of the most intriguing questions that philosophy can ask.But unfortunately, for us, this is also one of the most difficult problems that philosophers can solve.For how can we understand the origin of inequality among men if we do not begin with understanding the human being itself?Due to the passage of time and the transmutation of things, some changes have taken place in the original constitution of human beings. If we do not pass through these changes, how can we see what the original man formed by nature looked like?How can we distinguish what is inherent in man from what is added to or altered from his original state by circumstances and man's progress?Just as the stone elephant of Glorgis, eroded by time, sea, and tempest, has now become less of a god than of a ferocious beast, so man, in his social environment, is, by the thousands of events that continue to occur, Due to the acquisition of countless knowledge and errors; due to the changes in the structure of the body; Degree.We no longer see a man acting always according to his definite and unshakable nature; we no longer see that sublime and sublime simplicity which his Maker once endowed him, but only self-righteousness. The passions of the soul are opposed to the monstrosity of the intellect in a state of madness.

The most unfortunate thing is that all the progress of human beings constantly makes human beings run counter to its original state. The more we accumulate new knowledge, the more we lose access to the most important knowledge.Thus, in a sense, we become less able to know human beings just because we try to study them. It is not difficult to see that we should seek, in the successive changes in the constitution of men, the first source of the differences which distinguish men.Everyone admits that all human beings are originally equal, just as all animals belonging to the same species were equal before various physiological causes caused certain species of animals to undergo various modifications that we can still observe. the same.However those first changes may have been brought about, we cannot conceive of them degrading all individuals in the human race at the same time and in the same way.There are actually some who are perfected or corrupted, and acquire qualities, good or bad, which are not part of their original nature, while others remain longer in their original state.This is the origin of inequality between people.However, it is easier to point out in such a general way, but it is somewhat difficult to explain the real reason exactly.

I therefore hope that the reader will not think that I dare to claim to have discovered what I find difficult to discover, but that I have only begun some reasoning and ventured some guesses; The problem is clarified, and the problem is restored to its true face.Others may easily go farther in this way, though the end is not easy for any one.Because, if we want to distinguish from the existing nature of human beings which are primitive and which are artificial, and at the same time recognize that there is no longer, perhaps never existed in the past, and may never exist in the future. It is not an easy task to understand a state of affairs (of which we must have a correct conception in order to judge well the present state of mankind).To point out rightly what should be the first thing to be attended to in order to be able to do some solid research on this subject requires a philosophy of a higher level than we can imagine.I consider anyone worthy of being called a modern-day Aristotle and Pliny if he can answer well the following question: What experiments must be made in order to arrive at the knowledge of the natural man?And in society, what methods are to be used to carry out these experiments?It is by no means my intention to answer these questions, but I believe I have given some thought to the subject above, and venture to answer in advance that even the greatest philosopher would not necessarily conduct such experiments; cannot perform this experiment.It would be unreasonable to expect both of them to work together, especially with perseverance, or with infinite wisdom and goodwill necessary to achieve success.

Such studies are so difficult that they have hitherto seldom been considered, but they are, after all, the only means of resolving the innumerable difficulties in our knowledge of the true basis of human society.The reason why the true definition of natural law is difficult and vague is because we do not know the nature of man.Burlamaki said: The concept of law, especially the concept of natural law, is obviously the concept of human nature.He continued: Therefore, the principles of this science should be explained from the nature of man, from the constitution of man, and from the state of man.

Many scholars who have dealt with this important question have seldom agreed upon.We cannot but be surprised when we notice this.Among the most authoritative scholars we seldom find two who agree on this matter.Not to mention the philosophers of antiquity, who seemed to be striving to contradict each other on the most fundamental principles.The Roman jurists made man and all other animals indiscriminately subject to the same natural law, because by the term natural law they preferred to understand the law imposed by nature on itself, rather than laws prescribed by nature.Or rather, these jurists understood the term law in a special sense, so they seem to use only the term law in this case to express the relationship between nature and all living beings. , a general relationship established for their mutual preservation.Modern jurists, on the other hand, understand the term "law" only for the spiritual beings, that is to say, for those beings who have intelligence and free will, and are most valued in their relations with other beings. As a rule made by human beings, they hold that the scope of application of natural law is limited to the only animal endowed with reason, that is to say, only to man.However, when jurists define this law, they have different opinions. They all base this law on some metaphysical principles, so even among us, few people can understand these laws. Principles, and of course one cannot discover these principles by oneself.Therefore, although the various definitions given by these scholars are always in conflict with each other, they are all consistent in this point, that is, they all think that unless a great reasoner and a deep-thinking metaphysician, It would be impossible to understand the law of nature, and therefore impossible to obey it.This just means that human beings must use wisdom in order to establish a society. This kind of wisdom, even in a social state, can only be developed after many difficulties, and only a very small number of people can obtain it.

Since the knowledge of nature is so shallow, and the meaning of the term law so inconsistent, it is difficult to give a perfect definition of natural law.Therefore, besides the defect of great inconsistency, the definitions we find in books have the disadvantage that they are derived from a lot of knowledge that is not naturally possessed by human beings, but from human derived from practical interests that can only be considered after the state of nature has been established.Men often seek first those rules which, for the common good, are best agreed to be observed by men, and these rules are summed up and called natural laws; benefit.Undoubtedly, this is the easiest way to define, and it can also be said to be the easiest way to explain the nature of things in an arbitrary manner.

But it is vain for us to ascertain the laws which he obeys, or which best suits his constitution, before we know anything about him.The clearest thing we can understand about this law is that it not only needs to be consciously obeyed by those who are bound by it to be a law, but must also be directly expressed in the voice of nature to be natural. law. Put aside, then, all the scientific books which give us only acquaintance with man as he has become, and consider the first and simplest operations of the human mind.I believe that two principles that precede reason are to be seen here: the one that makes us passionately concerned about our happiness and our own preservation; There is a natural aversion to the death or suffering of one's own kind.Our mental activity enables these two principles to be harmonized and coordinated.It seems to me that all the rules of natural law arise from the coordination and cooperation of these two principles (the principle of human sociality need not be added here).Afterwards, when reason, by its continual development, came at length to stifle nature, it was then necessary to restate such rules upon other foundations.

In this way, it is by no means necessary to make a man a philosopher before making a man a man.A man does not do his duty to others merely because he has received the lessons of acquired wisdom; Injury to any other sentient being, except under just circumstances, when his own preservation is threatened, is compelled to love himself first.In this way, too, we may put an end to the long-standing question whether beasts also belong to the sphere of natural law; for it is evident that beasts, without intelligence and free will, cannot know this law.But as they too are endowed with sensibility, and in some respects like our own nature, we think that they too should be governed by the laws of nature, and that man owes some duty to them.In fact, it does not seem that I ought not to injure my fellow being because he is a rational being, but because he is a sentient being.Since this nature is shared by man and beast, at least the beast should be given a right, that is, man should not abuse the beast when it is of no benefit to man.

In the origin of moral inequalities, in the real basis of political organization and the rights of its members to each other, and in a thousand other similar, important and unstated questions, are presented innumerable difficulties; and this study of the fundamentals of primitive man, of his real needs, and of his duties, is at the same time the only good solution to those difficulties. If we look at human society with a calm and objective eye, it seems that the first thing it shows is only the violence of the strong and the oppression of the weak; The ignorance of the other part of the people can not help but express regret.And, since there are no external relations in human society more unstable than those external relations which are called strong and weak, rich and poor, and these relations are often produced by chance rather than by wisdom, the various establishments of mankind, At a glance, it seems to be a kind of building whose foundation is laid on the flowing sand.Only by studying these institutions carefully; only by removing the dust and grit that surrounds such a building, can we see the unshakable foundations at the bottom of this building, and learn to respect the foundation of this building.But without a serious study of man, of his natural faculties, and of their continual development, we should never be able to make such a distinction, and we can never make a distinction between what is the will of God in the constitution of all things at present. What is created and what is created by human art.The political and ethical considerations which arise from the important question with which I have set out, are therefore in every respect useful; It is also a very useful reference.As we consider what we would become if we were left to our own course, we should learn to bless the One who, by the hand of a benevolent man, has corrected our institutions and given them an unshakable We have guarded against the chaos that might arise from these institutions, and created our happiness out of methods that seem to give us infinite misery.

What kind of person has God commanded you to be? What position do you occupy among humanity now? You should be aware of this.