A Polite Dialogue Between a Demoniac and a Philosopher.
demoniac.
Yes, thou enemy of God and man, who believest that God is all-powerful, and is at liberty to confer the gift of thought on every being whom He shall vouchsafe1 to choose, I will go and denounce thee to the inquisitor; I will have thee burned. Beware, I warn thee for the last time.
philosopher.
Are these your arguments? Is it thus you teach mankind? I admire your mildness.
demoniac.
Come, I will be patient for a moment while the fagots are preparing. Answer me: What is spirit?
philosopher.
I know not.
demoniac.
What is matter?
philosopher.
I scarcely know. I believe it to have extent, solidity, resistance, gravity, divisibility, mobility2. God may have given it a thousand other qualities of which I am ignorant.
demoniac.
A thousand other qualities, traitor3! I see what thou wouldst be at; thou wouldst tell me that God can animate4 matter, that He has given instinct to animals, that He is the Master of all.
philosopher.
But it may very well be, that He has granted to this matter many properties which you cannot comprehend.
demoniac.
Which I cannot comprehend, villain5!
philosopher.
Yes. His power goes much further than your understanding.
demoniac.
His power! His power! thou talkest like a true atheist6.
philosopher.
However, I have the testimony7 of many holy fathers on my side.
demoniac.
Go to, go to: neither God nor they shall prevent us from burning thee alive — the death inflicted8 on parricides and on philosophers who are not of our opinion.
philosopher.
Was it the devil or yourself that invented this method of arguing?
demoniac.
Vile9 wretch10! darest thou to couple my name with the devil’s?
(Here the demoniac strikes the philosopher, who returns him the blow with interest.)
philosopher.
Help! philosophers!
demoniac.
Holy brotherhood11! help!
(Here half a dozen philosophers arrive on one side, and on the other rush in a hundred Dominicans, with a hundred Familiars of the Inquisition, and a hundred alguazils. The contest is too unequal.)
§ II.
When wise men are asked what is the soul they answer that they know not. If they are asked what matter is, they make the same reply. It is true that there are professors, and particularly scholars, who know all this perfectly12; and when they have repeated that matter has extent and divisibility, they think they have said all; being pressed, however, to say what this thing is which is extended, they find themselves considerably13 embarrassed. It is composed of parts, say they. And of what are these parts composed? Are the elements of the parts divisible? Then they are mute, or they talk a great deal; which are equally suspicious. Is this almost unknown being called matter, eternal? Such was the belief of all antiquity14. Has it of itself force? Many philosophers have thought so. Have those who deny it a right to deny it? You conceive not that matter can have anything of itself; but how can you be assured that it has not of itself the properties necessary to it? You are ignorant of its nature, and you refuse it the modes which nevertheless are in its nature: for it can no sooner have been, than it has been in a certain fashion — it has had figure, and having necessarily figure, is it impossible that it should not have had other modes attached to its configuration15? Matter exists, but you know it only by your sensations. Alas16! of what avail have been all the subtleties17 of the mind since man first reasoned? Geometry has taught us many truths, metaphysics very few. We weigh matter, we measure it, we decompose18 it; and if we seek to advance one step beyond these gross operations, we find ourselves powerless, and before us an immeasurable abyss.
Pray forgive all mankind who were deceived in thinking that matter existed by itself. Could they do otherwise? How are we to imagine that what is without succession has not always been? If it were not necessary for matter to exist, why should it exist? And if it were necessary that it should be, why should it not have been forever? No axiom has ever been more universally received than this: “Of nothing, nothing comes.” Indeed the contrary is incomprehensible. With every nation, chaos19 preceded the arrangement which a divine hand made of the whole world. The eternity20 of matter has with no people been injurious to the worship of the Divinity. Religion was never startled at the recognition of an eternal God as the master of an eternal matter. We of the present day are so happy as to know by faith that God brought matter out of nothing; but no nation has ever been instructed in this dogma; even the Jews were ignorant of it. The first verse of Genesis says, that the Gods — Elo?m, not Eloi — made heaven and earth. It does not say, that heaven and earth were created out of nothing.
Philo, who lived at the only time when the Jews had any erudition, says, in his “Chapter on the Creation,” “God, being good by nature, bore no envy against substance, matter; which of itself had nothing good, having by nature only inertness21, confusion, and disorder22; it was bad, and He vouchsafed23 to make it good.”
The idea of chaos put into order by a God, is to be found in all ancient theogonies. Hesiod repeated the opinion of the Orientals, when he said in his “Theogony,” “Chaos was that which first existed.” The whole Roman Empire spoke24 in these words of Ovid: “Sic ubi dispositam quisquis fuit ille Deorum Congeriem secuit.”
Matter then, in the hands of God, was considered like clay under the potter’s wheel, if these feeble images may be used to express His divine power.
Matter, being eternal, must have had eternal properties — as configuration, the vis inerti?, motion, and divisibility. But this divisibility is only a consequence of motion; for without motion nothing is divided, nor separated, nor arranged. Motion therefore was regarded as essential to matter. Chaos had been a confused motion, and the arrangement of the universe was a regular motion, communicated to all bodies by the Master of the world. But how can matter have motion by itself, as it has, according to all the ancients, extent and divisibility?
But it cannot be conceived to be without extent, and it may be conceived to be without motion. To this it was answered: It is impossible that matter should not be permeable; and being permeable, something must be continually passing through its pores. Why should there be passages, if nothing passes?
Reply and rejoinder might thus be continued forever. The system of the eternity of matter, like all other systems, has very great difficulties. That of the formation of matter out of nothing is no less incomprehensible. We must admit it, and not flatter ourselves with accounting25 for it; philosophy does not account for everything. How many incomprehensible things are we not obliged to admit, even in geometry! Can any one conceive two lines constantly approaching each other, yet never meeting?
Geometricians indeed will tell you, the properties of asymptotes are demonstrated; you cannot help admitting them — but creation is not; why then admit it? Why is it hard for you to believe, like all the ancients, in the eternity of matter? The theologian will press you on the other side, and say: “If you believe in the eternity of matter then you acknowledge two principles — God and matter; you fall into the error of Zoroaster and of Manes.”
No answer can be given to the geometricians, for those folks know of nothing but their lines, their superficies, and their solids; but you may say to the theologians: “Wherein am I a Manich?an? Here are stones which an architect has not made, but of which he has erected26 an immense building. I do not admit two architects; the rough stones have obeyed power and genius.”
Happily, whatever system a man embraces, it is in no way hurtful to morality; for what imports it whether matter is made or arranged? God is still an absolute master. Whether chaos was created out of nothing, or only reduced to order, it is still our duty to be virtuous27; scarcely any of these metaphysical questions affect the conduct of life. It is with disputes as with table talk; each one forgets after dinner what he has said, and goes whithersoever his interest or his inclination28 calls him.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
vouchsafe
|
|
| v.惠予，准许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
mobility
|
|
| n.可动性，变动性，情感不定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
traitor
|
|
| n.叛徒，卖国贼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
animate
|
|
| v.赋于生命，鼓励；adj.有生命的，有生气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
villain
|
|
| n.反派演员，反面人物；恶棍；问题的起因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
atheist
|
|
| n.无神论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
vile
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的，可耻的，邪恶的；坏透的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
wretch
|
|
| n.可怜的人，不幸的人；卑鄙的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
brotherhood
|
|
| n.兄弟般的关系，手中情谊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
configuration
|
|
| n.结构，布局，形态，(计算机)配置 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
subtleties
|
|
| 细微( subtlety的名词复数 )； 精细； 巧妙； 细微的差别等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
decompose
|
|
| vi.分解；vt.（使）腐败，（使）腐烂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
inertness
|
|
| n.不活泼，没有生气；惰性；惯量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
accounting
|
|
| n.会计，会计学，借贷对照表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |