Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse. Why this is so, and what is good or evil in the emotions, I propose to show in this part of my treatise. But, before I begin, it would be well to make a few prefatory observations on perfection and imperfection, good and evil.
When a man has purposed to make a given thing, and has brought it to perfection, his work will be pronounced perfect, not only by himself, but by everyone who rightly knows, or thinks that he knows, the intention and aim of its author. For instance, suppose anyone sees a work (which I assume to be not yet completed), and knows that the aim of the author of that work is to build a house, he will call the work imperfect; he will, on the other hand, call it perfect, as soon as he sees that it is carried through to the end, which its author had purposed for it. But if a man sees a work, the like whereof he has never seen before, and if he knows not the intention of the artificer, he plainly cannot know, whether that work be perfect or imperfect. Such seems to be the primary meaning of these terms.
But, after men began to form general ideas, to think out types of houses, buildings, towers, &c., and to prefer certain types to others, it came about, that each man called perfect that which he saw agree with the general idea he had formed of the thing in question, and called imperfect that which he saw agree less with his own preconceived type, even though it had evidently been completed in accordance with the idea of its artificer. This seems to be the only reason for calling natural phenomena, which, indeed, are not made with human hands, perfect or imperfect: for men are wont to form general ideas of things natural, no less than of things artificial, and such ideas they hold as types, believing that Nature (who they think does nothing without an object) has them in view, and has set them as types before herself. Therefore, when they behold something in Nature, which does not wholly conform to the preconceived type which they have formed of the thing in question, they say that Nature has fallen short or has blundered, and has left her work incomplete. Thus we see that men are wont to style natural phenomena perfect or imperfect rather from their own prejudices, than from true knowledge of what they pronounce upon.
Now we showed in the Appendix to Part 1, that Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. For we have shown, that by the same necessity of its nature, whereby it exists, it likewise works (Proposition 16 of Part 1). The reason or cause why God or Nature exists, and the reason why he acts, are one and the same. Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. Wherefore, a cause which is called final is nothing else but human desire, in so far as it is considered as the origin or cause of anything. For example, when we say that to be inhabited is the final cause of this or that house, we mean nothing more than that a man, conceiving the conveniences of household life, had a desire to build a house. Wherefore, the being inhabited, in so far as it is regarded as a final cause, is nothing else but this particular desire, which is really the efficient cause; it is regarded as the primary cause, because men are generally ignorant of the causes of their desires. They are, as I have often said already, conscious of their own actions and appetites, but ignorant of the causes whereby they are determined to any particular desire. Therefore, the common saying that Nature sometimes falls short, or blunders, and produces things which are imperfect, I set down among the glosses treated of in the Appendix to Part 1. Perfection and imperfection, then, are in reality merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from a comparison among one another of individuals of the same species; hence I said above (Definition 6 of Part 2), that by reality and perfection I mean the same thing. For we are wont to refer all the individual things in nature to one genus, which is called the highest genus, namely, to the category of Being, whereto absolutely all individuals in nature belong. Thus, in so far as we refer the individuals in nature to this category, and comparing them one with another, find that some possess more of being or reality than others, we, to this extent, say that some are more perfect than others. Again, in so far as we attribute to them anything implying negation — as term, end, infirmity, etc. — we, to this extent, call them imperfect, because they do not affect our mind so much as the things which we call perfect, not because they have any intrinsic deficiency, or because Nature has blundered. For nothing lies within the scope of a thing's nature, save that which follows from the necessity of the nature of its efficient cause, and whatsoever follows from the necessity of the nature of its efficient cause necessarily comes to pass.
As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from the comparison of things one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns; for him that is deaf, it is neither good nor bad.
Nevertheless, though this be so, the terms should still be retained. For, inasmuch as we desire to form an idea of man as a type of human nature which we may hold in view, it will be useful for us to retain the terms in question, in the sense I have indicated.
In what follows, then, I shall mean by "good," that which we certainly know to be a means of approaching more nearly to the type of human nature, which we have set before ourselves; by "bad," that which we certainly know to be a hindrance to us in approaching the said type. Again, we shall that men are more perfect, or more imperfect, in proportion as they approach more or less nearly to the said type. For it must be specially remarked that, when I say that a man passes from a lesser to a greater perfection, or vice versâ, I do not mean that he is changed from one essence or reality to another; for instance, a horse would be as completely destroyed by being changed into a man, as by being changed into an insect. What I mean is, that we conceive the thing's power of action, in so far as this is understood by its nature, to be increased or diminished. Lastly, by perfection in general I shall, as I have said, mean reality — in other words, each thing's essence, in so far as it exists, and operates in a particular manner, and without paying any regard to its duration. For no given thing can be said to be more perfect, because it has passed a longer time in existence. The duration of things cannot be determined by their essence, for the essence of things involves no fixed and definite period of existence; but everything, whether it be more perfect or less perfect, will always be able to persist in existence with the same force wherewith it began to exist; wherefore, in this respect, all things are equal.
By good I mean that which we certainly know to be useful to us.
By evil I mean that which we certainly know to be a hindrance to us in the attainment of any good.
(Concerning these terms see the foregoing preface towards the end.)
Particular things I call contingent in so far as, while regarding their essence only, we find nothing therein, which necessarily asserts their existence or excludes it.
Particular things I call possible in so far as, while regarding the causes whereby they must be produced, we know not, whether such causes be determined for producing them.
(In Note 1 to Proposition 33 of Part 1, I drew no distinction between possible and contingent, because there was in that place no need to distinguish them accurately.)
By conflicting emotions I mean those which draw a man in different directions, though they are of the same kind, such as luxury and avarice, which are both species of love, and are contraries, not by nature, but by accident.
What I mean by emotion felt towards a thing, future, present, and past, I explained in Note 1 and Note 2 to Proposition 18 of Part 3, which see.
(But I should here also remark, that we can only distinctly conceive distance of space or time up to a certain definite limit; that is, all objects distant from us more than two hundred feet, or whose distance from the place where we are exceeds that which we can distinctly conceive, seem to be an equal distance from us, and all in the same plane; so also objects, whose time of existing is conceived as removed from the present by a longer interval than we can distinctly conceive, seem to be all equally distant from the present, and are set down, as it were, to the same moment of time.)
By an end, for the sake of which we do something, I mean a desire.
By virtue (virtus) and power I mean the same thing; that is (Proposition 7 of Part 3), virtue, in so far as it is referred to man, is a man's nature or essence, in so far as it has the power of effecting what can only be understood by the laws of that nature.
There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.
No positive quality possessed by a false idea is removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of its being true.
Proof — Falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge which inadequate ideas involve (Proposition 35 of Part 2), nor have they any positive quality on account of which they are called false (Proposition 33 of Part 2); contrariwise, in so far as they are referred to God, they are true (Proposition 32 of Part 2). Wherefore, if the positive quality possessed by a false idea were removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of its being true, a true idea would then be removed by itself, which (Proposition 3 of Part 1) is absurd. Therefore, no positive quality possessed by a false idea, &c. Q.E.D.
Note — This proposition is more clearly understood from Corollary 2 to Proposition 16 of Part 2. For imagination is an idea, which indicates rather the present disposition of the human body than the nature of the external body; not indeed distinctly, but confusedly; whence it comes to pass, that the mind is said to err. For instance, when we look at the sun, we conceive that it is distant from us about two hundred feet; in this judgment we err, so long as we are in ignorance of its true distance; when its true distance is known, the error is removed, but not the imagination; or, in other words, the idea of the sun, which only explains the nature of that luminary, in so far as the body is affected thereby: wherefore, though we know the real distance, we shall still nevertheless imagine the sun to be near us. For, as we said in Note to Proposition 35 of Part 2, we do not imagine the sun to be so near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but because the mind conceives the magnitude of the sun to the extent that the body is affected thereby. Thus, when the rays of the sun falling on the surface of water are reflected into our eyes, we imagine the sun as if it were in the water, though we are aware of its real position; and similarly other imaginations, wherein the mind is deceived, whether they indicate the natural disposition of the body, or that its power of activity is increased or diminished, are not contrary to the truth, and do not vanish at its presence. It happens indeed that, when we mistakenly fear an evil, the fear vanishes when we hear the true tidings; but the contrary also happens, namely, that we fear an evil which will certainly come, and our fear vanishes when we hear false tidings; thus imaginations do not vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that which we imagined, as I have shown in Proposition 17 of Part 2.
We are only passive, in so far as we are a part of Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself without other parts.
Proof — We are said to be passive, when something arises in us, whereof we are only a partial cause (Definition 2 of Part 3), that is (Definition 1 of Part 3), something which cannot be deduced solely from the laws of our nature. We are passive therefore, in so far as we are a part of Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself without other parts. Q.E.D.
The force whereby a man persists in existing is limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes.
Proof — This is evident from the axiom of this part. For, when man is given, there is something else — say A — more powerful; when A is given, there is something else — say B — more powerful than A, and so on to infinity; thus the power of man is limited by the power of some other thing, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes. Q.E.D.
It is impossible, that man should not be a part of Nature, or that he should be capable of undergoing no changes, save such as can be understood through his nature only as their adequate cause.
Proof — The power, whereby each particular thing, and consequently man, preserves his being, is the power of God or of Nature (Corollary to Proposition 24 of Part 1); not in so far as it is infinite, but in so far as it can be explained by the actual human essence (Proposition 7 of Part 3). Thus the power of man, in so far as it is explained through his own actual essence, is a part of the infinite power of God or Nature, in other words, of the essence thereof (Proposition 34 of Part 1). This was our first point. Again, if it were possible, that man should undergo no changes save such as can be understood solely through the nature of man, it would follow that he would not be able to die, but would always necessarily exist; this would be the necessary consequence of a cause whose power was either finite or infinite; namely, either of man's power only, inasmuch as he would be capable of removing from himself all changes which could spring from external causes; or of the infinite power of Nature, whereby all individual things would be so ordered, that man should be incapable of undergoing any changes save such as tended towards his own preservation. But the first alternative is absurd (by the last Proposition, the proof of which is universal, and can be applied to all individual things). Therefore, if it be possible, that man should not be capable of undergoing any changes, save such as can be explained solely through his own nature, and consequently that he must always (as we have shown) necessarily exist, such a result must follow from the infinite power of God, and consequently (Proposition 16 of Part 1) from the necessity of the divine nature, in so far as it is regarded as affected by the idea of any given man, the whole order of nature as conceived under the attributes of extension and thought must be deducible. It would therefore follow (Proposition 21 of Part 1) that man is infinite, which (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. It is, therefore, impossible, that man should not undergo any changes save those whereof he is the adequate cause. Q.E.D.
Corollary — Hence it follows, that man is necessarily always prey to his passions, that he follows and obeys the general order of nature, and that he accommodates himself thereto, as much as the nature of things demands.
The power and increase of every passion, and its persistence in existing are not defined by the power, whereby we ourselves endeavour to persist in existing, but by the power of an external cause compared with our own.
Proof — The essence of a passion cannot be explained through our essence alone (Definition 1 and Definition 2 of Part 3), that is (Proposition 7 of Part 3), the power of a passion cannot be defined by the power, whereby we ourselves endeavour to persist in existing, but (as is shown in Proposition 16 of Part 2) must necessarily be defined by the power of an external cause compared with our own. Q.E.D.
The force of any passion or emotion can overcome the rest of a man's activities or power, so that the emotion becomes obstinately fixed to him.
Proof — The force and increase of any passion and its persistence in existing are defined by the power of an external cause compared with our own (by Proposition 5); therefore (Proposition 3) it can overcome a man's power, &c. Q.E.D.
An emotion can only be controlled or destroyed by another emotion contrary thereto, and with more power for controlling emotion.
Proof — Emotion, in so far as it is referred to the mind, is an idea, whereby the mind affirms of its body a greater or less force of existence than before (cf. the General Definition of the Emotions at the end of Part 3). When, therefore, the mind is assailed by any emotion, the body is at the same time affected with a modification whereby its power of activity is increased or diminished. Now this modification of the body (Proposition 5) receives from its cause the force for persistence in its being; which force can only be checked or destroyed by a bodily cause (Proposition 6 of Part 2), in virtue of the body being affected with a modification contrary to (Proposition 5 of Part 3) and stronger than (Axiom of this part) itself; wherefore (Proposition 12 of Part 2) the mind is affected by the idea of a modification contrary to, and stronger than the former modification, in other words (by the General Definition of the Emotions), the mind will be affected by an emotion contrary to and stronger than the former emotion, which will exclude or destroy the existence of the former emotion; thus an emotion cannot be destroyed nor controlled except by a contrary and stronger emotion. Q.E.D.
Corollary — An emotion, in so far as it is referred to the mind, can only be controlled or destroyed through an idea of a modification of the body contrary to, and stronger than, that which we are undergoing. For the emotion which we undergo can only be checked or destroyed by an emotion contrary to, and stronger than, itself, in other words (by the General Definition of the Emotions), only by an idea of a modification of the body contrary to, and stronger than, the modification which we undergo.
The knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof.
Proof — We call a thing good or evil, when it is of service or the reverse in preserving our being (Definition 1 and Definition 2), that is (Proposition 7 of Part 3), when it increases or diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity. Thus, in so far as we perceive that a thing affects us with pleasure or pain, we call it good or evil; wherefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the idea of the pleasure or pain, which necessarily follows from that pleasurable or painful emotion (Proposition 22 of Part 2). But this idea is united to the emotion in the same way as mind is united to body (Proposition 21 of Part 2); that is, there is no real distinction between this idea and the emotion or idea of the modification of the body, save in conception only. Therefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the emotion, in so far as we are conscious thereof. Q.E.D.
An emotion, whereof we conceive the cause to be with us at the present time, is stronger than if we did not conceive the cause to be with us.
Proof — Imagination or conception is the idea, by which the mind regards a thing as present (Note to Proposition 17 of Part 2), but which indicates the disposition of the mind rather than the nature of the external thing (Corollary 2 to Proposition 16 of Part 2). An emotion is therefore a conception, in so far as it indicates the disposition of the body. But a conception (by Proposition 17 of Part 2) is stronger, so long as we conceive nothing which excludes the present existence of the external object; wherefore an emotion is also stronger or more intense, when we conceive the cause to be with us at the present time, than when we do not conceive the cause to be with us. Q.E.D.
Note — When I said above in Proposition 18 of Part 3 that we are affected by the image of what is past or future with the same emotion as if the thing conceived were present, I expressly stated, that this is only true in so far as we look solely to the image of the thing in question itself; for the thing's nature is unchanged, whether we have conceived it or not; I did not deny that the image becomes weaker, when we regard as present to us other things which exclude the present existence of the future object: I did not expressly call attention to the fact, because I purposed to treat of the strength of the emotions in this part of my work.
Corollary — The image of something past or future, that is, of a thing which we regard as in relation to time past or time future, to the exclusion of time present, is, when other conditions are equal, weaker than the image of something present; consequently an emotion felt towards what is past or future is less intense, other conditions being equal, than an emotion felt towards something present.
Towards something future, which we conceive as close at hand, we are affected more intensely, than if we conceive that its time for existence is separated from the present by a longer interval; so too by the remembrance of what we conceive to have not long passed away we are affected more intensely, than if we conceive that it has long passed away.
Proof — In so far as we conceive a thing as close at hand, or not long passed away, we conceive that which excludes the presence of the object less, than if its period of future existence were more distant from the present, or if it had long passed away (this is obvious) therefore (by the foregoing Proposition) we are, so far, more intensely affected towards it. Q.E.D.
Corollary — From the remarks made in Definition 6 of this part it follows that, if objects are separated from the present by a longer period than we can define in conception, though their dates of occurrence be widely separated one from the other, they all affect us equally faintly.
An emotion towards that which we conceive as necessary is, when other conditions are equal, more intense than an emotion towards that which possible, or contingent, or non-necessary.
Proof — In so far as we conceive a thing to be necessary, we, to that extent, affirm its existence; on the other hand we deny a thing's existence, in so far as we conceive it not to be necessary (Note 1 to Proposition 33 of Part 1); wherefore (Proposition 9) an emotion towards that which is necessary is, other conditions being equal, more intense than an emotion that which is non-necessary. Q.E.D.
An emotion towards a thing, which we know not to exist at the present time, and which we conceive as possible, is more intense, other conditions being equal, than an emotion towards a thing contingent.
Proof — In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent, we are affected by the conception of some further thing, which would assert the existence of the former (Definition 3); but, on the other hand, we (by hypothesis) conceive certain things, which exclude its present existence. But, in so far as we conceive a thing to be possible in the future, we thereby conceive things which assert its existence (Proposition 4), that is (Proposition 18 of Part 3), things which promote hope or fear: wherefore an emotion towards something possible is more vehement. Q.E.D.
Corollary — An emotion towards a thing, which we know not to exist in the present, and which we conceive as contingent, is far fainter, than if we conceive the thing to be present with us.
Proof — Emotion towards a thing, which we conceive to exist, is more intense than it would be, if we conceived the thing as future (Corollary to Proposition 9), and is much more vehement, than if the future time be conceived as far distant from the present (Proposition 10). Therefore an emotion towards a thing, whose period of existence we conceive to be far distant from the present, is far fainter, than if we conceive the thing as present; it is, nevertheless, more intense, than if we conceived the thing as contingent, wherefore an emotion towards a thing, which we regard as contingent, will be far fainter, than if we conceived the thing to be present with us. Q.E.D.
Emotion towards a thing contingent, which we know not to exist in the present, is, other conditions being equal, fainter than an emotion towards a thing past.
Proof — In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent, we are not affected by the image of any other thing, which asserts the existence of the said thing (Definition 3), but, on the other hand (by hypothesis), we conceive certain things excluding its present existence. But, in so far as we conceive it in relation to time past, we are assumed to conceive something, which recalls the thing to memory, or excites the image thereof (Proposition 18 of Part 2 and its Note), which is so far the same as regarding it as present (Corollary to Proposition 17 of Part 2). Therefore (Proposition 9) an emotion towards a thing contingent, which we know does not exist in the present, is fainter, other conditions being equal, than an emotion towards a thing past. Q.E.D.
A true knowledge of good and evil cannot check any emotion by virtue of being true, but only in so far as it is considered as an emotion.
Proof — An emotion is an idea, whereby the mind affirms of its body a greater or less force of existing than before (by the General Definition of the Emotions); therefore it has no positive quality, which can be destroyed by the presence of what is true; consequently the knowledge of good and evil cannot, by virtue of being true, restrain any emotion. But, in so far as such knowledge is an emotion (Proposition 8) if it have more strength for restraining emotion, it will to that extent be able to restrain the given emotion. Q.E.D.
Desire arising from the knowledge of good and bad can be quenched or checked by many of the other desires arising from the emotions whereby we are assailed.
Proof — From the true knowledge of good and evil, in so far as it is an emotion, necessarily arises desire (Definitions of the Emotions, 1), the strength of which is proportioned to the strength of the emotion wherefrom it arises (Proposition 37 of Part 3). But, inasmuch as this desire arises (by hypothesis) from the fact of our truly understanding anything, it follows that it is also present with us, in so far as we are active (Proposition 1 of Part 3), and must therefore be understood through our essence only (Definition 2 of Part 3); consequently (Proposition 7 of Part 3) its force and increase can be defined solely by human power. Again, the desires arising from the emotions whereby we are assailed are stronger, in proportion as the said emotions are more vehement; wherefore their force and increase must be defined solely by the power of external causes, which, when compared with our own power, indefinitely surpass it (Proposition 3); hence the desires arising from like emotions may be more vehement, than the desire which arises from a true knowledge of good and evil, and may, consequently, control or quench it. Q.E.D.
Desire arising from the knowledge of good and evil, in so far as such knowledge regards what is future, may be more easily controlled or quenched, than the desire for what is agreeable at the present moment.
Proof — Emotion towards a thing, which we conceive as future, is fainter than emotion towards a thing that is present (Corollary to Proposition 9). But desire, which arises from the true knowledge of good and evil, though it be concerned with things which are good at the moment, can be quenched or controlled by any headstrong desire (by the last Proposition, the Proof whereof is of universal application). Wherefore desire arising from such knowledge, when concerned with the future, can be more easily controlled or quenched, &c. Q.E.D.
Desire arising from the true knowledge of good and evil, in so far as such knowledge is concerned with what is contingent, can be controlled far more easily still, than desire for things that are present.
Proof — This Prop. is proved in the same way as the last Proposition from the Corollary to Proposition 12.
Note — I think I have now shown the reason, why men are moved by opinion more readily than by true reason, why it is that the true knowledge of good and evil stirs up conflicts in the soul, and often yields to every kind of passion. This state of things gave rise to the exclamation of the poet: "The better path I gaze at and approve, the worse I follow."
Ecclesiastes seems to have had the same thought in his mind, when he says, "He who increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." I have not written the above with the object of drawing the conclusion, that ignorance is more excellent than knowledge, or that a wise man is on a par with a fool in controlling his emotions, but because it is necessary to know the power and the infirmity of our nature, before we can determine what reason can do in restraining the emotions, and what is beyond her power. I have said, that in the present part I shall merely treat of human infirmity. The power of reason over the emotions I have settled to treat separately.
Desire arising from pleasure is, other conditions being equal, stronger than desire arising from pain.
Proof — Desire is the essence of a man (Definitions of the Emotions, 1), that is, the endeavour whereby a man endeavours to persist in his own being. Wherefore desire arising from pleasure is, by the fact of pleasure being felt, increased or helped; on the contrary, desire arising from pain is, by the fact of pain being felt, diminished or hindered; hence the force of desire arising from pleasure must be defined by human power together with the power of an external cause, whereas desire arising from pain must be defined by human power only. Thus the former is the stronger of the two. Q.E.D.
Note — In these few remarks I have explained the causes of human infirmity and inconstancy, and shown why men do not abide by the precepts of reason. It now remains for me to show what course is marked out for us by reason, which of the emotions are in harmony with the rules of human reason, and which of them are contrary thereto. But, before I begin to prove my Propositions in detailed geometrical fashion, it is advisable to sketch them briefly in advance, so that everyone may more readily grasp my meaning.
As reason makes no demands contrary to nature, it demands, that every man should love himself, should seek that which is useful to him — I mean, that which is really useful to him, should desire everything which really brings man to greater perfection, and should, each for himself, endeavour as far as he can to preserve his own being. This is as necessarily true, as that a whole is greater than its part (Proposition 4 of Part 3).
Again, as virtue is nothing else but action in accordance with the laws of one's own nature (Definition 8), and as no one endeavours to preserve his own being, except in accordance with the laws of his own nature, it follows, first, that the foundation of virtue is the endeavour to preserve one's own being, and that happiness consists in man's power of preserving his own being; secondly, that virtue is to be desired for its own sake, and that there is nothing more excellent or more useful to us, for the sake of which we should desire it; thirdly and lastly, that suicides are weak-minded, and are overcome by external causes repugnant to their nature. Further, it follows from Postulate 4 of Part 2, that we can never arrive at doing without all external things for the preservation of our being or living, so as to have no relations with things which are outside ourselves. Again, if we consider our mind, we see that our intellect would be more imperfect, if mind were alone, and could understand nothing besides itself. There are, then, many things outside ourselves, which are useful to us, and are, therefore, to be desired. Of such none can be discerned more excellent, than those which are in entire agreement with our nature. For if, for example, two individuals of entirely the same nature are united, they form a combination twice as powerful as either of them singly.
Therefore, to man there is nothing more useful than man — nothing, I repeat, more excellent for preserving their being can be wished for by men — than that all should so in all points agree, that the minds and bodies of all should form, as it were, one single mind and one single body, and that all should, with one consent, as far as they are able, endeavour to preserve their being, and all with one consent seek what is useful to them all. Hence, men who are governed by reason — that is, who seek what is useful to them in accordance with reason — desire for themselves nothing, which they do not also desire for the rest of mankind, and, consequently, are just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.
Such are the dictates of reason, which I purposed thus briefly to indicate, before beginning to prove them in greater detail. I have taken this course, in order, if possible, to gain the attention of those who believe, that the principle that every man is bound to seek what is useful for himself is the foundation of impiety, rather than of piety and virtue.
Therefore, after briefly showing that the contrary is the case, I go on to prove it by the same method, as that whereby I have hitherto proceeded.
Every man, by the laws of his nature, necessarily desires or shrinks from that which he deems to be good or bad.
Proof — The knowledge of good and evil is (Proposition 8) the emotion of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof; therefore, every man necessarily desires what he thinks good, and shrinks from what he thinks bad. Now this appetite is nothing else but man's nature or essence (cf. the Definition of Appetite: Note to Proposition 9 of Part 3 and Definitions of the Emotions, 1). Therefore, every man, solely by the laws of his nature, desires the one, and shrinks from the other, &c. Q.E.D.
The more every man endeavours, and is able to seek what is useful to him — in other words, to preserve his own being — the more is he endowed with virtue; on the contrary, in proportion as a man neglects to seek what is useful to him, that is, to preserve his own being, he is wanting in power.
Proof — Virtue is human power, which is defined solely by man's essence (Definition 8), that is, which is defined solely by the endeavour made by man to persist in his own being. Wherefore, the more a man endeavours, and is able to preserve his own being, the more is he endowed with virtue, and, consequently (Proposition 4 of Part 3 and Proposition 6 of Part 3), in so far as a man neglects to preserve his own being, he is wanting in power. Q.E.D.
Note — No one, therefore, neglects seeking his own good, or preserving his own being, unless he be overcome by causes external and foreign to his nature. No one, I say, from the necessity of his own nature, or otherwise than under compulsion from external causes, shrinks from food, or kills himself: which latter may be done in a variety of ways. A man, for instance, kills himself under the compulsion of another man, who twists round his right hand, wherewith he happened to have taken up a sword, and forces him to turn the blade against his own heart; or, again, he may be compelled, like Seneca, by a tyrant's command, to open his own veins — that is, to escape a greater evil by incurring, a lesser; or, lastly, latent external causes may so disorder his imagination, and so affect his body, that it may assume a nature contrary to its former one, and whereof the idea cannot exist in the mind (Proposition 10 of Part 3). But that a man, from the necessity of his own nature, should endeavour to become non-existent, is as impossible as that something should be made out of nothing, as everyone will see for himself, after a little reflection.
No one can desire to be blessed, to act rightly, and to live rightly, without at the same time wishing to be, act, and to live — in other words, to actually exist.
Proof — The proof of this proposition, or rather the proposition itself, is self-evident, and is also plain from the definition of desire. For the desire of living, acting, &c., blessedly or rightly, is (Definitions of the Emotions, 1) the essence of man — that is (Proposition 7 of Part 3), the endeavour made by everyone to preserve his own being. Therefore, no one can desire, &c. Q.E.D.
No virtue can be conceived as prior to this endeavour to preserve one's own being.
Proof — The effort for self-preservation is the essence of a thing (Proposition 7 of Part 3); therefore, if any virtue could be conceived as prior thereto, the essence of a thing would have to be conceived as prior to itself, which is obviously absurd. Therefore no virtue, &c. Q.E.D.
Corollary — The effort for self-preservation is the first and only foundation of virtue. For prior to this principle nothing can be conceived, and without it no virtue can be conceived.
Man, in so far as he is determined to a particular action because he has inadequate ideas, cannot be absolutely said to act in obedience to virtue; he can only be so described, in so far as he is determined for the action because he understands.
Proof — In so far as a man is determined to an action through having inadequate ideas, he is passive (Proposition 1 of Part 3), that is (Definition 1 of Part 3 and Definition 3 of Part 3), he does something, which cannot be perceived solely through his essence, that is (by Definition 8), which does not follow from his virtue. But, in so far as he is determined for an action because he understands, he is active; that is, he does something, which is perceived through his essence alone, or which adequately follows from his virtue. Q.E.D.
To act absolutely in obedience to virtue is in us the same thing as to act, to live, or to preserve one's being (these three terms are identical in meaning) in accordance with the dictates of reason on the basis of seeking what is useful to one's self.
Proof — To act absolutely in obedience to virtue is nothing else but to act according to the laws of one's own nature. But we only act, in so far as we understand (Proposition 3 of Part 3): therefore to act in obedience to virtue is in us nothing else but to act, to live, or to preserve one's being in obedience to reason, and that on the basis of seeking what is useful for us (Corollary to Proposition 22). Q.E.D.
No one wishes to preserve his being for the sake of anything else.
Proof — The endeavour, wherewith everything endeavours to persist in its being, is defined solely by the essence of the thing itself (Proposition 7 of Part 3); from this alone, and not from the essence of anything else, it necessarily follows (Proposition 6 of Part 3) that everyone endeavours to preserve his being. Moreover, this proposition is plain from the Corollary to Proposition 22, for if a man should endeavour to preserve his being for the sake of anything else, the last-named thing would obviously be the basis of virtue, which, by the foregoing corollary, is absurd. Therefore no one, &c. Q.E.D.
Whatsoever we endeavour in obedience to reason is nothing further than to understand; neither does the mind, in so far as it makes use of reason, judge anything to be useful to it, save such things as are conducive to understanding.
Proof — The effort for self-preservation is nothing else but the essence of the thing in question (Proposition 7 of Part 3), which, in so far as it exists such as it is, is conceived to have force for continuing in existence (Proposition 6 of Part 3) and doing such things as necessarily follow from its given nature (see the definition of appetite, Note to Proposition 9 of Part 3). But the essence of reason is nought else but our mind, in so far as it clearly and distinctly understands (see the definition in Note 2 to Proposition 40 of Part 2); therefore (Proposition 40 of Part 2) whatsoever we endeavour in obedience to reason is nothing else but to understand. Again, since this effort of the mind wherewith the mind endeavours, in so far as it reasons, to preserve its own being is nothing else but understanding; this effort at understanding is (Corollary to Proposition 22) the first and single basis of virtue, nor shall we endeavour to understand things for the sake of any ulterior object (Proposition 25); on the other hand, the mind, in so far as it reasons, will not be able to conceive any good for itself, save such things as are conducive to understanding.
We know nothing to be certainly good or evil, save such things as really conduce to understanding, or such as are able to hinder us from understanding.
Proof — The mind, in so far as it reasons, desires nothing beyond understanding, and judges nothing to be useful to itself, save such things as conduce to understanding (by Proposition 26). But the mind (Proposition 41 of Part 2 along with Proposition 43 of Part 2 and its Note) cannot possess certainty concerning anything, except in so far as it has adequate ideas, or (what by the Note to Proposition 40 of Part 2, is the same thing) in so far as it reasons. Therefore we know nothing to be good or evil save such things as really conduce, &c. Q.E.D.
The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God.
Proof — The mind is not capable of understanding anything higher than God, that is (Definition 6 of Part 1), than a Being absolutely infinite, and without which (Proposition 15 of Part 1) nothing can either be or be conceived; therefore (Proposition 26 and Proposition 27), the mind's highest utility or (Definition 1) good is the knowledge of God. Again, the mind is active, only in so far as it understands, and only to the same extent can it be said absolutely to act virtuously. The mind's absolute virtue is therefore to understand. Now, as we have already shown, the highest that the mind can understand is God; therefore the highest virtue of the mind is to understand or to know God. Q.E.D.
No individual thing, which is entirely different from our own nature, can help or check our power of activity, and absolutely nothing can do us good or harm, unless it has something in common with our nature.
Proof — The power of every individual thing, and consequently the power of man, whereby he exists and operates, can only be determined by an individual thing (Proposition 28 of Part 1), whose nature (Proposition 6 of Part 2) must be understood through the same nature as that, through which human nature is conceived. Therefore our power of activity, however it be conceived, can be determined and consequently helped or hindered by the power of any other individual thing, which has something in common with us, but not by the power of anything, of which the nature is entirely different from our own; and since we call good or evil that which is the cause of pleasure or pain (Proposition 8), that is (Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3), which increases or diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity; therefore, that which is entirely different from our nature can neither be to us good nor bad. Q.E.D.
A thing cannot be bad for us through the quality which it has in common with our nature, but it is bad for us in so far as it is contrary to our nature.
Proof — We call a thing bad when it is the cause of pain (Proposition 8), that is (by the definition of pain, which see in the Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3), when it diminishes or checks our power of action. Therefore, if anything were bad for us through that quality which it has in common with our nature, it would be able itself to diminish or check that which it has in common with our nature, which (Proposition 4 of Part 3) is absurd. Wherefore nothing can be bad for us through that quality which it has in common with us, but, on the other hand, in so far as it is bad for us, that is (as we have just shown), in so far as it can diminish or check our power of action, it is contrary to our nature. Q.E.D.
In so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it is necessarily good.
Proof — In so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it cannot be bad for it. It will therefore necessarily be either good or indifferent. If it be assumed that it be neither good nor bad, nothing will follow from its nature (Definition 1), which tends to the preservation of our nature, that is (by the hypothesis), which tends to the preservation of the thing itself; but this (Proposition 6 of Part 3) is absurd; therefore, in so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it is necessarily good. Q.E.D.
Corollary — Hence it follows, that, in proportion as a thing is in harmony with our nature, so is it more useful or better for us, and vice versâ, in proportion as a thing is more useful for us, so is it more in harmony with our nature. For, in so far as it is not in harmony with our nature, it will necessarily be different therefrom or contrary thereto. If different, it can neither be good nor bad (Proposition 29); if contrary, it will be contrary to that which is in harmony with our nature, that is, contrary to what is good — in short, bad. Nothing, therefore, can be good, except in so far as it is in harmony with our nature; and hence a thing is useful, in proportion as it is in harmony with our nature, and vice versâ. Q.E.D.
In so far as men are prey to passion, they cannot, in that respect, be said to be naturally in harmony.
Proof — Things, which are said to be in harmony naturally, are understood to agree in power (Proposition 7 of Part 3), not in want of power or negation, and consequently not in passion (Note to Proposition 3 of Part 3); wherefore men, in so far as they are prey to their passions, cannot be said to be naturally in harmony. Q.E.D.
Note — This is also self-evident; for, if we say that white and black only agree in the fact that neither is red, we absolutely affirm that the do not agree in any respect. So, if we say that a man and a stone only agree in the fact that both are finite — wanting in power, not existing by the necessity of their own nature, or, lastly, indefinitely surpassed by the power of external causes — we should certainly affirm that a man and a stone are in no respect alike; therefore, things which agree only in negation, or in qualities which neither possess, really agree in no respect.
Men can differ in nature, in so far as they are assailed by those emotions, which are passions, or passive states; and to this extent one and the same man is variable and inconstant.
Proof — The nature or essence of the emotions cannot be explained solely through our essence or nature (Definition 1 of Part 3, Definition 2 of Part 3), but it must be defined by the power, that is (Proposition 7 of Part 3), by the nature of external causes in comparison with our own; hence it follows, that there are as many kinds of each emotion as there are external objects whereby we are affected (Proposition 56 of Part 3), and that men may be differently affected by one and the same object (Proposition 51 of Part 3), and to this extent differ in nature; lastly, that one and the same man may be differently affected towards the same object, and may therefore be variable and inconstant. Q.E.D.
In so far as men are assailed by emotions which are passions, they can be contrary one to another.
Proof — A man, for instance Peter, can be the cause of Paul's feeling pain, because he (Peter) possesses something similar to that which Paul hates (Proposition 16 of Part 3), or because Peter has sole possession of a thing which Paul also loves (Proposition 32 of Part 3 and its Note), or for other causes (of which the chief are enumerated in the Note to Proposition 55 of Part 3); it may therefore happen that Paul should hate Peter (Definitions of the Emotions, 7), consequently it may easily happen also, that Peter should hate Paul in return, and that each should endeavour to do the other an injury, (Proposition 39 of Part 3), that is (Proposition 30), that they should be contrary one to another. But the emotion of pain is always a passion or passive state (Proposition 59 of Part 3); hence men, in so far as they are assailed by emotions which are passions, can be contrary one to another. Q.E.D.
Note — I said that Paul may hate Peter, because he conceives that Peter possesses something which he (Paul) also loves; from this it seems, at first sight, to follow, that these two men, through both loving the same thing, and, consequently, through agreement of their respective natures, stand in one another's way; if this were so, Proposition 30 and Proposition 31 of this part would be untrue. But if we give the matter our unbiased attention, we shall see that the discrepancy vanishes. For the two men are not in one another's way in virtue of the agreement of their natures, that is, through both loving the same thing, but in virtue of one differing from the other. For, in so far as each loves the same thing, the love of each is fostered thereby (Proposition 31 of Part 3), that is (Definitions of the Emotions, 6) the pleasure of each is fostered thereby. Wherefore it is far from being the case, that they are at variance through both loving the same thing, and through the agreement in their natures. The cause for their opposition lies, as I have said, solely in the fact that they are assumed to differ. For we assume that Peter has the idea of the loved object as already in his possession, while Paul has the idea of the loved object as lost. Hence the one man will be affected with pleasure, the other will be affected with pain, and thus they will be at variance one with another. We can easily show in like manner, that all other causes of hatred depend solely on differences, and not on the agreement between men's natures.
In so far only as men live in obedience to reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature.
Proof — In so far as men are assailed by emotions that are passions, they can be different in nature (Proposition 33), and at variance one with another. But men are only said to be active, in so far as they act in obedience to reason (Proposition 3 of Part 3); therefore, what so ever follows from human nature in so far as it is defined by reason must (Definition 2 of Part 3) be understood solely through human nature as its proximate cause. But, since every man by the laws of his nature desires that which he deems good, and endeavours to remove that which he deems bad (Proposition 19); and further, since that which we, in accordance with reason, deem good or bad, necessarily is good or bad (Proposition 41 of Part 2); it follows that men, in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily do only such things as are necessarily good for human nature, and consequently for each individual man (Corollary to Proposition 31); in other words, such things as are in harmony with each man's nature. Therefore, men in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily live always in harmony one with another. Q.E.D.
Corollary 1 — There is no individual thing in nature, which is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. For that thing is to man most useful, which is most in harmony with his nature (Corollary to Proposition 31); that is, obviously, man. But man acts absolutely according to the laws of his nature, when he lives in obedience to reason (Definition 2 of Part 3), and to this extent only is always necessarily in harmony with the nature of another man (by the last Proposition); wherefore among individual things nothing is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. Q.E.D.
Corollary 2 — As every man seeks most that which is useful to him, so are men most useful one to another. For the more a man seeks what is useful to him and endeavours to preserve himself, the more is he endowed with virtue (Proposition 20), or, what is the same thing (Definition 8), the more is he endowed with power to act according to the laws of his own nature, that is to live in obedience to reason. But men are most in natural harmony, when they live in obedience to reason (by the last Proposition); therefore (by the foregoing Corollary) men will be most useful one to another, when each seeks most that which is useful to him. Q.E.D.
Note — What we have just shown is attested by experience so conspicuously, that it is in the mouth of nearly everyone: "Man is to man a God." Yet it rarely happens that men live in obedience to reason, for things are so ordered among them, that they are generally envious and troublesome one to another. Nevertheless they are scarcely able to lead a solitary life, so that the definition of man as a social animal has met with general assent; in fact, men do derive from social life much more convenience than injury. Let satirists then laugh their fill at human affairs, let theologians rail, and let misanthropes praise to their utmost the life of untutored rusticity, let them heap contempt on men and praises on beasts; when all is said, they will find that men can provide for their wants much more easily by mutual help, and that only by uniting their forces can they escape from the dangers that on every side beset them: not to say how much more excellent and worthy of our knowledge it is, to study the actions of men than the actions of beasts. But I will treat of this more at length elsewhere.
The highest good of those who follow virtue is common to all, and therefore all can equally rejoice therein.
Proof — To act virtuously is to act in obedience with reason (Proposition 24), and whatsoever we endeavour to do in obedience to reason is to understand (Proposition 26); therefore (Proposition 28) the highest good for those who follow after virtue is to know God; that is (Proposition 47 of Part 2 and its Note) a good which is common to all and can be possessed by all men equally, in so far as they are of the same nature. Q.E.D.
Note — Someone may ask how it would be, if the highest good of those who follow after virtue were not common to all? Would it not then follow, as above (Proposition 34), that men living in obedience to reason, that is (Proposition 35), men in so far as they agree in nature, would be at variance one with another? To such an inquiry, I make answer, that it follows not accidentally but from the very nature of reason, that man's highest good is common to all, inasmuch as it is deduced from the very essence of man, in so far as defined by reason; and that a man could neither be, nor be conceived without the power of taking pleasure in this highest good. For it belongs to the essence of the human mind (Proposition 47 of Part 2), to have an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God.
The good which every man, who follows after virtue, desires for himself he will also desire for other men, and so much the more, in proportion as he has a greater knowledge of God.
Proof — Men, in so far as they live in obedience to reason, are most useful to their fellow men (Proposition 35 and Corollary 1 thereto); therefore (Proposition 19), we shall in obedience to reason necessarily endeavour to bring about that men should live in obedience to reason. But the good which every man, in so far as he is guided by reason, or, in other words, follows after virtue, desires for himself, is to understand (Proposition 26); wherefore the good, which each follower of virtue seeks for himself, he will desire also for others. Again, desire, in so far as it is referred to the mind, is the very essence of the mind (Definitions of the Emotions, 1); now the essence of the mind consists in knowledge (Proposition 11 of Part 2), which involves the knowledge of God (Proposition 47 of Part 2), and without it (Proposition 15 of Part 1), can neither be, nor be conceived; therefore, in proportion as the mind's essence involves a greater knowledge of God, so also will be greater the desire of the follower of virtue, that other men should possess that which he seeks as good for himself. Q.E.D.
Another Proof — The good, which a man desires for himself and loves, he will love more constantly, if he sees that others love it also (Proposition 31 of Part 3); he will therefore endeavour that others should love it also; and as the good in question is common to all, and therefore all can rejoice therein, he will endeavour, for the same reason, to bring about that all should rejoice therein, and this he will do the more (Proposition 37 of Part 3), in proportion as his own enjoyment of the good is greater.
Note 1 — He who, guided by emotion only, endeavours to cause others to love what he loves himself, and to make the rest of the world live according to his own fancy, acts solely by impulse, and is, therefore, hateful, especially, to those who take delight in something different, and accordingly study and, by similar impulse, endeavour, to make men live in accordance with what pleases themselves. Again, as the highest good sought by men under the guidance of emotion is often such, that it can only be possessed by a single individual, it follows that those who love it are not consistent in their intentions, but, while they delight to sing its praises, fear to be believed. But he, who endeavours to lead men by reason, does not act by impulse but courteously and kindly, and his intention is always consistent. Again, whatsoever we desire and do, whereof we are the cause in so far as we possess the idea of God, or know God, I set down to Religion. The desire of well-doing, which is engendered by a life according to reason, I call piety. Further, the desire, whereby a man living according to reason is bound to associate others with himself in friendship, I call honour; by honourable I mean that which is praised by men living according to reason, and by base I mean that which is repugnant to the gaining of friendship. I have also shown in addition what are the foundations of a state; and the difference between true virtue and infirmity may be readily gathered from what I have said; namely, that true virtue is nothing else but living in accordance with reason; while infirmity is nothing else but man's allowing himself to be led by things which are external to himself, and to be by them determined to act in a manner demanded by the general disposition of things rather than by his own nature considered solely in itself.
Such are the matters which I engaged to prove in Proposition 18 of this part, whereby it is plain that the law against the slaughtering of animals is founded rather on vain superstition and womanish pity than on sound reason. The rational quest of what is useful to us further teaches us the necessity of associating ourselves with our fellow men, but not with beasts, or things, whose nature is different from our own; we have the same rights in respect to them as they have in respect to us. Nay, as everyone's right is defined by his virtue, or power, men have far greater rights over beasts than beasts have over men. Still I do not deny that beasts feel: what I deny is, that we may not consult our own advantage and use them as we please, treating them in the way which best suits us; for their nature is not like ours, and their emotions are naturally different from human emotions (Note to Proposition 57 of Part 3). It remains for me to explain what I mean by just and unjust, sin and merit. On these points see the following note.
Note 2 — In the Appendix to Part 1 I undertook to explain praise and blame, merit and sin, justice and injustice.
Concerning praise and blame I have spoken in the Note to Proposition 29 of Part 3; the time has now come to treat of the remaining terms. But I must first say a few words concerning man in the state of nature and in society.
Every man exists by sovereign natural right, and, consequently, by sovereign natural right performs those actions which follow from the necessity of his own nature; therefore by sovereign natural right every man judges what is good and what is bad, takes care of his own advantage according to his own disposition (Proposition 19 and Proposition 20), avenges the wrongs done to him (Corollary 2 to Proposition 40 of Part 3), and endeavours to preserve that which he loves and to destroy that which he hates (Proposition 28 of Part 3). Now, if men lived under the guidance of reason, everyone would remain in possession of this his right, without any injury being done to his neighbour (Corollary 1 to Proposition 35). But seeing that they are prey to their emotions, which far surpass human power or virtue (Proposition 6), they are often drawn in different directions, and being at variance one with another (Proposition 33, Proposition 34), stand in need of mutual help (Note to Proposition 35). Wherefore, in order that men may live together in harmony, and may aid one another, it is necessary that they should forego their natural right, and, for the sake of security, refrain from all actions which can injure their fellow-men. The way in which this end can be obtained, so that men who are necessarily prey to their emotions (Corollary to Proposition 4), inconstant, and diverse, should be able to render each other mutually secure, and feel mutual trust, is evident from Proposition 7 and from Proposition 39 of Part 3. It is there shown, that an emotion can only be restrained by an emotion stronger than, and contrary to itself, and that men avoid inflicting injury through fear of incurring a greater injury themselves.
On this law society can be established, so long as it keeps in its own hand the right, possessed by everyone, of avenging injury, and pronouncing on good and evil; and provided it also possesses the power to lay down a general rule of conduct, and to pass laws sanctioned, not by reason, which is powerless in restraining emotion, but by threats (Note to Proposition 17). Such a society established with laws and the power of preserving itself is called a State, while those who live under its protection are called citizens. We may readily understand that there is in the state of nature nothing, which by universal consent is pronounced good or bad; for in the state of nature everyone thinks solely of his own advantage, and according to his disposition, with reference only to his individual advantage, decides what is good or bad, being bound by no law to anyone besides himself.
In the state of nature, therefore, sin is inconceivable; it can only exist in a state, where good and evil are pronounced on by common consent, and where everyone is bound to obey the State authority. Sin, then, is nothing else but disobedience, which is therefore punished by the right of the State only. Obedience, on the other hand, is set down as merit, inasmuch as a man is thought worthy of merit, if he takes delight in the advantages which a State provides.
Again, in the state of nature, no one is by common consent master of anything, nor is there anything in nature, which can be said to belong to one man rather than another: all things are common to all. Hence, in the state of nature, we can conceive no wish to render to every man his own, or to deprive a man of that which belongs to him; in other words, there is nothing in the state of nature answering to justice and injustice. Such ideas are only possible in a social state, when it is decreed by common consent what belongs to one man and what to another.
From all these considerations it is evident, that justice and injustice, sin and merit, are extrinsic ideas, and not attributes which display the nature of the mind. But I have said enough.
Whatsoever disposes the human body, so as to render it capable of being affected in an increased number of ways, or of affecting external bodies in an increased number of ways, is useful to man; and is so, in proportion as the body is thereby rendered more capable of being affected or affecting other bodies in an increased number of ways; contrariwise, whatsoever renders the body less capable in this respect is hurtful to man.
Proof — Whatsoever thus increases the capabilities of the body increases also the mind's capability of perception (Proposition 14 of Part 2); therefore, whatsoever thus disposes the body and thus renders it capable, is necessarily good or useful (Proposition 26, Proposition 27); and is so in proportion to the extent to which it can render the body capable; contrariwise (Proposition 14 of Part 2, Proposition 26, Proposition 27), it is hurtful, if it renders the body in this respect less capable. Q.E.D.
Whatsoever brings about the preservation of the proportion of motion and rest, which the parts of the human body mutually possess, is good; contrariwise, whatsoever causes a change in such proportion is bad.
Proof — The human body needs many other bodies for its preservation (Postulate 4 of Part 2). But that which constitutes the specific reality (forma) of a human body is, that its parts communicate their several motions one to another in a certain fixed proportion (Definition before Lemma 4 after Proposition 13 of Part 2). Therefore, whatsoever brings about the preservation of the proportion between motion and rest, which the parts of the human body mutually possess, preserves the specific reality of the human body, and consequently renders the human body capable of being affected in many ways and of affecting external bodies in many ways; consequently it is good (by the last Proposition). Again, whatsoever brings about a change in the aforesaid proportion causes the human body to assume another specific character, in other words (see Preface to this Part towards the end, though the point is indeed self-evident), to be destroyed, and consequently totally incapable of being affected in an increased number of ways; therefore it is bad. Q.E.D.
Note — The extent to which such causes can injure or be of service to the mind will be explained in the Fifth Part. But I would here remark that I consider that a body undergoes death, when the proportion of motion and rest which obtained mutually among its several parts is changed. For I do not venture to deny that a human body, while keeping the circulation of the blood and other properties, wherein the life of a body is thought to consist, may none the less be changed into another nature totally different from its own. There is no reason, which compels me to maintain that a body does not die, unless it becomes a corpse; nay, experience would seem to point to the opposite conclusion. It sometimes happens, that a man undergoes such changes, that I should hardly call him the same. As I have heard tell of a certain Spanish poet, who had been seized with sickness, and though he recovered therefrom yet remained so oblivious of his past life, that he would not believe the plays and tragedies he had written to be his own; indeed, he might have been taken for a grown-up child, if he had also forgotten his native tongue. If this instance seems incredible, what shall we say of infants? A man of ripe age deems their nature so unlike his own, that he can only be persuaded that he too has been an infant by the analogy of other men. However, I prefer to leave such questions undiscussed, lest I should give ground to the superstitious for raising new issues.
Whatsoever conduces to man's social life, or causes men to live together in harmony, is useful, whereas whatsoever brings discord into a State is bad.
Proof — For whatsoever causes men to live together in harmony also causes them to live according to reason (Proposition 35), and is therefore (Proposition 26, Proposition 27) good, and (for the same reason) whatsoever brings about discord is bad. Q.E.D.
Pleasure in itself is not bad but good: contrariwise, pain in itself is bad.
Proof — Pleasure (Proposition 11 of Part 3 and its Note) is emotion, whereby the body's power of activity is increased or helped; pain is emotion, whereby the body's power of activity is diminished or checked; therefore (Proposition 38) pleasure in itself is good, &c. Q.E.D.
Mirth cannot be excessive, but is always good; contrariwise, Melancholy is always bad.
Proof — Mirth (see its definition in the Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3) is pleasure, which, in so far as it is referred to the body, consists in all parts of the body being affected equally: that is (Proposition 11 of Part 3), the body's power of activity is increased or aided in such a manner, that the several parts maintain their former proportion of motion and rest; therefore Mirth is always good (Proposition 39), and cannot be excessive. But Melancholy (see its definition in the Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3) is pain, which, in so far as it is referred to the body, consists in the absolute decrease or hindrance of the body's power of activity; therefore (Proposition 38) it is always bad. Q.E.D.
Stimulation may be excessive and bad; on the other hand, grief may be good, in so far as stimulation or pleasure is bad.
Proof — Localized pleasure or stimulation (titillatio) is pleasure, which, in so far as it is referred to the body, consists in one or some of its parts being affected more than the rest (see its definition in the Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3); the power of this emotion may be sufficient to overcome other actions of the body (Proposition 6), and may remain obstinately fixed therein, thus rendering it incapable of being affected in a variety of other ways: therefore (Proposition 38) it may be bad. Again, grief, which is pain, cannot as such be good (Proposition 41). But, as its force and increase is defined by the power of an external cause compared with our own (Proposition 5), we can conceive infinite degrees and modes of strength in this emotion (Proposition 3); we can, therefore, conceive it as capable of restraining stimulation, and preventing its becoming excessive, and hindering the body's capabilities; thus, to this extent, it will be good. Q.E.D.
Love and desire may be excessive.
Proof — Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of an external cause (Definitions of the Emotions, 6); therefore stimulation, accompanied by the idea of an external cause is love (Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3); hence love maybe excessive. Again, the strength of desire varies in proportion to the emotion from which it arises (Proposition 37 of Part 3). Now emotion may overcome all the rest of men's actions (Proposition 6); so, therefore, can desire, which arises from the same emotion, overcome all other desires, and become excessive, as we showed in the last Proposition concerning stimulation.
Note — Mirth, which I have stated to be good, can be conceived more easily than it can be observed. For the emotions, whereby we are daily assailed, are generally referred to some part of the body which is affected more than the rest; hence the emotions are generally excessive, and so fix the mind in the contemplation of one object, that it is unable to think of others; and although men, as a rule, are prey to many emotions — and very few are found who are always assailed by one and the same — yet there are cases, where one and the same emotion remains obstinately fixed. We sometimes see men so absorbed in one object, that, although it be not present, they think they have it before them; when this is the case with a man who is not asleep, we say he is delirious or mad; nor are those persons who are inflamed with love, and who dream all night and all day about nothing but their mistress, or some woman, considered as less mad, for they are made objects of ridicule. But when a miser thinks of nothing but gain or money, or when an ambitious man thinks of nothing but glory, they are not reckoned to be mad, because they are generally harmful, and are thought worthy of being hated. But, in reality, Avarice, Ambition, Lust, &c., are species of madness, though they may not be reckoned among diseases.
Hatred can never be good.
Proof — When we hate a man, we endeavour to destroy him (Proposition 39 of Part 3), that is (Proposition 37), we endeavour to do something that is bad. Therefore, &c. Q.E.D.
N.B. Here, and in what follows, I mean by hatred only hatred towards men.
Corollary 1 — Envy, derision, contempt, anger, revenge, and other emotions attributable to hatred, or arising therefrom, are bad; this is evident from Proposition 39 of Part 3 and Proposition 37 of this part.
Corollary 2 — Whatsoever we desire from motives of hatred is base, and in a State unjust. This also is evident from Proposition 39 of Part 3, and from the definitions of baseness and injustice in Note 1 to Proposition 37 of this part.
Note — Between derision (which I have in Corollary 1 stated to be bad) and laughter I recognize a great difference. For laughter, as also jocularity, is merely pleasure; therefore, so long as it be not excessive, it is in itself good (Proposition 41). Assuredly nothing forbids man to enjoy himself, save grim and gloomy superstition. For why is it more lawful to satiate one's hunger and thirst than to drive away one's melancholy? I reason, and have convinced myself as follows: No deity, nor anyone else, save the envious, takes pleasure in my infirmity and discomfort, nor sets down to my virtue the tears, sobs, fear, and the like, which are signs of infirmity of spirit; on the contrary, the greater the pleasure wherewith we are affected, the greater the perfection whereto we pass; in other words, the more must we necessarily partake of the divine nature. Therefore, to make use of what comes in our way, and to enjoy it as much as possible (not to the point of satiety, for that would not be enjoyment) is the part of a wise man. I say it is the part of a wise man to refresh and recreate himself with moderate and pleasant food and drink, and also with perfumes, with the soft beauty of growing plants, with dress, with music, with many sports, with theatres, and the like, such as every man may make use of without injury to his neighbour. For the human body is composed of very numerous parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in need of fresh and varied nourishment, so that the whole body may be equally capable of performing all the actions, which follow from the necessity of its own nature; and, consequently, so that the mind may also be equally capable of understanding many things simultaneously. This way of life, then, agrees best with our principles, and also with general practice; therefore, if there be any question of another plan, the plan we have mentioned is the best, and in every way to be commended. There is no need for me to set forth the matter more clearly or in more detail.
He, who lives under the guidance of reason, endeavours, as far as possible, to render back love, or kindness, for other men's hatred, anger, contempt, &c., towards him.
Proof — All emotions of hatred are bad (Corollary 1 to Proposition 45); therefore he who lives under the guidance of reason will endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid being assailed by such emotions (Proposition 19); consequently, he will also endeavour to prevent others being so assailed (Proposition 37). But hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can be quenched by love (Proposition 43 of Part 3), so that hatred may pass into love (Proposition 44 of Part 3); therefore he who lives under the guidance of reason will endeavour to repay hatred with love, that is, with kindness. Q.E.D.
Note — He who chooses to avenge wrongs with hatred is assuredly wretched. But he, who strives to conquer hatred with love, fights his battle in joy and confidence; he withstands many as easily as one, and has very little need of fortune's aid. Those whom he vanquishes yield joyfully, not through failure, but through increase in their powers; all these consequences follow so plainly from the mere definitions of love and understanding, that I have no need to prove them in detail.
Emotions of hope and fear cannot be in themselves good.
Proof — Emotions of hope and fear cannot exist without pain. For fear is pain (Definitions of the Emotions, 13), and hope (Definitions of the Emotions, 12) cannot exist without fear; therefore (Proposition 41) these emotions cannot be good in themselves, but only in so far as they can restrain excessive pleasure (Proposition 43). Q.E.D.
Note — We may add, that these emotions show defective knowledge and an absence of power in the mind; for the same reason confidence, despair, joy, and disappointment are signs of a want of mental power. For although confidence and joy are pleasurable emotions, they nevertheless imply a preceding pain, namely, hope and fear. Wherefore the more we endeavour to be guided by reason, the less do we depend on hope; we endeavour to free ourselves from fear, and, as far as we can, to dominate fortune, directing our actions by the sure counsels of wisdom.
The emotions of over-esteem and disparagement are always bad.
Proof — These emotions (Definitions of the Emotions, 21 and Definitions of the Emotions, 22) are repugnant to reason; and are therefore (Proposition 26 and Proposition 27) bad. Q.E.D.
Over-esteem is apt to render its object proud.
Proof — If we see that any one rates us too highly, for love's sake, we are apt to become elated (Proposition 41 of Part 3), or to be pleasurably affected (Definitions of the Emotions, 30); the good which we hear of ourselves we readily believe (Proposition 25 of Part 3); and therefore, for love's sake, rate ourselves too highly; in other words, we are apt to become proud. Q.E.D.
Pity, in a man who lives under the guidance of reason, is in itself bad and useless.
Proof — Pity (Definitions of the Emotions, 18) is a pain, and therefore (Proposition 41) is in itself bad. The good effect which follows, namely, our endeavour to free the object of our pity from misery, is an action which we desire to do solely at the dictation of reason (Proposition 37); only at the dictation of reason are we able to perform any action, which we know for certain to be good (Proposition 27); thus, in a man who lives under the guidance of reason, pity in itself is useless and bad. Q.E.D.
Note — He who rightly realizes, that all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature, and come to pass in accordance with the eternal laws and rules of nature, will not find anything worthy of hatred, derision, or contempt, nor will he bestow pity on anything, but to the utmost extent of human virtue he will endeavour to do well, as the saying is, and to rejoice. We may add, that he, who is easily touched with compassion, and is moved by another's sorrow or tears, often does something which he afterwards regrets; partly because we can never be sure that an action caused by emotion is good, partly because we are easily deceived by false tears. I am in this place expressly speaking of a man living under the guidance of reason. He who is moved to help others neither by reason nor by compassion, is rightly styled inhuman, for (Proposition 27 of Part 3) he seems unlike a man.
Approval is not repugnant to reason, but can agree therewith and arise therefrom.
Proof — Approval is love towards one who has done good to another (Definitions of the Emotions, 19); therefore it may be referred to the mind, in so far as the latter is active (Proposition 59 of Part 3), that is (Proposition 3 of Part 3), in so far as it understands; therefore, it is in agreement with reason, &c. Q.E.D.
Another Proof — He, who lives under the guidance of reason, desires for others the good which he seeks for himself (Proposition 37); wherefore from seeing someone doing good to his fellow his own endeavour to do good is aided; in other words, he will feel pleasure (Note to Proposition 11 of Part 3) accompanied by the idea of the benefactor. Therefore he approves of him. Q.E.D.
Note — Indignation as we defined it (Definitions of the Emotions, 20) is necessarily evil (Proposition 45); we may, however, remark that, when the sovereign power for the sake of preserving peace punishes a citizen who has injured another, it should not be said to be indignant with the criminal, for it is not incited by hatred to ruin him, it is led by a sense of duty to punish him.
Self-approval may arise from reason, and that which arises from reason is the highest possible.
Proof — Self-approval is pleasure arising from a man's contemplation of himself and his own power of action (Definitions of the Emotions, 25). But a man's true power of action or virtue is reason herself (Proposition 3 of Part 3), as the said man clearly and distinctly contemplates her (Proposition 40 of Part 2 and Proposition 43 of Part 2); therefore self-approval arises from reason. Again, when a man is contemplating himself, he only perceived clearly and distinctly or adequately, such things as follow from his power of action (Definition 2 of Part 3), that is (Proposition 3 of Part 3), from his power of understanding; therefore in such contemplation alone does the highest possible self-approval arise. Q.E.D.
Note — Self-approval is in reality the highest object for which we can hope. For (as we showed in Proposition 25) no one endeavours to preserve his being for the sake of any ulterior object, and, as this approval is more and more fostered and strengthened by praise (Corollary to Proposition 53 of Part 3), and on the contrary (Corollary to Proposition 55 of Part 3) is more and more disturbed by blame, fame becomes the most powerful of incitements to action, and life under disgrace is almost unendurable.
Humility is not a virtue, or does not arise from reason.
Proof — Humility is pain arising from a man's contemplation of his own infirmities (Definitions of the Emotions, 26). But, in so far as a man knows himself by true reason, he is assumed to understand his essence, that is, his power (Proposition 7 of Part 3). Wherefore, if a man in self-contemplation perceives any infirmity in himself, it is not by virtue of his understanding himself, but (Proposition 55 of Part 3) by virtue of his power of activity being checked. But, if we assume that a man perceives his own infirmity by virtue of understanding something stronger than himself, by the knowledge of which he determines his own power of activity, this is the same as saying that we conceive that a man understands himself distinctly (Proposition 26), because his power of activity is aided. Wherefore humility, or the pain which arises from a man's contemplation of his own infirmity, does not arise from the contemplation of reason, and is not a virtue but a passion. Q.E.D.
Repentance is not a virtue, or does not arise from reason; but he who repents of an action is doubly wretched or infirm.
Proof — The first part of this proposition is proved like the foregoing one. The second part is proved from the mere definition of the emotion in question (Definitions of the Emotions, 27). For the man allows himself to be overcome, first, by evil desires; secondly, by pain.
Note — As men seldom live under the guidance of reason, these two emotions, namely, Humility and Repentance, as also Hope and Fear, bring more good than harm; hence, as we must sin, we had better sin in that direction. For, if all men who are prey to emotion were all equally proud, they would shrink from nothing, and would fear nothing; how then could they be joined and linked together in bonds of union? The crowd plays the tyrant, when it is not in fear; hence we need not wonder that the prophets, who consulted the good, not of a few, but of all, so strenuously commended Humility, Repentance, and Reverence. Indeed those who are prey to these emotions may be led much more easily than others to live under the guidance of reason, that is, to become free and to enjoy the life of the blessed.
Extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme ignorance of self.
Proof — This is evident from Definitions of the Emotions, 28 and Definitions of the Emotions, 29.
Extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme infirmity of spirit.
Proof — The first foundation of virtue is self-preservation (Corollary to Proposition 22) under the guidance of reason (Proposition 24). He, therefore, who is ignorant of himself, is ignorant of the foundation of all virtues, and consequently of all virtues. Again, to act virtuously is merely to act under the guidance of reason (Proposition 24): now he, that acts under the guidance of reason, must necessarily know that he so acts (Proposition 43 of Part 2). Therefore he who is in extreme ignorance of himself, and consequently of all virtues, acts least in obedience to virtue; in other words (Definition 8), is most infirm of spirit. Thus extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme infirmity of spirit. Q.E.D.
Corollary — Hence it most clearly follows, that the proud and the dejected specially fall prey to the emotions.
Note — Yet dejection can be more easily corrected than pride; for the latter being a pleasurable emotion, and the former a painful emotion, the pleasurable is stronger than the painful (Proposition 18).
The proud man delights in the company of flatterers and parasites, but hates the company of the high-minded.
Proof — Pride is pleasure arising from a man's over estimation of himself (Definitions of the Emotions, 28 and Definitions of the Emotions, 6); this estimation the proud man will endeavour to foster by all the means in his power (Note to Proposition 13 of Part 3); he will therefore delight in the company of flatterers and parasites (whose character is too well known to need definition here), and will avoid the company of high-minded men, who value him according to his deserts. Q.E.D.
Note — It would be too long a task to enumerate here all the evil results of pride, inasmuch as the proud are prey to all the emotions, though to none of them less than to love and pity. I cannot, however, pass over in silence the fact, that a man may be called proud from his underestimation of other people; and, therefore, pride in this sense may be defined as pleasure arising from the false opinion, whereby a man may consider himself superior to his fellows. The dejection, which is the opposite quality to this sort of pride, may be defined as pain arising from the false opinion, whereby a man may think himself inferior to his fellows. Such being the case, we can easily see that a proud man is necessarily envious (Note to Proposition 41 of Part 3), and only takes pleasure in the company, who fool his weak mind to the top of his bent, and make him insane instead of merely foolish.
Though dejection is the emotion contrary to pride, yet is the dejected man very near akin to the proud man. For, inasmuch as his pain arises from a comparison between his own infirmity and other men's power or virtue, it will be removed, or, in other words, he will feel pleasure, if his imagination be occupied in contemplating other men's faults; whence arises the proverb, "The unhappy are comforted by finding fellow-sufferers." Contrariwise, he will be the more pained in proportion as he thinks himself inferior to others; hence none are so prone to envy as the dejected, they are specially keen in observing men's actions, with a view to fault-finding rather than correction, in order to reserve their praises for dejection, and to glory therein, though all the time with a dejected air. These effects follow as necessarily from the said emotion, as it follows from the nature of a triangle, that the three angles are equal to two right angles. I have already said that I call these and similar emotions bad, solely in respect to what is useful to man. The laws of nature have regard to nature's general order, whereof man is but a part. I mention this, in passing, lest any should think that I have wished to set forth the faults and irrational deeds of men rather than the nature and properties of things. For, as I said in the preface to the Third Part, I regard human emotions and their properties as on the same footing with other natural phenomena. Assuredly human emotions indicate the power and ingenuity of nature, if not of human nature, quite as fully as other things which we admire, and which we delight to contemplate. But I pass on to note those qualities in the emotions, which bring advantage to man, or inflict injury upon him.
Honour (gloria) is not repugnant to reason, but may arise therefrom.
Proof — This is evident from Definitions of the Emotions, 30, and also from the definition of an honourable man (Note 1 to Proposition 37).
Note — Empty honour, as it is styled, is self-approval, fostered only by the good opinion of the populace; when this good opinion ceases there ceases also the self-approval, in other words, the highest object of each man's love (Note to Proposition 52); consequently, he whose honour is rooted in popular approval must, day by day, anxiously strive, act, and scheme in order to retain his reputation. For the populace is variable and inconstant, so that, if a reputation be not kept up, it quickly withers away. Everyone wishes to catch popular applause for himself, and readily represses the fame of others. The object of the strife being estimated as the greatest of all goods, each combatant is seized with a fierce desire to put down his rivals in every possible way, till he who at last comes out victorious is more proud of having done harm to others than of having done good to himself. This sort of honour, then, is really empty, being nothing.
The points to note concerning shame may easily be inferred from what was said on the subject of mercy and repentance. I will only add that shame, like compassion, though not a virtue, is yet good, in so far as it shows, that the feeler of shame is really imbued with the desire to live honourably; in the same way as suffering is good, as showing that the injured part is not mortified. Therefore, though a man who feels shame is sorrowful, he is yet more perfect than he, who is shameless, and has no desire to live honourably.
Such are the points which I undertook to remark upon concerning the emotions of pleasure and pain; as for the desires, they are good or bad according as they spring from good or evil emotions. But all, in so far as they are engendered in us by emotions wherein the mind is passive, are blind (as is evident from what was said in the Note to Proposition 44), and would be useless, if men could easily be induced to live by the guidance of reason only, as I will now briefly show.
To all the actions, whereto we are determined by emotion wherein the mind is passive, we can be determined without emotion by reason.
Proof — To act rationally, is nothing else (Proposition 3 of Part 3 and Definition 2 of Part 3) but to perform those actions, which follow from the necessity of our nature considered in itself alone. But pain is bad, in so far as it diminishes or checks the power of action (Proposition 41); wherefore we cannot by pain be determined to any action, which we should be unable to perform under the guidance of reason. Again, pleasure is bad only in so far as it hinders a man's capability for action (Proposition 41, Proposition 43); therefore to this extent we could not be determined by it to any action, which we could not perform under the guidance of reason. Lastly, pleasure, in so far as it is good, is in harmony with reason (for it consists in the fact that a man's capability for action is increased or aided); nor is the mind passive therein, except in so far as a man's power of action is not increased to the extent of affording him an adequate conception of himself and his actions (Proposition 3 of Part 3 and its Note).
Wherefore, if a man who is pleasurably affected be brought to such a state of perfection, that he gains an adequate conception of himself and his own actions, he will be equally, nay more, capable of those actions, to which he is determined by emotion wherein the mind is passive. But all emotions are attributable to pleasure, to pain, or to desire (explanation at Definitions of the Emotions, 4); and desire (Definitions of the Emotions, 1) is nothing else but the attempt to act; therefore, to all actions, &c. Q.E.D.
Another Proof — A given action is called bad, in so far as it arises from one being affected by hatred or any evil emotion. But no action, considered in itself alone, is either good or bad (as we pointed out in the preface to this part), one and the same action being sometimes good, sometimes bad; wherefore to the action which is sometimes bad, or arises from some evil emotion, we may be led by reason (Proposition 19). Q.E.D.
Note — An example will put this point in a clearer light. The action of striking, in so far as it is considered physically, and in so far as we merely look to the fact that a man raises his arm, clenches his fist, and moves his whole arm violently downwards, is a virtue or excellence which is conceived as proper to the structure of the human body. If, then, a man, moved by anger or hatred, is led to clench his fist or to move his arm, this result takes place (as we showed in Part 2), because one and the same action can be associated with various mental images of things; therefore we may be determined to the performance of one and the same action by confused ideas, or by clear and distinct ideas. Hence it is evident that every desire which springs from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, would become useless, if men could be guided by reason. Let us now see why desire which arises from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, is called by us blind.
Desire arising from a pleasure or pain, that is not attributable to the whole body, but only to one or certain parts thereof, is without utility in respect to a man as a whole.
Proof — Let it be assumed, for instance, that A, a part of a body, is so strengthened by some external cause, that it prevails over the remaining parts (Proposition 6). This part will not endeavour to do away with its own powers, in order that the other parts of the body may perform its office; for this it would be necessary for it to have a force or power of doing away with its own powers, which (Proposition 6 of Part 3) is absurd. The said part, and, consequently, the mind also, will endeavour to preserve its condition. Wherefore desire arising from a pleasure of the kind aforesaid has no utility in reference to a man as a whole. If it be assumed, on the other hand, that the part, A, be checked so that the remaining parts prevail, it may be proved in the same manner that desire arising from pain has no utility in respect to a man as a whole. Q.E.D.
Note — As pleasure is generally (Note to Proposition 44) attributed to one part of the body, we generally desire to preserve our being without taking into consideration our health as a whole: to which it may be added, that the desires which have most hold over us (Proposition 9) take account of the present and not of the future.
Desire which springs from reason cannot be excessive.
Proof — Desire (Definitions of the Emotions, 1) considered absolutely is the actual essence of man, in so far as it is conceived as in any way determined to a particular activity by some given modification of itself. Hence desire, which arises from reason — that is (Proposition 3 of Part 3), which is engendered in us in so far as we act — is the actual essence or nature of man, in so far as it is conceived as determined to such activities as are adequately conceived through man's essence only (Definition 2 of Part 3). Now, if such desire could be excessive, human nature considered in itself alone would be able to exceed itself, or would be able to do more than it can — a manifest contradiction. Therefore, such desire cannot be excessive. Q.E.D.
In so far as the mind conceives a thing under the dictates of reason, it is affected equally, whether the idea be of a thing future, past, or present.
Proof — Whatsoever the mind conceives under the guidance of reason, it conceives under the form of eternity or necessity (Corollary 1 to Proposition 44 of Part 2), and is therefore affected with the same certitude (Proposition 43 of Part 2 and its Note). Wherefore, whether the thing be present, past, or future, the mind conceives it under the same necessity and is affected with the same certitude; and whether the idea be of something present, past, or future, it will in all cases be equally true (Proposition 41 of Part 2); that is, it will always possess the same properties of an adequate idea (Definition 4 of Part 2); therefore, in so far as the mind conceives things under the dictates of reason, it is affected in the same manner, whether the idea be of a thing future, past, or present. Q.E.D.
Note — If we could possess an adequate knowledge of the duration of things, and could determine by reason their periods of existence, we should contemplate things future with the same emotion as things present; and the mind would desire as though it were present the good which it conceived as future; consequently it would necessarily neglect a lesser good in the present for the sake of a greater good in the future, and would in no wise desire that which is good in the present but a source of evil in the future, as we shall presently show. However, we can have but a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of things (Proposition 31 of Part 2); and the periods of their existence (Note to Proposition 44 of Part 2) we can only determine by imagination, which is not so powerfully affected by the future as by the present. Hence such true knowledge of good and evil as we possess is merely abstract or general, and the judgment which we pass on the order of things and the connection of causes, with a view to determining what is good or bad for us in the present, is rather imaginary than real. Therefore it is nothing wonderful, if the desire arising from such knowledge of good and evil, in so far as it looks on into the future, be more readily checked than the desire of things which are agreeable at the present time. (Cf. Proposition 16.)
He who is led by fear, and does good in order to escape evil, is not led by reason.
Proof — All the emotions which are attributable to the mind as active, or in other words to reason, are emotions of pleasure and desire (Proposition 59 of Part 3); therefore, he who is led by fear, and does good in order to escape evil, is not led by reason.
Note — Superstitions persons, who know better how to rail at vice than how to teach virtue, and who strive not to guide men by reason, but so to restrain them that they would rather escape evil than love virtue, have no other aim but to make others as wretched as themselves; wherefore it is nothing wonderful, if they be generally troublesome and odious to their fellow-men.
Corollary — Under desire which springs from reason, we seek good directly, and shun evil indirectly.
Proof — Desire which springs from reason can only spring from a pleasurable emotion, wherein the mind is not passive (Proposition 59 of Part 3), in other words, from a pleasure which cannot be excessive (Proposition 61), and not from pain; wherefore this desire springs from the knowledge of good, not of evil (Proposition 8); hence under the guidance of reason we seek good directly and only by implication shun evil. Q.E.D.
Note — This Corollary may be illustrated by the example of a sick and a healthy man. The sick man through fear of death eats what he naturally shrinks from, but the healthy man takes pleasure in his food, and thus gets a better enjoyment out of life, than if he were in fear of death, and desired directly to avoid it. So a judge, who condemns a criminal to death, not from hatred or anger but from love of the public well-being, is guided solely by reason.
The knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge.
Proof — The knowledge of evil (Proposition 8) is pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof. Now pain is the transition to a lesser perfection (Definitions of the Emotions, 3) and therefore cannot be understood through man's nature (Proposition 6 of Part 3 and Proposition 7 of Part 3); therefore it is a passive state (Definition 2 of Part 3) which (Proposition 3 of Part 3) depends on inadequate ideas; consequently the knowledge thereof (Proposition 29 of Part 2), namely, the knowledge of evil, is inadequate. Q.E.D.
Corollary — Hence it follows that, if the human mind possessed only adequate ideas, it would form no conception of evil.
Under the guidance of reason we should pursue the greater of two goods and the lesser of two evils.
Proof — A good which prevents our enjoyment of a greater good is in reality an evil; for we apply the terms good and bad to things, in so far as we compare them one with another (see the preface to this part); therefore, evil is in reality a lesser good; hence under the guidance of reason we seek or pursue only the greater good and the lesser evil. Q.E.D.
Corollary — We may, under the guidance of reason, pursue the lesser evil as though it were the greater good, and we may shun the lesser good, which would be the cause of the greater evil. For the evil, which is here called the lesser, is really good, and the lesser good is really evil, wherefore we may seek the former and shun the latter. Q.E.D.
We may, under the guidance of reason, seek a greater good in the future in preference to a lesser good in the present, and we may seek a lesser evil in the present in preference to a greater evil in the future.
Proof — If the mind could have an adequate knowledge of things future, it would be affected towards what is future in the same way as towards what is present (Proposition 62); wherefore, looking merely to reason, as in this proposition we are assumed to do, there is no difference, whether the greater good or evil be assumed as present, or assumed as future; hence (Proposition 65) we may seek a greater good in the future in preference to a lesser good in the present, &c. Q.E.D.
Corollary — We may, under the guidance of reason, seek a lesser evil in the present, because it is the cause of a greater good in the future, and we may shun a lesser good in the present, because it is the cause of a greater evil in the future. This Corollary is related to the foregoing Proposition as the Corollary to Proposition 65 is related to Proposition 65.
Note — If these statements be compared with what we have pointed out concerning the strength of the emotions in this part up to Proposition 18, we shall readily see the difference between a man, who is led solely by emotion or opinion, and a man, who is led by reason. The former, whether will or no, performs actions whereof he is utterly ignorant; the latter is his own master and only performs such actions, as he knows are of primary importance in life, and therefore chiefly desires; wherefore I call the former a slave, and the latter a free man, concerning whose disposition and manner of life it will be well to make a few observations.
A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life.
Proof — A free man is one who lives under the guidance of reason, who is not led by fear (Proposition 63), but who directly desires that which is good (Corollary to Proposition 63), in other words (Proposition 24), who strives to act, to live, and to preserve his being on the basis of seeking his own true advantage; wherefore such an one thinks of nothing less than of death, but his wisdom is a meditation of life. Q.E.D.
If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil.
Proof — I call free him who is led solely by reason; he, therefore, who is born free, and who remains free, has only adequate ideas; therefore (Corollary to Proposition 64) he has no conception of evil, or consequently (good and evil being correlative) of good. Q.E.D.
Note — It is evident, from Proposition 4, that the hypothesis of this Proposition is false and inconceivable, except in so far as we look solely to the nature of man, or rather to God; not in so far as the latter is infinite, but only in so far as he is the cause of man's existence.
This, and other matters which we have already proved, seem to have been signified by Moses in the history of the first man. For in that narrative no other power of God is conceived, save that whereby he created man, that is the power wherewith he provided solely for man's advantage; it is stated that God forbade man, being free, to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that, as soon as man should have eaten of it, he would straightway fear death rather than desire to live. Further, it is written that when man had found a wife, who was in entire harmony with his nature, he knew that there could be nothing in nature which could be more useful to him; but that after he believed the beasts to be like himself, he straightway began to imitate their emotions (Proposition 27 of Part 3), and to lose his freedom; this freedom was afterwards recovered by the patriarchs, led by the spirit of Christ; that is, by the idea of God, whereon alone it depends, that man may be free, and desire for others the good which he desires for himself, as we have shown above (Proposition 37).
The virtue of a free man is seen to be as great, when it declines dangers, as when it overcomes them.
Proof — Emotion can only be checked or removed by an emotion contrary to itself, and possessing more power in restraining emotion (Proposition 7). But blind daring and fear are emotions, which can be conceived as equally great (Proposition 5 and Proposition 3): hence, no less virtue or firmness is required in checking daring than in checking fear (Note to Proposition 59 of Part 3); in other words (Definitions of the Emotions, 40 and Definitions of the Emotions, 41), the free man shows as much virtue, when he declines dangers, as when he strives to overcome them. Q.E.D.
Corollary — The free man is as courageous in timely retreat as in combat; or, a free man shows equal courage or presence of mind, whether he elect to give battle or to retreat.
Note — What courage (animositas) is, and what I mean thereby, I explained in the Note to Proposition 59 of Part 3. By danger I mean everything, which can give rise to any evil, such as pain, hatred, discord, &c.
The free man, who lives among the ignorant, strives, as far as he can, to avoid receiving favours from them.
Proof — Everyone judges what is good according to his disposition (Note to Proposition 39 of Part 3); wherefore an ignorant man, who has conferred a benefit on another, puts his own estimate upon it, and, if it appears to be estimated less highly by the receiver, will feel pain (Proposition 42 of Part 3). But the free man only desires to join other men to him in friendship (Proposition 37), not repaying their benefits with others reckoned as of like value, but guiding himself and others by the free decision of reason, and doing only such things as he knows to be of primary importance. Therefore the free man, lest he should become hateful to the ignorant, or follow their desires rather than reason, will endeavour, as far as he can, to avoid receiving their favours.
Note — I say, as far as he can. For though men be ignorant, yet are they men, and in cases of necessity could afford us human aid, the most excellent of all things: therefore it is often necessary to accept favours from them, and consequently to repay such favours in kind; we must, therefore, exercise caution in declining favours, lest we should have the appearance of despising those who bestow them, or of being, from avaricious motives, unwilling to requite them, and so give ground for offence by the very fact of striving to avoid it. Thus, in declining favours, we must look to the requirements of utility and courtesy.
Only free men are thoroughly grateful one to another.
Proof — Only free men are thoroughly useful one to another, and associated among themselves by the closest necessity of friendship (Proposition 35 and Corollary 1 thereto), only such men endeavour, with mutual zeal of love, to confer benefits on each other (Proposition 37), and, therefore, only they are thoroughly grateful one to another. Q.E.D.
Note — The goodwill, which men who are led by blind desire have for one another, is generally a bargaining or enticement, rather than pure goodwill. Moreover, ingratitude is not an emotion. Yet it is base, inasmuch as it generally shows, that a man is affected by excessive hatred, anger, pride, avarice, &c. He who, by reason of his folly, knows not how to return benefits, is not ungrateful, much less he who is not gained over by the gifts of a courtesan to serve her lust, or by a thief to conceal his thefts, or by any similar persons. Contrariwise, such an one shows a constant mind, inasmuch as he cannot by any gifts be corrupted, to his own or the general hurt.
The free man never acts fraudulently, but always in good faith.
Proof — If it be asked: What should a man's conduct be in a case where he could by breaking faith free himself from the danger of present death? Would not his plan of self-preservation completely persuade him to deceive? This may be answered by pointing out that, if reason persuaded him to act thus, it would persuade all men to act in a similar manner, in which case reason would persuade men not to agree in good faith to unite their forces, or to have laws in common, that is, not to have any general laws, which is absurd.
The man, who is guided by reason, is more free in a State, where he lives under a general system of law, than in solitude, where he is independent.
Proof — The man, who is guided by reason, does not obey through fear (Proposition 63): but, in so far as he endeavours to preserve his being according to the dictates of reason, that is (Note to Proposition 66), in so far as he endeavours to live in freedom, he desires to order his life according to the general good (Proposition 37), and, consequently (as we showed in Note 2 to Proposition 37), to live according to the laws of his country. Therefore the free man, in order to enjoy greater freedom, desires to possess the general rights of citizenship. Q.E.D.
Note — These and similar observations, which we have made on man's true freedom, may be referred to strength, that is, to courage and nobility of character (Note to Proposition 59 of Part 3). I do not think it worth while to prove separately all the properties of strength; much less need I show, that he that is strong hates no man, is angry with no man, envies no man, is indignant with no man, despises no man, and least of all things is proud. These propositions, and all that relate to the true way of life and religion, are easily proved from Proposition 37 and Proposition 46; namely, that hatred should be overcome with love, and that every man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself. We may also repeat what we drew attention to in the Note to Proposition 50, and in other places; namely, that the strong man has ever first in his thoughts, that all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature; so that whatsoever he deems to be hurtful and evil, and whatsoever, accordingly, seems to him impious, horrible, unjust, and base, assumes that appearance owing to his own disordered, fragmentary, and confused view of the universe. Wherefore he strives before all things to conceive things as they really are, and to remove the hindrances to true knowledge, such as are hatred, anger, envy, derision, pride, and similar emotions, which I have mentioned above. Thus he endeavours, as we said before, as far as in him lies, to do good, and to go on his way rejoicing. How far human virtue is capable of attaining to such a condition, and what its powers may be, I will prove in the following Part.
What have said in this part concerning the right way of life has not been arranged, so as to admit of being seen at one view, but has been set forth piece-meal, according as I thought each Proposition could most readily be deduced from what preceded it. I propose, therefore, to rearrange my remarks and to bring them under leading heads.
All our endeavours or desires so follow from the necessity of our nature, that they can be understood either through it alone, as their proximate cause, or by virtue of our being a part of nature, which cannot be adequately conceived through itself without other individuals.
Desires, which follow from our nature in such a manner, that they can be understood through it alone, are those which are referred to the mind, in so far as the latter is conceived to consist of adequate ideas: the remaining desires are only referred to the mind, in so far as it conceives things inadequately, and their force and increase are generally defined not by the power of man, but by the power of things external to us: wherefore the former are rightly called actions, the latter passions, for the former always indicate our power, the latter, on the other hand, show our infirmity and fragmentary knowledge.
Our actions, that is, those desires which are defined by man's power or reason, are always good. The rest may be either good or bad.
Thus in life it is before all things useful to perfect the understanding, or reason, as far as we can, and in this alone man's highest happiness or blessedness consists, indeed blessedness is nothing else but the contentment of spirit, which arises from the intuitive knowledge of God: now, to perfect the understanding is nothing else but to understand God, God's attributes, and the actions which follow from the necessity of his nature. Wherefore of a man, who is led by reason, the ultimate aim or highest desire, whereby he seeks to govern all his fellows, is that whereby he is brought to the adequate conception of himself and of all things within the scope of his intelligence.
Therefore, without intelligence there is not rational life; and things are only good, in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil.
As all things whereof man is the efficient cause are necessarily good, no evil can befall man except through external causes; namely, by virtue of man being a part of universal nature, whose laws human nature is compelled to obey, and to conform to in almost infinite ways.
It is impossible, that man should not be a part of nature, or that he should not follow her general order; but if he be thrown among individuals whose nature is in harmony with his own, his power of action will thereby be aided and fostered, whereas, if he be thrown among such as are but very little in harmony with his nature, he will hardly be able to accommodate himself to them without undergoing a great change himself.
Whatsoever in nature we deem to be evil, or to be capable of injuring our faculty for existing and enjoying the rational life, we may endeavour to remove in whatever way seems safest to us; on the other hand, whatsoever we deem to be good or useful for preserving our being, and enabling us to enjoy the rational life, we may appropriate to our use and employ as we think best. Everyone without exception may, by sovereign right of nature, do whatsoever he thinks will advance his own interest.
Nothing can be in more harmony with the nature of any given thing than other individuals of the same species; therefore (cf. Proposition 7) for man in the preservation of his being and the enjoyment of the rational life there is nothing more useful than his fellow-man who is led by reason. Further, as we know not anything among individual things which is more excellent than a man led by reason, no man can better display the power of his skill and disposition, than in so training men, that they come at last to live under the dominion of their own reason.
In so far as men are influenced by envy or any kind of hatred, one towards another, they are at variance, and are therefore to be feared in proportion, as they are more powerful than their fellows.
Yet minds are not conquered by force, but by love and high-mindedness.
It is before all things useful to men to associate their ways of life, to bind themselves together with such bonds as they think most fitted to gather them all into unity, and generally to do whatsoever serves to strengthen friendship.
But for this there is need of skill and watchfulness. For men are diverse (seeing that those who live under the guidance of reason are few), yet are they generally envious and more prone to revenge than to sympathy. No small force of character is therefore required to take everyone as he is, and to restrain one's self from imitating the emotions of others. But those who carp at mankind, and are more skilled in railing at vice than in instilling virtue, and who break rather than strengthen men's dispositions, are hurtful both to themselves and others. Thus many from too great impatience of spirit, or from misguided religious zeal, have preferred to live among brutes rather than among men; as boys or youths, who cannot peaceably endure the chidings of their parents, will enlist as soldiers and choose the hardships of war and the despotic discipline in preference to the comforts of home and the admonitions of their father: suffering any burden to be put upon them, so long as they may spite their parents.
Therefore, although men are generally governed in everything by their own lusts, yet their association in common brings many more advantages than drawbacks. Wherefore it is better to bear patiently the wrongs they may do us, and to strive to promote whatsoever serves to bring about harmony and friendship.
Those things, which beget harmony, are such as are attributable to justice, equity, and honourable living. For men brook ill not only what is unjust or iniquitous, but also what is reckoned disgraceful, or that a man should slight the received customs of their society. For winning love those qualities are especially necessary which have regard to religion and piety (cf. Note 1 and Note 2 to Proposition 37, the Note to Proposition 46, and the Note to Proposition 73).
Further, harmony is often the result of fear: but such harmony is insecure. Further, fear arises from infirmity of spirit, and moreover belongs not to the exercise of reason: the same is true of compassion, though this latter seems to bear a certain resemblance to piety.
Men are also gained over by liberality, especially such as have not the means to buy what is necessary to sustain life. However, to give aid to every poor man is far beyond the power and the advantage of any private person. For the riches of any private person are wholly inadequate to meet such a call. Again, an individual man's resources of character are too limited for him to be able to make all men his friends. Hence providing for the poor is a duty, which falls on the State as a whole, and has regard only to the general advantage.
In accepting favours, and in returning gratitude our duty must be wholly different (cf. the Note to Proposition 70 and the Note to Proposition 71).
Again, meretricious love, that is, the lust of generation arising from bodily beauty, and generally every sort of love, which owns anything save freedom of soul as its cause, readily passes into hate; unless indeed, what is worse, it is a species of madness; and then it promotes discord rather than harmony (cf. the Corollary to Proposition 31 of Part 3).
As concerning marriage, it is certain that this is in harmony with reason, if the desire for physical union be not engendered solely by bodily beauty, but also by the desire to beget children and to train them up wisely; and moreover, if the love of both, to wit, of the man and of the woman, is not caused by bodily beauty only, but also by freedom of soul.
Furthermore, flattery begets harmony; but only by means of the vile offence of slavishness or treachery. None are more readily taken with flattery than the proud, who wish to be first, but are not.
There is in abasement a spurious appearance of piety and religion. Although abasement is the opposite to pride, yet is he that abases himself most akin to the proud (Note to Proposition 57).
Shame also brings about harmony, but only in such matters as cannot be hid. Further, as shame is a species of pain, it does not concern the exercise of reason.
The remaining emotions of pain towards men are directly opposed to justice, equity, honour, piety, and religion; and, although indignation seems to bear a certain resemblance to equity, yet is life but lawless, where every man may pass judgment on another's deeds, and vindicate his own or other men's rights.
Correctness of conduct (modestia), that is, the desire of pleasing men which is determined by reason, is attributable to piety (as we said in the Note to Proposition 37). But, if it spring from emotion, it is ambition, or the desire whereby men, under the false cloak of piety, generally stir up discords and seditions. For he who desires to aid his fellows either in word or in deed, so that they may together enjoy the highest good, he, I say, will before all things strive to win them over with love: not to draw them into admiration, so that a system may be called after his name, nor to give any cause for envy. Further, in his conversation he will shrink from talking of men's faults, and will be careful to speak but sparingly of human infirmity: but he will dwell at length on human virtue or power, and the way whereby it may be perfected. Thus will men be stirred not by fear, nor by aversion, but only by the emotion of joy, to endeavour, so far as in them lies, to live in obedience to reason.
Besides men, we know of no particular thing in nature in whose mind we may rejoice, and whom we can associate with ourselves in friendship or any sort of fellowship; therefore, whatsoever there be in nature besides man, a regard for our advantage does not call on us to preserve, but to preserve or destroy according to its various capabilities, and to adapt to our use as best we may.
The advantage which we derive from things external to us, besides the experience and knowledge which we acquire from observing them, and from recombining their elements in different forms, is principally the preservation of the body; from this point of view, those things are most useful which can so feed and nourish the body, that all its parts may rightly fulfil their functions. For, in proportion as the body is capable of being affected in a greater variety of ways, and of affecting external bodies in a great number of ways, so much the more is the mind capable of thinking (Proposition 38, Proposition 39). But there seem to be very few things of this kind in nature; wherefore for the due nourishment of the body we must use many foods of diverse nature. For the human body is composed of very many parts of different nature, which stand in continual need of varied nourishment, so that the whole body may be equally capable of doing everything that can follow from its own nature, and consequently that the mind also may be equally capable of forming many perceptions.
Now for providing these nourishments the strength of each individual would hardly suffice, if men did not lend one another mutual aid. But money has furnished us with a token for everything: hence it is with the notion of money, that the mind of the multitude is chiefly engrossed; nay, it can hardly conceive any kind of pleasure, which is not accompanied with the idea of money as cause.
This result is the fault only of those, who seek money, not from poverty or to supply their necessary wants, but because they have learned the arts of gain, wherewith they bring themselves to great splendour. Certainly they nourish their bodies, according to custom, but scantily, believing that they lose as much of their wealth as they spend on the preservation of their body. But they who know the true use of money, and who fix the measure of wealth solely with regard to their actual needs, live content with little.
As, therefore, those things are good which assist the various parts of the body, and enable them to perform their functions; and as pleasure consists in an increase of, or aid to, man's power, in so far as he is composed of mind and body; it follows that all those things which bring pleasure are good. But seeing that things do not work with the object of giving us pleasure, and that their power of action is not tempered to suit our advantage, and, lastly, that pleasure is generally referred to one part of the body more than to the other parts; therefore most emotions of pleasure (unless reason and watchfulness be at hand), and consequently the desires arising therefrom, may become excessive. Moreover we may add that emotion leads us to pay most regard to what is agreeable in the present, nor can we estimate what is future with emotions equally vivid (Note to Proposition 44, Note to Proposition 60).
Superstition, on the other hand, seems to account as good all that brings pain, and as bad all that brings pleasure. However, as we said above (Note to Proposition 45), none but the envious take delight in my infirmity and trouble. For the greater the pleasure whereby we are affected, the greater is the perfection whereto we pass, and consequently the more do we partake of the divine nature; no pleasure can ever be evil, which is regulated by a true regard for our advantage. But contrariwise he, who is led by fear and does good only to avoid evil, is not guided by reason.
But human power is extremely limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes; we have not, therefore, an absolute power of shaping to our use those things which are without us. Nevertheless, we shall bear with an equal mind all that happens to us in contravention to the claims of our own advantage, so long as we are conscious, that we have done our duty, and that the power which we possess is not sufficient to enable us to protect ourselves completely; remembering that we are a part of universal nature, and that we follow her order. If we have a clear and distinct understanding of this, that part of our nature which is defined by intelligence, in other words the better part of ourselves, will assuredly acquiesce in what befalls us, and in such acquiescence will endeavour to persist. For, in so far as we are intelligent beings, we cannot desire anything save that which is necessary, nor yield absolute acquiescence to anything, save to that which is true; wherefore, in so far as we have a right understanding of these things, the endeavour of the better part of ourselves is in harmony with the order of nature as a whole.
Next: Part 5