Chapter 7 Part 1 - 2

The first language of mankind, that is to say, the most common, most powerful, and only language used before it was necessary for human beings to persuade people living in groups, was the voice of nature.Because it is issued by an instinct in emergency situations, and its use is no more than to ask for help in great danger, or to relieve pain in severe pain, so in the more temperate emotions dominant. In everyday life, people don't use this call very often.As human ideas gradually expanded and multiplied, and closer communication was established between men, they wanted to develop more symbols and a wider language.They increased the inflection of the voice and added gestures.Gesture is, by its nature, more expressive, and its meaning requires little predetermination.So they used hand gestures for those things that could be seen and moved, and simulated sounds for those things that were audible.But gestures can hardly signify anything but what is at hand and easy to describe, and visible action; poor light or something in the way can render it useless, and gestures are not so much attention-getting as Sayings demand attention, so they cannot be used universally; people have finally managed to replace gestures by syllables of sound, which, although not identically related to certain ideas, are more suitable as established symbols to represent all these. idea.However, this substitution can only be established by unanimous consent, which is difficult for people who have not had much practice in their crude organs.

②.This substitution itself is also incomprehensible, because the reason must be explained in order to obtain unanimous agreement. Then, when the language is formulated, the use of language seems to have become very necessary.We may infer that the words that people first used had a much broader meaning in their minds than the words that people used after the language had been formed.And at first they did not know how to distinguish the various constituent parts of the sentence, so they gave each word the meaning of a whole sentence.When they began to separate subject from predicate, verb from noun, it was an effort of extraordinary genius.Nouns are just some technical nouns at first, and the present tense of the original verb is the only tense of the verb.Regarding the concept of adjectives, its development must have gone through great difficulties, because adjectives are all abstract words, and abstracting things is a difficult and unnatural activity.

At first each body received only a proper name, regardless of its attributes and kinds, which were indistinguishable from those who first created the names; and all individuals, in isolation, reflected as they are in the natural scene. in their heads.If one oak tree is called A, the other is called B, because the first idea people get from two things is that they are not the same; it often takes a lot of time to observe what they have in common. .Therefore, the more limited people's understanding is, the more complicated the characters will be.This kind of difficulty in classifying and naming is not easy to solve, because in order to sum up all things and give them a common name that represents a category, it is necessary to know the common attributes of things and the differences between them, and some observations and definitions are needed. A far richer knowledge of natural history and metaphysics than was possible in those days.

In addition, general ideas can only be imported into the human mind with the help of words, and general ideas must be understood through words and sentences.This is one of the reasons why the beast can neither form such ideas nor ever acquire the perfecting powers which depend on them.When a monkey drops the one walnut without hesitation to pick another, can we think it has a general idea of ​​the kind of fruit and compares the general form of the kind with the two individual fruits? ?Of course not.However, when it sees this walnut, it cannot help but think of the feeling it got from another walnut; because its eyes have received a certain image, it indicates that its taste is about to taste a certain taste.All general ideas are purely intellectual; the slightest addition of imagination makes them particular and not general.If you try to picture a general image of a tree in your mind, you will never be able to.Whether you will or not, you must imagine a tree, small or tall, sparse or dense, light or dark; and if you want to see only what all trees have in common, then , the image you get will not be like a tree.The same goes for knowing a purely abstract being, or understanding it only through words.Just a definition of a triangle can give you a real idea of ​​a triangle, but as soon as you picture a triangle in your mind, it's that one triangle, not another triangle.And you will inevitably endow this triangle with tangible edges and a surface with a certain color.Therefore, to form a general idea, it is necessary to describe in words, then, it is necessary to speak.For as soon as the imagination ceases, the mind can continue its activity only by means of language.If, then, the first inventors of language could only give names to ideas they already had, the first nouns could only be technical nouns.

But when the first grammarians, by a method beyond my comprehension, began to enlarge their ideas and generalize their words, the ignorance of the founders necessarily restricted the application of this method to a narrow circle; and At first, because they did not know the attributes and kinds, they added too many names of individuals, and later, because they could not examine the existence from all the differences between them, they only summarized a few attributes and kinds.To carry on the classification with considerable fineness, more wisdom and experience than they actually possessed; more research and labor than they thought to be employed.If to this day we are daily discovering new species which have not been discovered by all previous observers, imagine how many have been overlooked by those who judge of things only by the most superficial appearance!As for the original categories and the most general concepts, it is needless to say that they will also be ignored by them.For example, how do they conceive or understand the words material, spiritual, substantial, moody, figurative, and actional, etc.?For our philosophers, though they have used those words for so long, have difficulty understanding them themselves, and the ideas they ascribe to them are purely metaphysical, having no model in nature.

I will temporarily suspend my preliminary discussion, and ask the judges to suspend reading and consider only the creation of material nouns, that is to say, the most discoverable part of language. Language must be able to express all human thoughts; form; to be able to speak in public and have an impact on society, how far is there to go!Please think about it, to discover numbers [fourteen], abstract words, past tenses and various tenses of verbs, particles, syntax, to connect words, to infer, to form the whole logic of words, it used to take How much time and knowledge!As for me, frightened by the increasing difficulties, I believe that it has proved almost impossible that language can be produced and established by human intelligence alone.I leave to those who wish to undertake such a study the difficult question of which of the two is most important, the establishment of language by an established society, or the establishment of society by an invented language. necessary?

However much language and society may have originated, the fact that nature is so little concerned with bringing men close to each other through mutual need and making it easy to use language at least demonstrates how little society has been prepared for man by nature, and in the Of all the efforts that men make to connect with each other, how little does nature help man!Admittedly, in such a primitive state, it would be inconceivable that a human being would need another human being more urgently than a monkey or a wolf would need another monkey or another wolf. Even if we admit that this person has that need, then what motive can make another person willing to meet his need; even if that person is willing to meet his need, how can they reach an agreement with each other on terms? unthinkable.I know that we are often told that there is nothing so miserable as man in a primitive state; and if, as I think it has been proved, it was only after a few centuries that man had the will and the opportunity to emerge from this state, Then we should use this to accuse nature, not the kind of human beings that nature has created.But if the word misery is rightly understood, it is either a meaningless word, or refers only to a kind of unbearable poverty and physical or mental suffering; Will some one be able to explain what misery befalls a man who is free, at peace of mind and in good health?Which kind of life--the life of society or the life of nature--is most apt to render at length unbearable to those who enjoy it?Around us we see almost only those who complain about life, and many are even willing to throw away their own life, and even the simultaneous recourse of divine and human laws can hardly stop this confusion.Pray, has anyone ever heard of a free savage complaining of life or thinking of suicide?We must, then, judge with little self-respect where the real misery lies.On the other hand, there is nothing more tragic than the savage, dazzled by intellect, bewildered by passion, always thinking in a state different from his own.

It may also be said to be a very wise measure of providence: all the latent powers of the savage can only be developed with the opportunity of using them, so that they will not become superfluous by premature development. the burdens of the country, and are not developed too late to be useless when necessary.The savage has in instinct all that he needs to live in a state of nature; he has only in his gradually developed reason what he needs to live in society. At first, as it were, men in a state of nature had no moral relation to one another, nor recognized duties, so that they could be neither good nor evil, neither evil nor virtuous; Unless we take these words in a physiological sense, we call those qualities in the individual which prevent self-preservation evil, and those which help self-preservation virtue.In such a case, the most moral man should be called the man who resists the least resistance to the mere natural impulse.But if we do not depart from the ordinary meaning of these words, we should not rush to judge this state as we may, and do not insist on our own opinions, but first use the scales to weigh: Is there more virtue than vice among civilized people?Or does their virtue do them more good than their vice do them harm?Or will the progress of their knowledge be enough to compensate for the evil they do to each other, when they gradually learn the good that they should do to each other?Or, on the whole, neither dreading evil nor expecting good from anyone, than they are subject to a general position of dependence, obliged to accept everything, while on the other hand they are Happier than being under no obligation to give anything?

Above all, we must not conclude, as Hobbes did, that man is inherently evil because he has no idea of ​​good; that man is evil because he knows no virtue; Duty towards one another.Nor should we conclude, like Hobbes, that man, by virtue of his just claim to what he wants, madly considers himself the sole proprietor of the whole universe.Although Hobbes clearly saw the shortcomings of all modern definitions of natural law, the conclusions he deduced from his own definition suffice to show that his understanding of this definition was equally wrong.The author, in reasoning from the principles he established, should have said: Since the state of nature is that which every man's concern for self-preservation least prejudices

A state of self-preservation by others, and therefore this state is most peaceful and most favorable to mankind.But he says just the opposite, for he unduly mixes with the savage's concern for self-preservation the need for the satisfaction of innumerable desires which are socially produced and which make law such necessary.Hobbes said: A wicked man is a strong infant.We have yet to know whether the savage is a strong infant.If we admit that the savage was a strong infant, what conclusions are to be drawn?If the man, when he is strong, needs to be dependent as much as when he is weak, there is nothing insolent that he cannot do: he will beat his mother for not feeding her in time, he will Abusing his brother because he hates him, biting someone's leg because they bumped him or disturbed him.But that a man is strong and at the same time dependent on him are two contradictory assumptions in the state of nature.When a man is dependent, he is weak; before he becomes strong, he is an independent man.Hobbes fails to see that what our jurists assert to prevent savages from using their own reason is precisely what Hobbes himself asserts prevents savages from abusing their own faculties.We may therefore say that savages are not evil precisely because they do not know what is good.For it is not the development of wisdom nor the restraint of laws that prevents them from doing evil, but the equanimity of emotion and ignorance of evil: "These are better off from ignorance of evil than those from knowledge of virtue." The benefits are greater."And there is another principle, which Hobbes did not see: man's zeal for his own happiness is curtailed by an innate aversion to seeing his fellow beings suffer.Because of this principle derived from human nature, man in certain cases moderates his strong self-esteem, or his self-love before this self-esteem [15] arises.I do not believe that there can be any fear of reproach, which I believe to be the sole natural virtue of which even the most vehement detractors of human virtue are compelled to admit.What I call compassion is indeed a rather befitting disposition for beings so weak and subject to so many evils as we are; It existed before man could use any thought, and it was so natural that even animals sometimes showed signs of it.Leaving aside the tenderness of mothers to their young, and the dangers they run to preserve their lives, we also see every day that horses do not want to trample a living thing.An animal is always disturbed when it walks near the dead body of its own kind.Some animals even bury their dead in some fashion; and the whine of each animal as it enters the slaughterhouse speaks of a feeling for the dreadful sight which agitated it.We are glad to see that the author of "The Fable of the Bee" also has to admit that man is an easily moved and sympathetic creature.He changed his usual cold and meticulous writing style, and presented us with a moving scene in the examples he gave.He described a man who was imprisoned and saw a beast outside, snatching a young child from his mother's arms.Between its hurting sharp teeth, it crushed that fragile limb, and used its claws to tear open the still beating viscera.Although what this man saw with his own eyes had nothing to do with him personally, how thrilling he was!How anxious he was at the sight of such misery, with the helplessness of both the unconscious mother and the dying infant!

Such are the purely natural impulses which exist before all thought; such are the powers of natural compassion, which not even the worst customs can destroy.In the theatre, every day we see people weeping over the misery of the unfortunates in the play, who, if they themselves were tyrants, would aggravate the mistreatment of their enemies.Just as Sulla, the bloodthirsty man, was very sentimental over pain not caused by himself; and Alexander, the king of Phil, dared not go to any tragic performance, lest people should see him with Ondomac and Priammo. sighed together, but was not moved when he heard the cries of so many who were executed every day for carrying out his orders. "Nature has bestowed tears upon man, It means: It has bestowed the most merciful heart on human beings. " Mandeville had felt that men, with all their virtues, were nothing but monsters if nature had not endowed them with compassion as the support of their reason; It is from this quality of compassion that all the social virtues which he denies derive.Indeed, what can be called kindness, generosity, and humanity but compassion for the weak, or for sinners, or for the whole human race?That is to say, so-called care and friendship, if understood correctly, are nothing but the product of a persistent pity fixed on a specific object; because wishing for a person to suffer no pain is not wishing for his happiness or what?Even pity is really nothing but an emotion (which is strong, though not marked, in the savage, developed but weak in the civilized man) which puts us in the place of the sufferer. ), what is the meaning of this statement, except that it is more sufficient to demonstrate the point I hold?In fact, the more empathy the bystander can empathize with the suffering animal, the stronger the compassion.It is evident, then, that this sympathy is certainly not tens of millions of times deeper in the state of nature than in the state of reasoning.It is reason that produces self-esteem, and it is thinking that strengthens self-esteem.Reason makes a man to keep his wings and keep away from everything that hinders and pains him.Philosophy separates people from the world, and it is precisely because of philosophy that people will secretly say in front of a victim: "If you want to die, die, anyway, I am safe."Only the danger of society as a whole can disturb the philosopher's lucid dreams and drag him from his bed.People could kill his own kind without restraint under his window, and he only needed to put his hands over his ears to justify himself a little, and he could prevent the sympathy for the victim that was naturally aroused in him.The savage has no such astonishing feats, and, lacking in wisdom and reason, he always submits without a second thought to the primitive passions of mankind.When there is a commotion, or when a quarrel breaks out in the street, the untouchables flock to it, and the prudent flee; and it is the mob, the women of the town, who keep the wrestlers away, and the gentlemen from hurting one another. We may therefore say with certainty that pity is a natural emotion, which assists the mutual preservation of all human beings by regulating the activities of self-love in each individual.It is this emotion that leads us, without thinking, to rescue those we see suffering.It is this sentiment which, in the state of nature, takes the place of laws, customs, and morals, and which has the advantage that no one attempts to resist its gentle voice.It is this sentiment that makes every able-bodied savage never plunder the hard-earned goods of the weak child or the feeble old man, so long as they can hope to find their means of subsistence elsewhere.It is this sentiment which, instead of the sublime maxim of reason and justice, "Do to others as you would have them treat you," takes on the other maxim of good nature: "Do your own good as little as possible." Harm others" to enlighten all people.The latter maxim is far less perfect than the former, but perhaps more useful.In short, rather than in those subtle arguments, we should inquire, in this natural sentiment, for the causes of any man's guilt in doing evil, even if he knows nothing of the maxims of education.Though Socrates and men of his caliber were able to acquire virtue through reason, man might long cease to exist if his preservation depended solely on man's reasoning. The passions of savages are so weak, and at the same time so wholesomely regulated by pity, that they are not so much wicked as they are brutish; The protection against possible aggression, therefore prevents very dangerous quarrels among primitive peoples.Because they have no intercourse of any kind, they know nothing of vanity, reverence, importance, or contempt; they have no notion of "thine" and "mine"; To view possible brutality as an easily repairable injury, not as a punishable insult.They don't even think of revenge, except sometimes, as a dog bites a stone thrown at it, and resists immediately and mechanically.For the above reasons, their quarrels seldom ended in bloody consequences, if not more touching objects than food.However, there is a more dangerous dispute among them, which still needs to be explained. Of all the exciting passions, that which makes men and women want the opposite sex is the most ardent and most intense.This terrible passion can make a person disregard all dangers and break through all obstacles.When it reaches the level of madness, it seems to be enough to destroy human beings, but its natural mission is to preserve human beings.What would become of men if they were the captives of this fanatical, brutal, shameless, intemperate passion, daily bleeding for the object of their love? We should first admit that the stronger the passions, the more they require legal restraint.But the anarchy and the evil that this passion daily causes among us is a sufficient proof of the weakness of the law in this respect.In addition, we should further examine whether this confusion is accompanied by the law itself.For, even if the law could, in this case, prevent this disorder, it would be the most senseless thing to ask of the law if it should be required to prevent an evil which would not exist without it.Let us begin by distinguishing the mental aspect of the emotion "love" from the physical aspect.Physical love is the desire that everyone has to unite with the opposite sex.Spiritual love is the determination of this desire, and its complete fixation on a single object, or at least a stronger desire to especially like a certain object.It is easy to see, therefore, that spiritual love is but an artificial emotion produced by social habits.Women do what they can to celebrate it in order to establish their authority and make the dominant women who are supposed to be submissive.It is founded on such ideas as virtue and beauty, and comparisons; the savage has no such ideas, and never makes such comparisons, and therefore it is almost non-existent to the savage. .As the abstract ideas of symmetry and harmony, etc., do not form in the mind of the savage, so there are no emotions of admiration or admiration in his heart; generated from.The savage is governed only by his natural temperament, not by inclinations he has not yet acquired; any woman is equally suitable to him. The savage, who confines himself to physical love, is quite happy, ignorant of the inclinations which arouse the affection of love and increase its difficulty, so that his passions are not too frequent or too violent. , and the quarrels between them are therefore less and less cruel.That thought which has caused innumerable troubles among us does not invade the mind of the savage.Every savage waits only for the impulse of nature, and when he obeys it, he has no choice of object, his mood is not so much feverish as cheerful; Disappeared. It is, therefore, an indisputable fact that love, like all other passions, attains only in society a feverish intensity which is sometimes disastrous.Moreover, it would be absurd to think that savages are constantly killing each other for the gratification of their bestiality, since this idea is contrary to experiment.For example, among all the living peoples, the Garaibo people are by far the closest to the state of nature. Although they live in a hot zone, their passions should be very strong according to the influence of the climate on them, but they are in love. It is the most peaceful in life, and rarely causes disputes due to jealousy. In many species of animals, our poultry farms are often stained with blood by the fights between males for females; Those inferences drawn, we should first of all exclude all these kinds of animals, for in them nature obviously prescribes a contrasting relation of sexual powers between the male and female which differs from that in man.Therefore, we cannot draw inferences from rooster fighting that apply to humans.In animals where this contrast has been observed more precisely, the fighting between the males is caused by nothing but the relative number of the sexes, with fewer females, or the periods when the females frequently refuse the approach of the males.The latter reason is at last reduced to the former, for if each female were to spend only two months in the annual approach of the male, the effect would amount to a five-sixths reduction in the number of females. However, neither of these two situations applies to humans.In man the females always always outnumber the males, and even among savages we never see females having periods of sexual need and refusal, as in other animals.Moreover, in several species of those animals mentioned above, often the whole species comes into estrus at the same time, and there comes a terrible moment of general frenzy, clamor, confusion, and strife.Such moments never occur in humans, because human sexuality is not cyclical.We cannot therefore infer from the struggles of certain animals for females that the same happens with man in a state of nature.Even if we could draw such an inference, and the strife did not kill the other animals, we may at least suppose that it would have been no less unfortunate for man.Moreover, it is evident that such strife is much less evil in a state of nature than in a state of society, especially in countries where morality is still respected.In these countries, the jealousy of lovers and the revenge of spouses lead every day to duels, murders, or other more tragic things.The duty of perpetual fidelity between husband and wife only encourages adultery, while the very laws of chastity and honor must encourage immorality and abortion. We can conclude that a savage wandering in the forest has no agriculture, no language, no shelter, no war, and no contact with each other. Never being able to identify anyone of his kind.Such a savage has few passions, lives alone in need of nothing, and therefore has only the affections and knowledge appropriate to his state.He feels only what he really needs, and he attends only to what he thinks urgently requires attention, and his intellect is no more developed than his fancy.Even if he occasionally invented something, he could not pass it on to others, because he didn't even know his own children.Technology dies with the death of its inventor.In this state there is neither education nor progress, and the generations reproduce without gain, each beginning from the same beginning.Centuries passed in the most savage state of primitive times; man was old, but he was still childish. The reason why I have gone to great lengths to describe the original position I imagine is because there are many age-old misconceptions and deep-rooted prejudices on this subject which should be eliminated.I therefore think it necessary to go back to the picture of the real state of nature and prove that even the inequalities of nature are not in this state as real and as effectual as modern scholars maintain. In fact, it is easy to understand that many of those differences which distinguish men from one another are supposed to be natural differences, when in reality they are simply the result of custom and of the various ways of life which men adopt in society. product of the way.Therefore, the strength of a person's physique and the physical strength dependent on his constitution often depend on whether he grows up in a difficult environment or grows up in a pampered environment, rather than on his physical endowment.The same is true for the strength of intelligence.Education not only makes a difference between the educated and the uneducated, but also increases the difference that exists between the former with the degree of education.For a giant and a dwarf are walking on the same road, and with every step they take, the distance between them must increase.If we compare the incredible variety of education and ways of life which prevail among the various classes of civilized society, with the simple uniformity of life of animals and savages who eat the same food, live the same life, and act exactly the same , you will understand how the differences between men in the state of nature should be smaller than in the state of society, and how natural inequalities are deepened among human beings by artificial inequalities. When nature assigns talents to people, even if it is true, as people say, it often favors one and favors another, but in an environment where it is almost impossible to have any relationship between people, those who are blessed by nature are favored by nature. What benefit does it do to others?What good is beauty where there is no love?What use is wit to one who has no language?Of what use is cunning to those who do not trade with each other?I have often heard it said that the strong oppress the weak, but I wish someone could explain to me what the word oppress means.Some use violence to rule over others, who groan under the free-spirited servitude of the former, and this is what I have observed among us; It is difficult even to make them understand what slavery and domination are.It is possible for a man to take the fruit that another has plucked, the beast he has killed, or the cave he has used for shelter from the wind and rain; but how can he force others to obey him?How are the chains of subordination formed among men who have nothing?If someone wants to drive me from one tree, I can leave the tree and go to another tree; if someone disturbs me in one place, who will stop me from going elsewhere?Is there such a man, because he is not only stronger than me, but also corrupt, lazy, and vicious, to force me to find food for him, while he himself has nothing to do?The man, then, must make up his mind to keep an eye on me at all times, and tie me up very carefully when he is going to sleep, lest I should escape or kill him, that is, he must Willing to impose on himself a burden far greater than what he himself wants to avoid and what he has imposed on me.In addition, will his vigilance be relaxed a little bit?Would an unexpected sound make him turn his head?I walked twenty paces into the wood, and my bonds were released, and he would never see me again for the rest of his life. These details need not be repeated.Everyone understands that the relationship of servitude is formed only by the interdependence of men and the mutual needs which bind them together.因此，如不先使一个人陷于不能脱离另一个人而生活的状态，便不可能奴役这个人。这种情形在自然状态中是不存在的。在那种状态中，每个人都不受任何束缚，最强者的权力也不发生作用。 我既已证明了不平等在自然状态中几乎是人们感觉不到的，它的影响也几乎是等于零的。我还应进一步指出在人类智慧连续发展中不平等的起源和进展。我已经指明完善化能力、社会美德、以及自然人所能禀受的其他各种潜在能力，绝不能自己发展起来，而必须借助于许多外部原因的偶然会合。但是，这些原因可能永不发生，而没有这些原因，自然人则会永远停留在他的原始状态。所以，我还应把各种不同的偶然事件加以观察和归纳，这些偶然事件曾经使人的理性趋于完善，同时却使整个人类败坏下去。在使人成为社会的人的同时，却使人变成了邪恶的生物，并把人和世界从那末遥远的一个时代，终于引到了今天这个地步。 我承认，因为我要叙述的事件可能是在种种情形下发生的，所以我只能通过一些猜测来决定我的选择。但是，这些猜测，当它们是从事物本性中所能作出最接近于真实的猜测时；当它们是我们用以发现真理所能有的唯一方法时，便转化为推理的依据。此外，我所要从我的猜测中推出的结论，也不会因此便成为猜测性的结论，因为依据我以上所建立的那些原理，人们不能建立其他任何学说，其他任何学说不能给我提供同样的结果，也不能使我得出同样的结论。 这样就使我对于以下各点无须再深入思考：时间的经过如何弥补了各种事件所欠缺的真实性；一些轻微的原因，当它们继续不断发生作用时会成为惊人的力量；某些假定，一方面我们虽然不能给以与事实相等的确实性，但另一方面我们要想推翻也是不可能的；两件被认为真实的事实，是由一系列未知的或被认为未知的中介事实联系起来的，如有历史可寻，应由历史来提供那些起联系作用的事实，如无历史可考，则应由哲学来确定那些能起联系作用的类似的事实；最后，就变故而言，事物之间的类似性已使各种事实在类别上简化为比我们所想象的还要少得多的数目。我只把这些问题呈献给我的评判员们去研究，并作到使一般读者无须再加以考虑也就够了。