Infomotions, Inc.The Ethics / Spinoza, Benedict De



Author: Spinoza, Benedict De
Title: The Ethics
Publisher: Unknown. (Ask Eric.)
Tag(s): coroll; prop; essence; proof; external; emotion; necessarily; emotions; hatred; infinite; endeavour; substance; god; conceive; conceived; therefore; western philosophy
Contributor(s): Eric Lease Morgan (Infomotions, Inc.)
Versions: original; local mirror; HTML (this file); printable
Services: find in a library; evaluate using concordance
Rights: GNU General Public License
Size: 88,031 words (short) Grade range: 16-20 (graduate school) Readability score: 41 (average)
Identifier: spinoza-ethics-742
Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious

Discover what books you consider "great". Take the Great Books Survey.


                            The Ethics - Part I
                              Concerning God

                              Circulated - 1673
                       Posthumously Published - 1677

                               Baruch Spinoza
                                1632 - 1677

____________________________________________________________________________

JBY Notes:
1.  The ASCII text for this file, e1elwes.txt, was taken from
    ftp://ftp.archive.org/pub/gutenberg/etext/etext97/1spne10.txt,
    and (I believe) is from Benedict de Spinoza's
    "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics" and
    "Correspondence" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20250-X.

2.  The text is that of the translation of "The Ethics" by
    R. H. M. Elwes.   This text is "an unabridged and unaltered
    republication of the Bohn Library edition originally published
    by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3.  JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4.  Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).
       yy = Proposition Number when given.
       xx = Sentence Number.

5.  Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:
       a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,
          indicates Part Number.  If a different Part, bring
          up that Part and then search.
       b. Include square brackets in search string.
       c. Do not include Part Number in search string.
       d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6.  Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
    or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7.  HTML version:
       Part I - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/e1elwes.htm

___________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
[DEFINITIONS]
[AXIOMS]
[POSTULATES]
[PROPOSITIONS:]
   [I] .    [XI] .    [XXI] .    [XXXI] .
   [II] .   [XII] .   [XXII] .   [XXXII] .
   [III] .  [XIII] .  [XXIII] .  [XXXIII] .
   [IV] .   [XIV] .   [XXIV] .   [XXXIV] .
   [V] .    [XV] .    [XXV] .    [XXXV] .
   [VI] .   [XVI] .   [XXVI] .   [XXXVI] .
   [VII] .  [XVII] .  [XXVII] .
   [VIII] . [XVIII] . [XXVIII] .
   [IX] .   [XIX] .   [XXIX] .
   [X] .    [XX] .    [XXX] .
[APPENDIX]
____________________________________________________________________________

[DEFINITIONS]

[D.I]   By that which is SELF-CAUSED, I mean that of which the
        essence involves existence, or that of which the nature
        is only conceivable as existent.

[D.II]  A thing is called FINITE AFTER ITS KIND, when it can be
        limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance,
        a body is called finite because we always conceive another
        greater body.  So, also, a thought is limited by another
        thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a
        thought by body.

[D.III] By SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is
        conceived through itself; in other words, that of which
        a conception can be formed independently of any other
        conception.

[D.IV]  By ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as
        constituting the essence of substance.

[D.V]   By MODE, I mean the modifications ("Affectiones") 
        substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived
        through, something other than itself.

[D.VI]  By GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is,
        a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of
        which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
        Explanation. I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind:
        for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes
        may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in
        its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

[D.VII] That thing is called free, which exists solely by the
        necessity of its own nature, and of which the action
        is determined by itself alone.  On the other hand, that
        thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is
        determined by something external to itself to a fixed
        and definite method of existence or action.

[D.VIII] By ETERNITY, I mean existence itself, in so far as it
         is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the
         definition of that which is eternal. 
         Explanation.-- Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal
         truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be
         explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may
         be conceived without a beginning or end. 
____________________________________________________________________________

[AXIOMS]

[A.I]   Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in
        something else.
[A.II]  That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be
        conceived through itself.
[A.III] From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows;
        and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted,
        it is impossible that an effect can follow.
[A.IV]  The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the
        knowledge of a cause.
[A.V]   Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood,
        the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not
        involve the conception of the other.
[A.VI]  A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.
[A.VII] If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence
        does not involve existence.

____________________________________________________________________________

[PROPOSITIONS:]

PROP. [I]  Substance is by nature prior to its modifications. 
Proof.- (1:1) This is clear from [D.iii] and [D.v] . 

PROP. [II]  Two substances whose attributes are different have 
            nothing in common. 

Proof.- (2:1) Also evident from [D.iii] . For each must exist in itself, and 
be conceived through itself; in other words, the conception of one does not 
imply the conception of the other.

PROP. [III]  Things which have nothing in common cannot be 
             one the cause of the other. 

Proof.- (3:1) If they have nothing in common, it follows that one cannot
be apprehended by means of the other ([A.v] ), and, therefore, one cannot be
the cause of the other ([A.iv] ).  Q.E.D.

PROP. [IV]  Two or more distinct things are distinguished one
            from the other either by the difference of the
            attributes of the substances, or by the difference
            of their modifications.

Proof.- (4:1) Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in 
something else ([A.i] ), that is (by [D.iii] and [D.v] ), nothing is granted
in addition to the understanding, except substance and its modifications.  
(2) Nothing is, therefore, given besides the understanding, by which several 
things may be distinguished one from the other, except the substances, or, 
in other words (see [A.iv] ), their attributes and modifications.  Q.E.D.

PROP. [V]  There cannot exist in the universe two or more
           substances having the same nature or attribute. 

Proof.- (5:1) If several distinct substances be granted, they must be 
distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their
attributes, or by the difference of their modifications ([iv] ).  (2) If
only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that
there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute.  (3) If by
the difference of their modifications, as substance is naturally prior
to its modifications ([i] ), it follows that setting the modifications
aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly; ([D.iii] and
[D.vi] }, there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,
that is (by [iv] ), there cannot be granted several substances, but
one substance only.  Q.E.D.

PROP. [VI]  One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proof.- (6:1) It is impossible that there should be in the universe two 
substances with an identical attribute, i.e. which have anything common
to them both ([ii] ), and, therefore ([iii] ), one cannot be the cause of
another, neither can one be produced by the other.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (6:2) Hence it follows that a substance cannot be produced by 
anything external to itself.  (3) For in the universe nothing is granted,
save substances and their modifications (as appears from [A.i] and [D.iii]
and [D.v] ).  (4) Now (by [v] ) substance cannot be produced by another
substance, therefore it cannot be produced by anything external itself.
Q.E.D.

(6:5) This is shown still more readily by the absurdity of the 
contradictory.  (6) For, if substance be produced by an external cause,
the knowledge of it would depend on the knowledge of its cause ([A.iv] ),
and (by [D.iii] ) it would itself not be substance.

PROP. [VII]  Existence belongs to the nature of substance. 

Proof.- (7:1) Substance cannot be produced by anything external (Corollary,
Prop. [vi] ), it must, therefore, be its own cause, that is, its essence
necessarily involves existence, or existence belongs to its nature. 

PROP. [VIII]  Every substance is necessarily infinite. 

Proof.- (8:1) There can be only one substance with an identical attribute, 
and existence follows from its nature ([vii] ); its nature, therefore,
involves existence, either as finite or infinite.  (2) It does not exist
as finite, for (by [D.ii] ) it would then be limited by something else of
the same kind, which would also necessarily exist ([vii] ); and there
would be two substances with an identical attribute, which is absurd ([v] ).
 
(3) It therefore exists as infinite.  Q.E.D.

Note [N.I]- (8:4) As finite existence involves a partial negation, and
infinite existence is the absolute affirmation of the given nature,
it follows (solely from [vii] ) that every substance is necessarily
infinite. 

Note [N.II]- (8:5) No doubt it will be difficult for those who think about 
things loosely, and have not been accustomed to know them by their primary
causes, to comprehend the demonstrations of [vii] : for such persons
make no distinction between the modifications of substances and the
substances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things are
produced; hence they attribute to substances the beginning which they
observe in natural objects.  (8:6) Those who are ignorant of true causes,
make complete confusion, think that trees might talk just as well as men, 
that men might be formed from stones as well as from seed; and imagine
that any form might be changed into any other.  (7) So, also, those who
confuse the two natures, divine and human, readily attribute human passions
to the deity, especially so long as they do not know how passions originate
in the mind.  (8:8) But, if people would consider the nature of substance,
they would have no doubt about the truth of [vii] .  (9) In fact, this 
proposition would be a universal axiom, and accounted a truism.  (10) For,
by substance, would be understood that which is in itself, and is conceived
through itself, that is, something of which the conception requires not the
conception of anything else; whereas modifications exist in something
external to themselves, and a conception of them is formed by means of a
conception of the thing in which they exist.  (8:11) Therefore, we may have
true ideas of non-existent modifications; for, although they may have no
actual existence apart from the conceiving intellect, yet their essence is
so involved in something external to themselves that they may through it be
conceived.  (12) Whereas the only truth substances can have, external to
the intellect, must consist in their existence, because they are conceived
through themselves.  (8:13) Therefore, for a person to say that he has a
clear and distinct, that is, a true idea of a substance, but that he is not
sure whether such substance exists, would be the same as if he said that he
had a true idea, but was not sure whether or not it was false (a little
consideration will make this plain); or if anyone affirmed that substance
is created, it would be the same as saying that a false idea was true, in
short, the height of absurdity.  (8:14) It must, then, necessarily be 
admitted that the existence of substance as its essence is an eternal
truth.  (8:15) And we can hence conclude by another process of reasoning--
that there is but one such substance.  (16) I think that this may
profitably be done at once; and, in order to proceed regularly with the
demonstration, we must premise:-- 

(8:17) 1. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor
          expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing
          defined. From this it follows that--
(8:18) 2. No definition implies or expresses a certain number of
          individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the
          nature of the thing defined.  (18a) For instance, the
          definition of a triangle expresses nothing beyond the actual
          nature of a triangle: it does not imply any fixed number of
          triangles.
(8:19) 3. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a
          cause why it should exist.
(8:20) 4. This cause of existence must either be contained in the
          nature and definition of the thing defined, or must be
          postulated apart from such definition.

(8:21) It therefore follows that, if a given number of individual things
exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly
that number, neither more nor less.  (22) For example, if twenty men exist
in the universe (for simplicity's sake, I will suppose them existing
simultaneously, and to have had no predecessors), and we want to account
for the existence of these twenty men, it will not be enough to show the
cause of human existence in general; we must also show why there are
exactly twenty men, neither more nor less: for a cause must be assigned
for the existence of each individual.  (8:23) Now this cause cannot be
contained in the actual nature of man, for the true definition of man does
not involve any consideration of the number twenty.  (8:24) Consequently,
the cause for the existence of these twenty men, and, consequently, of each 
of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual.
(8:25) Hence we may lay down the absolute rule, that everything which
may consist of several individuals must have an external cause.  (26) And,
as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of
substance, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and
from its definition alone existence must be deducible.  (8:27) But from
its definition (as we have shown, Notes ii., iii.), we cannot infer the
existence of several substances; therefore it follows that there is only
one substance of the same nature.  Q.E.D. 

PROP. [IX]  The more reality or being a thing has the greater the 
            number of its attributes ([D.iv] ).

PROP. [X]  Each particular attribute of the one substance must be 
           conceived through itself.
 
Proof.- (10:1) An attribute is that which the intellect perceives of 
substance, as constituting its essence ([D.iv] ), and, therefore, must
be conceived through itself ([D.iii] ).  Q.E.D. 

Note.- (10:2) It is thus evident that, though two attributes are, in
fact, conceived as distinct, that is, one without the help of the other,
yet we cannot, therefore, conclude that they constitute two entities,
or two different substances.  (3) For it is the nature of substance that 
each of its attributes is conceived through itself, inasmuch as all the
attributes it has have always existed simultaneously in it, and none could
be produced by any other; but each expresses the reality or being of
substance.  (10:4) It is, then, far from an absurdity to ascribe several
attributes to one substance: for nothing in nature is more clear than
that each and every entity must be conceived under some attribute, and
that its reality or being is in proportion to the number of its attributes
expressing necessity or eternity and infinity.  (5) Consequently it is
abundantly clear, that an absolutely infinite being must necessarily be
defined as consisting in infinite attributes each of which expresses a
certain eternal and infinite essence. 

(10:6) If anyone now ask, by what sign shall he be able to distinguish
different substances, let him read the following propositions, which show
that there is but one substance in the universe, and that it is absolutely
infinite, wherefore such a sign would be sought for in vain.

Prop. [XI]  God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of
            which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
            necessarily exists.
 
Proof.- (11:1) If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does
not exist: then his essence does not involve existence.  (2) But this
(by [vii] ) is absurd.  (3) Therefore God necessarily exists. 

Another proof.- (11:4) Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must b
assigned, either for its existence, or for its non-existence, e.g., if a
triangle exist, a reason or cause must be granted for its existence; if,
on the contrary, it does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which
prevents it from existing, or annuls its existence.  (5) This reason or
cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing in question,
or be external to it.  (6) For instance, the reason for the non-existence
of a square circle is indicated in its nature, namely, because it would
involve a contradiction.  (11:7) On the other hand, the existence of
substance follows also solely from its nature, inasmuch as its nature
involves existence. (See [vii] ) 

(11:8) But the reason for the existence of a triangle or a circle does not 
follow from the nature of those figures, but from the order of universal
nature in extension.  (9) From the latter it must follow, either that a
triangle necessarily exists, or that it is impossible that it should exist.
(11:10) So much is self-evident.  (11) It follows therefrom that a thing
necessarily exists, if no cause or reason be granted which prevents it
existence.

(11:12) If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the
existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly
conclude that he necessarily does exist.  (13) If such a reason or cause
hould be given, it must either be drawn from the very nature of God, or
be external to him, that is, drawn from another substance of another
nature.  (11:14) For if it were of the same nature, God, by that very fact,
would be admitted to exist.  (15) But substance of another nature could
have nothing in common with God (by [ii] ), and therefore would be unable
either to cause or to destroy his existence.

(11:16) As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence
cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause
must, perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature,
which would involve a contradiction.  (17) To make such an affirmation
about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd;
therefore, neither in the nature of God; nor externally to his nature,
can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence.
(11:18) Therefore, God necessarily exists.  Q.E.D.
 
Another proof.- (11:19) The potentiality of non-existence is a negation
of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as
is obvious.  (20) If, then, that which necessarily exists is nothing but
finite beings, such finite beings are more powerful than a being
absolutely infinite, which is obviously absurd; therefore, either nothing
exists, or else a being absolutely infinite necessarily exists also.
(11:21) Now we exist either in ourselves, or in something else which
necessarily exists (see [A.i] and [vii] )  (22) Therefore a being
absolutely infinite, in other words, God ([D.vi] ), necessarily exists. 
Q.E.D.
 
Note. - (11:23) In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's existence
a posteriori, so that the proof might be more easily followed, not because,
from the same premises, God's existence does not follow a priori.
(11:24) For, as the potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, 
in proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing, so also will
it increase its strength for existence.  (25) Therefore a being absolutely
infinite, such as God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of
existence, and hence he does absolutely exist.  (26) Perhaps there will
be many who will be unable to see the force of this proof, inasmuch as
they are accustomed only to consider those things which flow from external
causes.  (27) Of such things, they see that those which quickly come to
pass, that is, quickly come into existence, quickly also disappear;
whereas they regard as more difficult of accomplishment, that is, not so
easily brought into existence, those things which they conceive as more
complicated.

(11:28) However, to do away with this misconception, I need not here show
the measure of truth in the proverb, "What comes quickly, goes quickly,"
nor discuss whether, from the point of view of universal nature, all
things are equally easy, or otherwise: I need only remark, that I am not
here speaking of things, which come to pass through causes external to
themselves, but only of substances which (by [vi] ) cannot be produced by
any external cause.  (29) Things which are produced by external causes,
whether they consist of many parts or few, owe whatsoever perfection or
reality they possess solely to the efficacy of their external cause, and
therefore their existence arises solely from the perfection of their
external cause, not from their own.  (11:30) Contrariwise, whatsoever
perfection is possessed by substance is due to no external cause;
wherefore the existence of substance must arise solely from its own
nature, which is nothing else but its essence.  (31) Thus, the perfection
of a thing does not annul its existence, but, on the contrary, asserts it.  
(11:32) Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul it; therefore we
cannot be more certain of the existence of anything, than of the existence
of a being absolutely infinite or perfect--that is, of God.  (33) For
inasmuch as his essence excludes all imperfection, and involves absolute
perfection, all cause for doubt concerning his existence is done away,
and the utmost certainty on the question is given.  (11:34) This, I think,
will be evident to every moderately attentive reader.

PROP. [XII]  No attribute of substance can be conceived from which
             it would follow that substance can be divided.

Proof.- (12:1) The parts into which substance as thus conceived would be 
divided, either will retain the nature of substance, or they will not.
(2) If the former, then (by [viii] ) each part will necessarily be
infinite, and (by [vi] ) self-caused, and (by [v] ) will perforce
consist of a different attribute, so that, in that case, several substances
could be formed out of one substance, which (by [vi] ) is absurd.
(12:3) Moreover, the parts (by [ii] ) would have nothing in common
with their whole, and the whole (by [D.iv]  and [x] ) could both
exist and be conceived without its parts, which everyone will admit to
be absurd.  (4) If we adopt the second alternative, namely, that the
parts will not retain the nature of substance, then, if the whole
substance were divided into equal parts, it would lose the nature of
substance, and would cease to exist, which (by [vii] ) is absurd.

PROP. [XIII]  Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proof.- (13:1) If it could be divided, the parts into which it was divided
would either retain the nature of absolutely infinite substance, or they
would not.  (2) If the former, we should have several substances of the
same nature, which (by [v] ) is absurd.  (3) If the latter, then (by
[vii] ) substance absolutely infinite could cease to exist, which ([xi] )
is also absurd.

Corollary.- (13:4) It follows that no substance, and consequently no
extended substance, in so far as it is substance, is divisible.

Note.- (13:5) The indivisibility of substance may be more easily understood
as follows.  (6) The nature of substance can only be conceived as infinite,
and by a part of substance, nothing else can be understood than finite
substance, which (by [viii] ) involves a manifest contradiction.

PROP. [XIV]  Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.

Proof.- (14:1) As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute
that expresses the essence of substance can be denied (by [D.vi] ), and he
necessarily exists (by [xi] ); if any substance besides God were granted
it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two
substances with the same attribute would exist, which (by [v] ) is
absurd; therefore, besides God no substance can be granted, or
consequently, be conceived.  (14:2) If it could be conceived, it would
necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first part
of this proof) is absurd.  (3) Therefore, besides God no substance can be
granted or conceived.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I.- (14:4) Clearly, therefore: 1. God is one, that is (by [D.vi] )
only one substance can be granted in the universe, and that substance is
absolutely infinite, as we have already indicated (in the note to [x] ).

Corollary II.- (14:5) It follows: 2. That extension and thought are either
attributes of God or (by [A.i] ) accidents (affectiones) of the attributes
of God. 

PROP. [XV]  Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing
            can be, or be conceived.

Proof.- (15:1) Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived
(by [xiv] ), that is (by [D.iii] ) nothing which is in itself and is
conceived through itself.  (2) But modes (by [D.v] ) can neither be,
nor be conceived without substance; wherefore they can only be in the
divine nature, and can only through it be conceived.  (3) But substances
and modes form the sum total of existence (by [A.i] ), therefore, without
God nothing can be, or be conceived.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (15:4) Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and mind,
and is susceptible of passions.  (5) How far such persons have strayed from
the truth is sufficiently evident from what has been said.  (6) But these
I pass over.  (7) For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine
nature deny that God has a body.  (8) Of this they find excellent proof in
the fact that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long, so broad,
so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to
predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite.  (15:9) But
meanwhile by the other reasons with which they try to prove their point,
they show that they think corporeal or extended substance wholly apart
from the divine nature, and say it was created by God.  (10) Wherefrom
the divine nature can have been created, they are wholly ignorant; thus
they clearly show, that they do not know the meaning of their own words. 
(15:11) I myself have proved sufficiently clearly, at any rate in my own 
judgment (Coroll. [vi] , and Note 2, [viii] ), that no substance can be
produced or created by anything other than itself.  (12) Further, I showed
(in [xiv] ), that besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.
(15:13) Hence we drew the conclusion that extended substance is one of the
infinite attributes of God. (14) However, in order to explain more fully,
I will refute the arguments of my adversaries, which all start from the
following points:-- 

(15:15) Extended substance, in so far as it is substance, consists, as
they think, in parts, wherefore they deny that it can be infinite, or,
consequently, that it can appertain to God.  (16) This they illustrate
with many examples, of which I will take one or two.  (17) If extended
substance, they say, is infinite, let it be conceived to be divided into
two parts each part will then be either finite or infinite.  (18) If the
former, then infinite substance is composed of two finite parts, which
is absurd.  (19) If the latter, then one infinite will be twice as large
as another infinite, which is also absurd. 

(15:20) Further, if an infinite line be measured out in foot lengths, it
will consist of an infinite number of such parts; it would equally consist
of an infinite number of parts, if each part measured only an inch:
therefore, one infinity would be twelve times as great as the other. 

(15:21) Lastly, if from a single point there be conceived to be drawn two
diverging lines which at first are at a definite distance apart, but are
produced to infinity, it is certain that the distance between the two lines
will be continually increased, until at length it changes from definite to
indefinable.  (22) As these absurdities follow, it is said, from considering
quantity as infinite, the conclusion is drawn, that extended substance must
necessarily be finite, and, consequently, cannot appertain to the nature of
God.

(15:23) The second argument is also drawn from God's supreme perfection.
(24) God, it is said, inasmuch as he is a supremely perfect being, cannot
be passive; but extended substance, in so far as it is divisible, is
passive.  (25) It follows, therefore, that extended substance does not
appertain to the essence of God.

(15:26) Such are the arguments I find on the subject in writers, who by
them try to prove that extended substance is unworthy of the divine nature,
and cannot possibly appertain thereto.  (27) However, I think an attentive
reader will see that I have already answered their propositions; for all
their arguments are founded on the hypothesis that extended substance is
composed of parts, and such a hypothesis I have shown ([xii] , and Coroll. 
[xiii] ) to be absurd.  (15:28) Moreover, anyone who reflects will see
that all these absurdities (if absurdities they be, which I am not now
discussing), from which it is sought to extract the conclusion that
extended substance is finite, do not at all follow from the notion of an
infinite quantity, but merely from the notion that an infinite quantity is
measurable, and composed of finite parts; therefore, the only fair
conclusion to be drawn is that infinite quantity is not measureable, and
cannot be composed of finite parts.  (29) This is exactly what we have
already proved (in [xii] ).  (15:30) Wherefore the weapon which they aimed
at us has in reality recoiled upon themselves.  (31) If, from this
absurdity of theirs, they persist in drawing the conclusion that extended
substance must be finite, they will in good sooth be acting like a man who
asserts that circles have the properties of squares, and, finding himself
thereby landed in absurdities, proceeds to deny that circles have any
centre, from which all lines drawn to the circumference are equal.
(15:32) For, taking extended substance, which can only be conceived
as infinite, one, and indivisible ([viii] , [v] , [xii] ) they assert,
in order to prove that it is finite, that it is composed of finite parts,
and that it can be multiplied and divided.

(15:33) So, also, others, after asserting that a line is composed of
points, can produce many arguments to prove that a line cannot be
infinitely divided.  (34) Assuredly it is not less absurd to assert that
extended substance is made up of bodies or parts, than it would be to
assert that a solid is made up of surfaces, a surface of lines, and a
line of points.  (35) This must be admitted by all who know clear reason
to be infallible, and most of all by those who deny the possibility of a
vacuum.  (36) For if extended substance could be so divided that its parts
were really separate, why should not one part admit of being destroyed,
the others remaining joined together as before?  (37) And why should all
be so fitted into one another as to leave no vacuum?  (15:38) Surely in
the case of things, which are really distinct one from the other, one can
exist without the other, and can remain in its original condition.
(15:39) As then, there does not exist a vacuum in nature (of which anon),
but all parts are bound to come together to prevent it, it follows from
this also that the parts cannot be really distinguished, and that extended
substance in so far as it is substance cannot be divided.
 
(15:40) If anyone asks me the further question, Why are we naturally so
prone to divide quantity?  (41) I answer, that quantity is conceived by
us in two ways; in the abstract and superficially, as we imagine it; or
as substance, as we conceive it solely by the intellect.  (42) If, then,
we regard quantity as it is represented in our imagination, which we often
and more easily do, we shall find that it is finite, divisible, and
compounded of parts; but if we regard it as it is represented in our
intellect, and conceive it as substance, which it is very difficult to do,
we shall then, as I have sufficiently proved, find that it is infinite,
one, and indivisible.  (43) This will be plain enough to all, who make a
distinction between the intellect and the imagination, especially if it be
remembered, that matter is everywhere the same, that its parts are not
distinguishable, except in so far as we conceive matter as diversely
modified, whence its parts are distinguished, not really, but modally.
(15:44) For instance, water, in so far as it is water, we conceive to be 
divided, and its parts to be separated one from the other; but not in so
far as it is extended substance; from this point of view it is neither
separated nor divisible.  (45) Further, water, in so far as it is water,
is produced and corrupted; but, in so far as it is substance, it is neither
produced nor corrupted.

(15:46) I think I have now answered the second argument; it is, in fact,
founded on the same assumption as the first, namely, that matter, in so
far as it is substance, is divisible, and composed of parts.  (47) Even
if it were so, I do not know why it should be considered unworthy of the
divine nature, inasmuch as besides God (by [xiv] ) no substance can be
granted, wherefrom it could receive its modifications.  (48) All things,
I repeat, are in God, and all things which come to pass, come to pass
solely through the laws of the infinite nature of God, and follow (as I
will shortly show) from the necessity of his essence.  (49) Wherefore it
can in nowise be said, that God is passive in respect to anything other
than himself, or that extended substance is unworthy of the Divine nature,
even if it be supposed divisible, so long as it is granted to be infinite
and eternal.  (15:50) But enough of this for the present. 

PROP. [XVI]  From the necessity of the divine nature must follow 
             an infinite number of things in infinite ways, that is,
             all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite
             intellect.

Proof.- (16:1) This proposition will be clear to everyone, who remembers
that from the given definition of any thing the intellect infers several
properties, which really necessarily follow therefrom (that is, from the
actual essence of the thing defined); and it infers more properties in
proportion as the definition of the thing expresses more reality, that is,
in proportion as the essence of the thing defined involves more reality.
(16:2) Now, as the divine nature has absolutely infinite attributes (by
[D.vi] ), of which each expresses infinite essence after its kind, it
follows that from the necessity of its nature an infinite number of things
(that is, everything which can fall within the sphere of an infinite
intellect) must necessarily follow.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I.- (16:3) Hence it follows, that God is the efficient cause of
all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect.

Corollary II.- (16:4) It also follows that God is a cause in himself
and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III.- (16:5) It follows, thirdly, that God is the absolutely
first cause. 

PROP. [XVII]  God acts solely by the laws of his own nature,
              and is not constrained by any one.

Proof.- (17:1) We have just shown (in [xvi] ), that solely from the
necessity of the divine nature, or, what is the same thing, solely from
the laws of his nature, an infinite number of things absolutely follow
in an infinite number of ways; and we proved (in [xv] ), that without
God nothing can be, nor be conceived; but that all things are in God.
(17:2) Wherefore nothing can exist outside himself, whereby he can be
conditioned or constrained to act.  (3) Wherefore God acts solely by the
laws of his own nature, and is not constrained by any one.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I.- (17:4) It follows: I. That there can be no cause which,
either extrinsically or intrinsically, besides the perfection of his
own nature, moves God to act.

Corollary II.- (17:5) It follows: 2. That God is the sole free cause.

(17:6) For God alone exists by the sole necessity of his nature (by [xi]
and [xiv] , Coroll. i. ), and acts by the sole necessity of his nature,
wherefore God is (by [D.vii] ) the sole free cause.  Q.E.D. 

Note.- (17:7) Others think that God is a free cause, because he can, as
they think, bring it about, that those things which we have said follow
from his nature, that is, which are in his power, should not come to pass,
or should not be produced by him.  (8) But this is the same as if they
said, that God could bring it about, that it should not follow from the
nature of a triangle, that its three interior angles should not be equal
to two right angles; or that from a given cause no effect should follow,
which is absurd.

(17:9) Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this proposition,
that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature.  (10) I know
that there are many who think that they can show, that supreme intellect
and free will do appertain to God's nature; for they say they know of
nothing more perfect, which they can attribute to God, than that which is
the highest perfection in ourselves.  (11) Further, although they conceive
God as actually supremely intelligent, they yet do not believe, that he
can bring into existence everything which he actually understands, for
they think that they would thus destroy God's power.  (17:12) If, they
contend, God had created everything which is in his intellect, he would
not be able to create anything more, and this, they think, would clash
with God's omnipotence; therefore, they prefer to assert that God is
indifferent to all things, and that he creates nothing except that
which he has decided, by some absolute exercise of will, to create.
(17:13) However, I think I have shown sufficiently clearly (by [xvi] ),
that from God's supreme power, or infinite nature, an infinite number of 
things, that is, all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite
number of ways, or always follow from the same necessity; in the same
way as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity and for
eternity, that its three interior angles are equal to two right angles.  
(17:14) Wherefore the omnipotence of God has been displayed from all
eternity, and will for all eternity remain in the same state of activity.
(15) This manner of treating the question attributes to God an omnipotence, 
in my opinion, far more perfect.  (16) For, otherwise, we are compelled to 
confess that God understands an infinite number of creatable things,
which he will never be able to create, for, if he created all that he
understands, he would, according to this showing, exhaust his omnipotence,
and render himself imperfect.  (17:17) Wherefore, in order to establish
that God is perfect, we should be reduced to establishing at the same time,
that he cannot bring to pass everything over which his power extends;
this seems to be an hypothesis most absurd, and most repugnant to God's
omnipotence.

(17:18) Further (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will
which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal
essence of God, we must take these words in some significations quite
different from those they usually bear.  (19) For intellect and will, which
should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the
poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in
common with them but the name; there would be about as much correspondence
between the two as there is between the Dog, the heavenly constellation,
and a dog, an animal that barks.  (20) This I will prove as follows: If 
intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot be in nature, as ours
is generally thought to be, posterior to, or simultaneous with the things
understood, inasmuch as God is prior to all things by reason of his
casualty ([xvi] Coroll. i.).  (17:21) On the contrary, the truth and formal
essence of things is as it is, because it exists by representation as such
in the intellect of God; Wherefore the intellect of God, in so far as it
is conceived to constitute God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of 
things, both of their essence and of their existence.  (22) This seems to 
have been recognized by those who have asserted, that God's intellect,
God's will, and God's power, are one and the same.  (17:23) As, therefore, 
God's intellect is the sole cause of things, namely, both of their essence
and existence, it must necessarily differ from them in respect to its
essence, and in respect to its existence.  (17:24) For a cause differs
from a thing it causes, precisely in the quality which the latter gains
from the former.

(17:25) For example, a man is the cause of another man's existence, 
not of his essence (for the latter is an eternal truth), and, therefore,
the two men may be entirely similar in essence, but must be different in
existence; and hence if the existence of one of them cease, the existence
of the other will not necessarily cease also; but if the essence of one
could be destroyed, and be made false, the essence of the other would be
destroyed also.  (17:26) Wherefore, a thing which is the cause both of
the essence and of the existence of a given effect, must differ from
such effect both in respect to its essence, and also in respect to its
existence.  (27) Now the intellect of God is the cause of both the essence
and the existence of our intellect; therefore the intellect of God in so
far as it is conceived to constitute the divine essence, differs from our
intellect both in respect to essence and in respect to existence, nor
can it in anywise agree therewith save in name, as we said before.
17:(28) The reasoning would be identical, in the case of the will, as
anyone can easily see. 

PROP. [XVIII]  God is the indwelling and not the transient cause
               of all things.

Proof.- (18:1) All things which are, are in God, and must be conceived
through God (by [xv] ), therefore (by [xvi] , Coroll. i.) God is the
cause of those things which are in him.  (2) This is our first point.
(3) Further, besides God there can be no substance (by [xiv] ), that is
nothing in itself external to God.  (4) This is our second point. God,
therefore, is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
Q.E.D. 

PROP. [XIX]  God, and all the attributes of God, are eternal.

Proof.- (19:1) God (by [D.vi] ) is substance, which (by [xi] ) necessarily
exists, that is (by {[vii] ) existence appertains to its nature, or (what
is the same thing) follows from its definition; therefore, God is eternal
(by [D.viii] ).  (2) Further, by the attributes of God we must understand
that which (by [D.iv] ) expresses the essence of the divine substance, in
other words, that which appertains to substance: that, I say, should be
involved in the attributes of substance.  (3) Now eternity appertains to
the nature of substance (as I have already shown in [vii] ); therefore,
eternity must appertain to each of the attributes, and thus all are eternal.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (19:4) This proposition is also evident from the manner in which
(in [xi] )  (5) I demonstrated the existence of God; it is evident, I
repeat, from that proof, that the existence of God, like his essence,
is an eternal truth.  (6) Further (in [xix] of my "Principles of the
Cartesian Philosophy"), I have proved the eternity of God, in another
manner, which I need not here repeat.

PROP. [XX]  The existence of God and his essence are one
            and the same.

Proof.- (20:1) God (by the last [XIX] ) and all his attributes are eternal,
that is (by [D.viii] ) each of his attributes expresses existence.
(2) Therefore the same attributes of God which explain his eternal essence,
explain at the same time his eternal existence, in other words, that which
constitutes God's essence constitutes at the same time his existence.
(20:3) Wherefore God's existence and God's essence are one and the same.
Q.E.D.

Corollary I.- (20:4) Hence it follows that God's existence,
like his essence, is an eternal truth.

Corollary II.- (20:5) Secondly, it follows that God, and all the
attributes of God, are unchangeable.  (6) For if they could be
changed in respect to existence, they must also be able to be
changed in respect to essence, that is, obviously, be changed
from true to false, which is absurd.

PROP. [XXI]  All things which follow from the absolute nature of
             any attribute of God must always exist and be infinite,
             or, in other words, are eternal and infinite through
             the said attribute.

Proof.- (21:1) Conceive, if it be possible ( supposing the proposition
to be denied), that something in some attribute of God can follow from
the absolute nature of the said attribute, and that at the same time it
is finite, and has a conditioned existence or duration; for instance,
the idea of God expressed in the attribute thought.  (2) Now thought,
in so far as it is supposed to be an attribute of God, is necessarily
(by [xi] ) in its nature infinite.  (3) But, in so far as it possesses
the idea of God, it is supposed finite. It cannot, however, be conceived
as finite, unless it be limited by thought (by Def. ii.); but it is not
limited by thought itself, in so far as it has constituted the idea of
God (for so far it is supposed to be finite); therefore, it is limited
by thought, in so far as it has not constituted the idea of God, which
nevertheless (by [xi] ) must necessarily exist.

(21:4) We have now granted, therefore, thought not constituting the idea
of God, and, accordingly, the idea of God does not naturally follow from
its nature in so far as it is absolute thought (for it is conceived as
constituting, and also as not constituting, the idea of God), which is
against our hypothesis.  (5) Wherefore, if the idea of God expressed in
the attribute thought, or, indeed, anything else in any attribute of God
(for we may take any example, as the proof is of universal application)
follows from the necessity of the absolute nature of the said attribute,
the said thing must necessarily be infinite, which was our first point.

(21:6) Furthermore, a thing which thus follows from the necessity of the 
nature of any attribute cannot have a limited duration.  (7) For if it
can suppose a thing, which follows from the necessity of the nature of
some attribute, to exist in some attribute of God, for instance, the
 
idea of God expressed in the attribute thought, and let it be supposed
at some time not to have existed, or to be about not to exist.

(21:8) Now thought being an attribute of God, must necessarily exist
unchanged ( by [xi] , and [xx] , Coroll. ii.); and beyond the limits of
the duration of the idea of God (supposing the latter at some time not
to have existed, or not to be going to exist), thought would perforce
have existed without the idea of God, which is contrary to our hypothesis,
for we supposed that, thought being given, the idea of God necessarily
flowed therefrom.  (9) Therefore the idea of God expressed in thought,
or anything which necessarily follows from the absolute nature of some
attribute of God, cannot have a limited duration, but through the said
attribute is eternal, which is our second point.  (10) Bear in mind that
the same proposition may be affirmed of anything, which in any attribute
necessarily follows from God's absolute nature.

PROP. [XXII]  Whatsoever follows from any attribute of God, in so 
              far as it is modified by a modification, which exists
              necessarily and as infinite, through the said attribute,
              must also exist necessarily and as infinite.

Proof.- (22:1) The proof of this proposition is similar to that of the 
preceding one.

PROP. [XXIII]  Every mode, which exists both necessarily and as
               infinite, must necessarily follow either from the
               absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from
               an attribute modified by a modification which exists
               necessarily, and as infinite.

Proof.- (23:1) A mode exists in something else, through which it must be
conceived ([D.v] ), that is ([xv] ), it exists solely in God, and solely
through God can be conceived.  (2) If, therefore, a mode is conceived as
necessarily existing and infinite, it must necessarily be inferred or
perceived through some attribute of God, in so far as such attribute is
conceived as expressing the infinity and necessity of existence, in other
words (Def. viii.) eternity; that is, in so far as it is considered
absolutely.  (3) A mode, therefore, which necessarily exists as infinite,
must follow from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, either
immediately ([xxi] ) or through the means of some modification, which
follows from the absolute nature of the said attribute; that is
(by [xxii] ), which exists necessarily and as infinite.

PROP. [XXIV]  The essence of things produced by God does not 
              involve existence.

Proof.- (24:1) This proposition is evident from ([D.i] ).  (2) For that
of which the nature (considered in itself) involves existence is self-
caused, and exists by the sole necessity of its own nature.

Corollary.- (24:3) Hence it follows that God is not only the cause of
things coming into existence, but also of their continuing in existence,
that is, in scholastic phraseology, God is cause of the being of things
(essendi rerum).  (4) For whether things exist, or do not exist,
whenever we contemplate their essence, we see that it involves neither
existence nor duration; consequently, it cannot be the cause of either
the one or the other.  (5) God must be the sole cause, inasmuch as to
him alone does existence appertain. ([xiv] Coroll. i.)  Q.E.D. 

PROP. [XXV]  God is the efficient cause not only of the existence 
             of things, but also of their essence.

Proof.- (25:1) If this be denied, then God is not the cause of the essence
of things; and therefore the essence of things can (by [A.iv] ) be
conceived without God.  (2) This (by [xv] ) is absurd.  (3) Therefore,
God is the cause of the essence of things.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (25:4) This proposition follows more clearly from [xvi] .  (5) For
it is evident thereby that, given the divine nature, the essence of things
must be inferred from it, no less than their existence, in a word, God
must be called the cause of all things, in the same sense as he is
called the cause of himself.  (6) This will be made still clearer by the
following corollary.

Corollary.- (25:7) Individual things are nothing but modifications
of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God
are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.  (8) The proof appears
from [xv] and [D.v] . 

PROP. [XXVI]  A thing which is conditioned to act in a particular 
              manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by God;
              and that which has not been conditioned by God cannot
              condition itself to act.

Proof.- (26:1) That by which things are said to be conditioned to act in
a particular manner is necessarily something positive ( this is obvious );
therefore both of its essence and of its existence God by the necessity
of his nature is the efficient cause ([xxv] and xvi.); this is our first
point.  (2) Our second point is plainly to be inferred therefrom.
26:(3) For if a thing, which has not been conditioned by God, could
condition itself, the first part of our proof would be false, and this,
as we have shown, is absurd.

PROP. [XXVII]  A thing, which has been conditioned by God to
               act in a particular way, cannot render itself
               unconditioned.

Proof.- (27:1) This proposition is evident from the [A.III] axiom. 

PROP. [XXVIII]  Every individual thing, or everything which is
                finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot
                exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be
                conditioned for existence and action by a cause
                other than itself, which also is finite, and has
                a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause
                cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to
                act, unless it be conditioned for existence and
                action by another cause, which also is finite,
                and has a conditioned existence, and so on to
                infinity.

Proof.- (28:1) Whatsoever is conditioned to exist and act, has been thus
conditioned by God (by [xxvi] and [xxiv] Coroll).

(28:2) But that which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot
be produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God; for whatsoever
follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and
eternal (by [xxi] ).  (28:3) It must, therefore, follow from some attribute
of God, in so far as the said attribute is considered as in some way
modified; for substance and modes make up the sum total of existence
(by [A.i] and [D.iii] , [D.v] ), while modes are merely modifications of
the attributes of God.  (4) But from God, or from any of his attributes,
in so far as the latter is modified by a modification infinite and eternal,
a conditioned thing cannot follow.  (28:5) Wherefore it must follow from,
or be conditioned for, existence and action by God or one of his attributes, 
in so far as the latter are modified by some modification which is finite
and has a conditioned existence.  (6) This is our first point.  (7) Again, 
this cause or this modification (for the reason by which we established
the first part of this proof) must in its turn be conditioned by another
cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and again,
this last by another (for the same reason); and so on (for the same reason)
to infinity.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (28:8) As certain things must be produced immediately by God,
namely those things which necessarily follow from his absolute nature,
through the means of these primary attributes, which, nevertheless,
can neither exist nor be conceived without God, it follows:-

(28:9)  1. That God is absolutely the proximate cause of those things
           immediately produced by him.  (10) I say absolutely, not
           after his kind, as is usually stated.  (11) For the of God
           cannot either exist or be conceived without a cause
           ([xv] and [xxiv] , Coroll.).
(28:12) 2. That God cannot properly be styled the remote cause of
           individual things, except for the sake of distinguishing
           these from what he immediately produces, or rather from
           what follows from his absolute nature.  (13) For, by 
           remote cause, we understand a cause which is in no way
           conjoined to the effect.  (14) But all things which are,
           are in God, and so depend on God, that without him they
           can neither be nor be conceived. 

PROP. [XXIX]  Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all
              things are conditioned to exist and operate in
              a particular manner by the necessity of the
              divine nature.

Proof.- (29:1) Whatsoever is, is in God ( [xv] ).  (2) But God cannot be
called a thing contingent.  (3) For (by [xi] ) he exists necessarily, and
not contingently.  (4) Further, the modes of the divine nature follow
therefrom necessarily, and not contingently ([xvi] ); and they thus follow,
whether we consider the divine nature absolutely or whether we consider it
as in any way conditioned to act ([xxvii] ).  (5) Further, God is not only
the cause of these modes, in so far as they simply exist (by [xxiv] 
Coroll.), but also in so far as they are considered as conditioned for
operating in a particular manner ([xxvi] ).  (29:6) If they be not
conditioned by God ([xxvi] ), it is impossible, and not contingent, that
they should condition themselves; contrariwise, if they be conditioned
by God, it is impossible, and not contingent that they should render
themselves unconditioned.  (29:7) Wherefore all things are conditioned by
the necessity of the divine nature, not only to exist, but also to exist
and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing that is contingent.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (29:8) Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what we
should understand by nature viewed as active (natura natarans), and nature
viewed as passive (natura naturata).  (9) I say to explain, or rather call
attention to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is
sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we should understand
that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself, or those
attributes of substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in
other words ([xiv] Coroll. i., and [xvii] Coroll. ii.) God, in so far as
he is considered as a free cause.

(29:10) By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows
from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of
God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they
are considered as things which are in God, and which without God cannot
exist or be conceived. 

PROP. [XXX]  Intellect, in function (actu) finite, or in function
             infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and
             the modifications of God, and nothing else.

Proof.- (30:1) A true idea must agree with its object ([Avi] ); in
other words (obviously), that which is contained in the intellect in
representation must necessarily be granted in nature.  (2) But in
nature (by [xiv] Coroll. i.) there is no substance save God, nor any
modifications save those ( [xv] ) which are in God, and cannot without
God either be or be conceived.  (3) Therefore the intellect, in function 
finite, or in function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God
and the modifications of God, and nothing else.  Q.E.D. 

PROP. [XXXI]  The intellect in function, whether finite or infinite,
              as will, desire, love, etc., should be referred to
              passive nature and not to active nature.

Proof.- (31:1) By the intellect we do not (obviously) mean absolute thought,
but only a certain mode of thinking, differing from other modes, such as
love, desire, etc., and therefore ([D.v] ) requiring to be conceived
through absolute thought.  (2) It must (by [xv] and [D.vi] ), through some
attribute of God which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of
thought, be so conceived, that without such attribute it could neither be
nor be conceived.  (3) It must therefore be referred to nature passive
rather than to nature active, as must also the other modes of thinking.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (31:4) I do not here, by speaking of intellect in function, admit
that there is such a thing as intellect in potentiality: but, wishing to
avoid all confusion, I desire to speak only of what is most clearly
perceived by us, namely, of the very act of understanding, than which
nothing is more clearly perceived.  (31:5) For we cannot perceive anything
without adding to our knowledge of the act of understanding.

PROP. [XXXII]  Will cannot be called a free cause,
               but only a necessary cause.

Proof.- (32:1) Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like intellect;
therefore (by [xxviii] ) no volition can exist, nor be conditioned to act,
unless it be conditioned by some cause other than itself, which cause is
conditioned by a third cause, and so on to infinity.  (2) But if will be
supposed infinite, it must also be conditioned to exist and act by God, not 
by virtue of his being substance absolutely infinite, but by virtue of his
possessing an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of
thought ( by [xxiii] ).  (3) Thus, however it be conceived, whether as
finite or infinite, it requires a cause by which it should be conditioned
to exist and act. (32:4) Thus ([D.vii] ) it cannot be called a free cause,
but only a necessary or constrained cause.  Q.E.D.

Corollary. I.- (32:5) Hence it follows, first, that God does not act
according to freedom of the will.

Corollary II.- (32:6) It follows secondly, that will and intellect stand
in the same relation to the nature of God as do motion, and rest, and
absolutely all natural phenomena, which must be conditioned by God ([xxix] )
to exist and act in a particular manner.  (7) For will, like the rest,
stands in need of a cause,  by which it is conditioned to exist and act
in a particular manner.  (8) And although, when will or intellect be
granted, an infinite number of results may follow, yet God cannot on that
account be said to act from freedom of the will, any more than the infinite
number of results from motion and rest would justify us in saying that
motion and rest act by free will.  (32:9) Wherefore will no more appertains
to God than does anything else in nature, but stands in the same relation
to him as motion, rest, and the like, which we have shown to follow from
the necessity of the divine nature, and to be conditioned by it to exist
and act in a particular manner.

PROP. [XXXIII]  Things could not have been brought into being
                by God in any manner or in any order different
                from that which has in fact obtained.

Proof.- (33:1) All things necessarily follow from the nature of God
([xvi] ), and by the nature of God are conditioned to exist and act in a
particular way ([xxix] ).  (2) If things, therefore, could have been of
a different nature, or have been conditioned to act in a different way,
so that the order of nature would have been different, God's nature would
also have been able to be different from what it now is; and therefore
(by [xi] ) that different nature also would have perforce existed, and
consequently there would have been able to be two or more Gods.
(33:3) This (by [xiv] Coroll. i.) is absurd.  (4) Therefore things
could not have been brought into being by God in any other manner, etc.
Q.E.D.

Note I.- (33:5) As I have thus shown, more clearly than the sun at noonday,
that there is nothing to justify us in calling things contingent, I wish to
explain briefly what meaning we shall attach to the word contingent; but I
will first explain the words necessary and impossible.

(33:6) A thing is called necessary either in respect to its essence or in
respect to its cause; for the existence of a thing necessarily follows,
either from its essence and definition, or from a given efficient cause.
(7) For similar reasons a thing is said to be impossible; namely, inasmuch
as its essence or definition involves a contradiction, or because no
external cause is granted, which is conditioned to produce such an effect;
but a thing can in no respect be called contingent, save in relation to
the imperfection of our knowledge.

(33:8) A thing of which we do not know whether the essence does or does not
involve a contradiction, or of which knowing that it does not involve a
contradiction, we are still in doubt concerning the existence, because the
order of causes escapes us,--such a thing, I say, cannot appear to us
either necessary or impossible.  (9) Wherefore we call it contingent or
possible.

Note II- (33:10) It clearly follows from what we have said, that things
have been brought into being by God in the highest perfection, inasmuch
as they have necessarily followed from a most perfect nature.  (11) Nor
does this prove any imperfection in God, for it has compelled us to affirm
his perfection.  (12) From its contrary proposition, we should clearly
gather (as I have just shown), that God is not supremely perfect, for if
things had been brought into being in any other way, we should have to
assign to God a nature different from that, which we are bound to
attribute to him from the consideration of an absolutely perfect being.

(33:13) I do not doubt, that many will scout this idea as absurd, and will
refuse to give their minds up to contemplating it, simply because they are
accustomed to assign to God a freedom very different from that which we
([D.vii] ) have deduced.  (14) They assign to him, in short, absolute free
will.  (15) However, I am also convinced that if such persons reflect on
the matter, and duly weigh in their minds our series of propositions, they
will reject such freedom as they now attribute to God, not only as nugatory,
but also as a great impediment to organized knowledge.  (33:16) There is no
need for me to repeat what I said in the note to [xvii] .  (17) But, for
of my opponents, I will show further, that although it be granted that will
appertains to the essence of God, it nevertheless follows from his 
perfection, that things could not have been by him created other than they
are, or in a different order; this is easily proved, if we reflect on what
our opponents themselves concede, namely, that it depends solely on the
decree and will of God, that each thing is what it is.  (18) If it were
otherwise, God would not be the cause of all things.  (19) Further, that
all the decrees of God have been ratified from all eternity by God himself.
(33:20) If it were otherwise, God would be convicted of imperfection or
change.  (21) But in eternity there is no such thing as when, before, or
after; hence it follows solely from the perfection of God, that God never
can decree, or never could have decreed anything but what is; that (God did
not exist before his decrees, and would not exist without them.  (22) But,
it is said, supposing that God had made a different universe, or had
ordained other decrees from all eternity concerning nature and her order,
we could not therefore conclude any imperfection in God.  (23) But persons
who say this must admit that God can change his decrees.  (24) For if God
had ordained any decrees concerning nature and her order, different from
those which he has ordained--in other words, if he had willed and conceived
something different concerning nature--he would perforce have had a 
different intellect from that which he has, and also a different will:
(33:25) But if it were allowable to assign to God a different intellect
and a different will, without any change in his essence or his perfection,
what would there be to prevent him changing the decrees which he has made
concerning created things, and nevertheless remaining perfect?  (26) For
his intellect and will concerning things created and their order are the
same, in respect to his essence and perfection, however they be conceived.

(33:27) Further, all the philosophers whom I have read admit that God's
intellect is entirely actual, and not at all potential; as they also admit
that God's intellect, and God's will, and God's essence are identical, it
follows that, if God had had a different actual intellect and a different
will, his essence would also have been different; and thus, as I concluded
at first, if things had been brought into being by God in a different way
from that which has obtained, God's intellect and, will, that is (as is
admitted) his essence would perforce have been different, which is absurd.

(33:28) As these things could not have been brought into being by God in
any but the actual way and order which has obtained; and as the truth of
this proposition follows from the supreme perfection of God; we can have
no sound reason for persuading ourselves to believe that God did not wish
to create all the things which were in his intellect, and to create them
in the same perfection as he had understood them.
 
(33:29) But, it will be said, there is in things no perfection nor
imperfection; that which is in them, and which causes them to be called
perfect or imperfect, good or bad, depends solely on the will of God.
(30) If God had so willed, he might have brought it about that what is
now perfection should be extreme imperfection, and vice versa.  (31) What
is such an assertion, but an open declaration that God, who necessarily
understands that which he wishes, might bring it about by his will, that
he should understand things differently from the way in which he does
understand them?  (33:32) This (as we have just shown) is the height of
absurdity.  (33) Wherefore, I may turn the argument against its employers,
as follows: All things depend on the power of God.  (34) In order that 
things should be different from what they are, God's will would necessarily 
have to be different.  (35) But God's will cannot be different (as we have
just most clearly demonstrated) from God's perfection.  (36) Therefore
neither can things be different.  (37) I confess that the theory which
subjects all things to the will of an indifferent deity, and asserts that
they are all dependent on his fiat, is less far from the truth than the
theory of those, who maintain that God acts in all things with a view of
promoting what is good.  (38) For these latter persons seem to set up
something beyond God, which does not depend on God, but which God in
acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal.
(33:39) This is only another name for subjecting God to the dominion of
destiny, an utter absurdity in respect to God, whom we have shown to be
the first and only free cause of the essence of all things and also of
their existence.  (33:40) I need, therefore, spend no time in refuting
such wild theories.

PROP. [XXXIV]  God's power is identical with his essence.

Proof.- (34:1) From the sole necessity of the essence of God it follows
that God is the cause of himself ([xi] ) and of all things ([xvi] and
Coroll.).  (2) Wherefore the power of God, by which he and all things
are and act, is identical with his essence.  Q.E.D.

PROP. [XXXV]  Whatsoever we conceive to be in the power of
              God, necessarily exists.

Proof.- (35:1) Whatsoever is in God's power, must (by the last [XXXIV] )
be comprehended in his essence in such a manner, that it necessarily
follows therefrom, and therefore necessarily exists.  Q.E.D.

PROP. [XXXVI]  There is no cause from whose nature 
               effect does not follow.

Proof.- (36:1) Whatsoever exists expresses God's nature or essence in a
given conditioned manner (by [xxv] Coroll.); that is (by [xxxiv] ),
whatsoever exists, expresses in a given conditioned manner God's power,
which is the cause of all things, therefore an effect must (by [xvi] )
necessarily follow.  Q.E.D.
____________________________________________________________________________ 

[APPENDIX]
(AP:1) In the foregoing I have explained the nature and properties of God.
(2) I have shown that he necessarily exists, that he is one: that he is,
and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free
cause of all things, and how he is so; that all things are in God, and so
depend on him, that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived;
lastly, that all things are pre-determined by God, not through his free
will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power.
(AP:3) I have further, where occasion offered, taken care to remove the
prejudices, which might impede the comprehension of my demonstrations.
(4) Yet there still remain misconceptions not a few, which might and may
prove very grave hindrances to the understanding of the concatenation of
things, as I have explained it above.  (5) I have therefore thought it
worth while to bring these misconceptions before the bar of reason.
 
(AP:6) All such opinions spring from the notion commonly entertained, that
all things in nature act as men themselves act, namely, with an end in view.
(7) It is accepted as certain, that God himself directs all things to a
definite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man, and man
that he might worship him).  (8) I will, therefore, consider this opinion,
asking first why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally
so prone to adopt it ? secondly, I will point out its falsity; and, lastly,
I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and bad, right
and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and
the like.  (9) However, this is not the place to deduce these misconceptions
from the nature of the human mind: it will be sufficient here, if I assume
as a starting point, what ought to be universally admitted, namely, that
all men are born ignorant of the causes of things, that all have the desire
to seek for what is useful to them, and that they are conscious of such
desire.  (AP:10) Herefrom it follows first, that men think themselves free,
inasmuch as they are conscious of their volitions and desires, and never
even dream, in their ignorance, of the causes which have disposed them to
wish and desire.  (11) Secondly, that men do all things for an end,
namely, for that which is useful to them, and which they seek.  (12) Thus
it comes to pass that they only look for a knowledge of the final causes
of events, and when these are learned, they are content, as having no cause
for further doubt.  (13) If they cannot learn such causes from external
sources, they are compelled to turn to considering themselves, and
reflecting what end would have induced them personally to bring about the
given event, and thus they necessarily judge other natures by their own.
(AP:14) Further, as they find in themselves and outside themselves many
means which assist them not a little in their search for what is useful,
for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for
yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, etc.,
they come to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining such
conveniences.  (15) Now as they are aware, that they found these
conveniences and did not make them they think they have cause for believing,
that some other being has made them for their use.  (16) As they look upon
things as means, they cannot believe them to be self-created; but, judging
from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they
are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with
human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use.
(AP:17) They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers ( having no
information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and
therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man,
in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honors.
(AP:18) Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself,
according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that
God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of
nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice.
(AP:19) Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root
in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to
understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor
to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e., nothing which is useless
to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men
are all mad together.  (AP:20) Consider, I pray you, the result: among the
many helps of nature they were bound to find some hindrances, such as
storms, earthquakes, diseases, etc.: so they declared that such things
happen, because the gods are angry at some wrong done them by men, or
at some fault committed in their worship.  (21) Experience day by day
protested showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall
to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their
inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such
contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant,
and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to
destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh.  (AP:22) They
therefore laid down as an axiom, that God's judgments far transcend human
understanding.  (AP:23) Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal
the truth from the human race for all eternity, if mathematics had not
furnished another standard of verity in considering solely the essence and
properties of figures without regard to their final causes.  (24) There are
other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides mathematics, which
might have caused men's minds to be directed to these general prejudices,
and have led them to the knowledge of the truth.
 
(AP:25) I have now sufficiently explained my first point.  (26) There is
no need to show at length, that nature has no particular goal in view, and
that final causes are mere human figments.  (27) This, I think, is already
evident enough, both from the causes and foundations on which I have shown
such prejudice to be based, and also from [xvi] , and the Corollary of
[xxxii] , and, in fact, all those propositions in which I have shown, that
everything in nature proceeds from a sort of necessity, and with the utmost
perfection.  (28) However, I will add a few remarks, in order to overthrow
this doctrine of a final cause utterly.  (29) That which is really a cause
it considers as an effect, and vice versa: it makes that which is by nature
first to be last, and that which is highest and most perfect to be most
imperfect.  (AP:30) Passing over the questions of cause and priority as
self-evident, it is plain from [xxi] , [xxii] , [xxiii] that that effect,
is most perfect which is produced immediately by God; the effect which
requires for its production several intermediate causes is, in that respect,
more imperfect. (31) But if those things which were made immediately by God
were made to enable him to attain his end, then the things which come after,
for the sake of which the first were made, are necessarily the most
excellent of all.

(AP:32) Further, this doctrine does away with the perfection of God: for,
if God acts for an object, he necessarily desires something which he lacks.
(33) Certainly, theologians and metaphysicians draw a distinction between
the object of want and the object of assimilation; still they confess that
God made all things for the sake of himself, not for the sake of creation.
(AP:34) They are unable to point to anything prior to creation, except God
himself, as an object for which God should act, and are therefore driven to
admit (as they clearly must), that God lacked those things for whose
attainment he created means, and further that he desired them.

(AP:35) We must not omit to notice that the followers of this doctrine,
anxious to display their talent in assigning final causes, have imported
a new method of argument in proof of their theory--namely, a reduction,
not to the impossible, but to ignorance; thus showing that they have no
other method of exhibiting their doctrine.  (36) For example, if a
stone falls from a roof on to some one's head and kills him, they will
demonstrate by their new method, that the stone fell in order to kill
the man; for, if it had not by God's will fallen with that object, how
could so many circumstances (and there are often many concurrent
circumstances) have all happened together by chance?  (AP:37) Perhaps
you will answer that the event is due to the facts that the wind was
blowing, and the man was walking that way.  (38) "But why," they will
insist, "was the wind blowing, and why was the man at that very time
walking that way?" (38a) If you again answer, that the wind had then sprung
up because the sea had begun to be agitated the day before, the weather
being previously calm, and that the man had been invited by a friend,
they will again insist: "But why was the sea agitated, and why was the
man invited at that time?"  (39) So they will pursue their questions from
cause to cause, till at last you take refuge in the will of God - in other
words, the sanctuary of ignorance.  (40) So, again, when they survey the
frame of the human body, they are amazed; and being ignorant of the causes
of so great a work of art conclude that it has been fashioned, not
mechanically, but by divine and supernatural skill, and has been so put
together that one part shall not hurt another.

(AP:41) Hence anyone who seeks for the true causes of miracles, and strives
to understand natural phenomena as an intelligent being, and not to gaze at
them like a fool, is set down and denounced as an impious heretic by those,
whom the masses adore as the interpreters of nature and the gods.  (42) Such
persons know that, with the removal of ignorance, the wonder which forms
their only available means for proving and preserving their authority would
vanish also.  (AP:43) But I now quit this subject, and pass on to my third
point.

(AP:44) After men persuaded themselves, that everything which is created
is created for their sake, they were bound to consider as the chief quality
in everything that which is most useful to themselves, and to account those
things the best of all which have the most beneficial effect on mankind.
(45) Further, they were bound to form abstract notions for the explanation
of the nature of things, such as goodness, badness, order, confusion,
warmth, cold, beauty, deformity, and so on; and from the belief that they
are free agents arose the further notions praise and blame, sin and merit.

(AP:46) I will speak of these latter hereafter, when I treat of human 
nature; the former I will briefly explain here.

(AP:47) Everything which conduces to health and the worship of God they
have called good, everything which hinders these objects they have styled
bad; and inasmuch as those who do not understand the nature of things do
not verify phenomena in any way, but merely imagine them after a fashion,
and mistake their imagination for understanding, such persons firmly
believe that there is an order in things, being really ignorant both of
things and their own nature.  (AP:48) When phenomena are of such a kind,
that the impression they make on our senses requires little effort of
imagination, and can consequently be easily remembered, we say that they
are well-ordered; if the contrary, that they are ill-ordered or confused.
(AP:49) Further, as things which are easily imagined are more pleasing to
us, men prefer order to confusion, as though there were any order in
nature, except in relation to our imagination, and say that God has
created all things in order; thus, without knowing it, attributing
imagination to God, unless, indeed, they would have it that God foresaw
human imagination, and arranged everything, so that it should be most
easily imagined.  (50) If this be their theory they would not, perhaps,
be daunted by the fact that we find an infinite number of phenomena, far
surpassing our imagination, and very many others which confound its
weakness.  (51) But enough has been said on this subject.  (52) The other
abstract notions are nothing but modes of imagining, in which the
imagination is differently affected, though they are considered by the
ignorant as the chief attributes of things, inasmuch as they believe that
everything was created for the sake of themselves; and, according as they
are affected by it, style it good or bad, healthy or rotten and corrupt.
(AP:53) For instance, if the motion whose objects we see communicate to
our nerves be conducive to health, the objects causing it are styled
beautiful; if a contrary motion be excited, they are styled ugly.

(AP:54) Things which are perceived through our sense of smell are styled 
fragrant or fetid; it through our taste, sweet or bitter, full-flavored
or insipid, if through our touch, hard or soft, rough or smooth, etc.

(AP:55) Whatsoever affects our ears is said to give rise to noise, sound,
or harmony.  (56) In this last case, there are men lunatic enough to
believe that even God himself takes pleasure in harmony; and philosophers
are not lacking who have persuaded themselves, that the motion of the
heavenly bodies gives rise to harmony; all of which instances sufficiently
show that everyone judges of things according to the state of his brain,
or rather mistakes for things the forms of his imagination.  (57) We need
no longer wonder that there have arisen all the controversies we have
witnessed and finally skepticism: for, although human bodies in many
respects agree, yet in very many others they differ; so that what seems
good to one seems bad to another; what seems well ordered to one seems
confused to another; what is pleasing to one displeases another, and so
on.  (AP:58) I need not further enumerate, because this is not the place
to treat the subject at length, and also because the fact is sufficiently
well known.  (59) It is commonly said: "So many men, so many minds;
everyone is wise in his own way; brains differ as completely as palates."
(AP:60) All of which proverbs show, that men judge of things according
to their mental disposition, and rather imagine than understand: for, if
they understood phenomena, they would, as mathematics attest, be convinced,
if not attracted, by what I have urged.

(AP:61) We have now perceived, that all the explanations commonly given of
nature are mere modes of imagining, and do not indicate the true nature of
anything, but only the constitution of the imagination; and, although they
have names, as though they were entities, existing externally to the
imagination, I call them entities imaginary rather than real; and,
therefore, all arguments against us drawn from such abstractions are
easily rebutted.

(AP:62) Many argue in this way.  (63) If all things follow from a
necessity of the absolutely perfect nature of God, why are there 
many imperfections in nature? such, for instance, as things corrupt
to the point of putridity, loathsome deformity, confusion, evil,
sin, etc.  (64) But these reasoners are, as I have said, easily
confuted, for the perfection of things is to be reckoned only from
their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect,
according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as
they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind.  (AP:65) To those who
ask why God did not so create all men, that they should be governed
only by reason, I give no answer but this: because matter was not
lacking to him for the creation of every degree of perfection from
highest to lowest; or, more strictly, because the laws of his nature
are so vast, as to suffice for the production of everything conceivable
by an infinite intelligence, as I have shown in [xvi] .

(AP:66) Such are the misconceptions I have undertaken to note; if there
are any more of the same sort, everyone may easily dissipate them for
himself with the aid of a little reflection.

____________________________________________________________________________

                       End of "The Ethics - Part I"

                "Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>
                             August 25, 1997

                           The Ethics - Part II
                     On the Nature and Origin of the Mind

                               Circulated - 1673
                         Posthumously Published - 1677

                               Baruch Spinoza
                                1632 - 1677

____________________________________________________________________________

JBY Notes:

1.  Text was scanned from Benedict de Spinoza's
    "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics" and
    "Correspondence" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20250-X.

2.  The text is that of the translation of "The Ethics" by
    R. H. M. Elwes.  This text is "an unabridged and unaltered
    republication of the Bohn Library edition originally published
    by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3.  JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4.  Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).
       yy = Proposition Number when given.
       xx = Sentence Number.

5.  Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:
       a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,
          indicates Part Number.  If a different Part, bring
          up that Part and then search.
       b. Include square brackets in search string.
       c. Do not include Part Number in search string.
       d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6.  Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
    or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7.  HTML version:
       Part II - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/e2elwes.htm

___________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
[PREFACE]
[DEFINITIONS]
[AXIOMS]
[LEMMAS]
[POSTULATES]
[PROPOSITIONS:]
   [I] .    [XI] .    [XXI] .    [XXXI] .    [XLI] .
   [II] .   [XII] .   [XXII] .   [XXXII] .   [XLII] .
   [III] .  [XIII] .  [XXIII] .  [XXXIII] .  [XLIII] .
   [IV] .   [XIV] .   [XXIV] .   [XXXIV] .   [XLIV] .
   [V] .    [XV] .    [XXV] .    [XXXV] .    [XLV] .
   [VI] .   [XVI] .   [XXVI] .   [XXXVI] .   [XLVI] .
   [VII] .  [XVII] .  [XXVII] .  [XXXVII] .  [XLVII] .
   [VIII] . [XVIII] . [XXVIII] . [XXXVIII] . [XLVIII] .
   [IX] .   [XIX] .   [XXIX] .   [XXXIX] .   [XLIX] .
   [X] .    [XX] .    [XXX] .    [XL] .

____________________________________________________________________________

[PREFACE]

(Pr:1) I now pass on to explaining the results, which must necessarily
follow from the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite being;
not, indeed, all of them (for we proved in I:[xvi] , that an infinite
number must follow in an infinite number of ways), but only those which
are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of the
human mind and its highest blessedness.

___________________________________________________________________________

[DEFINITIONS]

[D.I]  By body I mean a mode which expresses in a certain 
       determinate manner the essence of God, in so far as he is 
       considered as an extended thing. (See I:[xxv] Coroll.)

[D.II] I consider as belonging to the essence of a thing that, which 
       being given, the thing is necessarily given also, and, which 
       being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also; in 
       other words, that without which the thing , can neither be nor 
       be conceived.

[D.III] By idea, I mean the mental conception which is formed by 
        the mind as a thinking thing.
        Explanation.- I say conception rather than perception, because
        the word perception seems to imply that the mind is passive in
        respect to the object; whereas conception seems to express an
        activity of the mind.

[D.IV]  By an adequate idea, I mean an idea which, in so far as it is 
        considered in itself, without relation to the object, has all
        the properties or intrinsic marks of a true idea.
        Explanation.- I say intrinsic, in order to exclude that which
        is extrinsic, namely, the agreement between the idea and its
        object (ideatum).

[D.V]  Duration is the indefinite continuance of existing.
       Explanation.- I say indefinite, because it cannot be
       determined through the existence itself of the existing
       thing, or by its efficient cause, which necessarily gives
       the existence of the thing, but does not take it away.

[D.VI] Reality and perfection I use as synonymous terms.

[D.VII] By particular things, I mean things which are finite and
        have a conditioned existence; but if several individual
        things concur in one action, so as to be all simultaneously
        the effect of one cause, I consider them all, so far, as one
        particular thing.

____________________________________________________________________________

[AXIOMS]

[A.I] The essence of man does not involve necessary existence,
      that is, it may, in the order of nature, come to pass that
      this or that man does or does not exist.

[A.II] Man thinks.

[A.III] Modes of thinking, such as love, desire, or any other of
        the passions, do not take place, unless there be in the
        same individual an idea of the thing loved, desired, &c.
        But the idea can exist without the presence of any other
        mode of thinking.

[A.IV] We perceive that a certain body is affected in many ways.

[A.V] We feel and perceive no particular things, save bodies and
      modes of thought.

[POSTULATES]
____________________________________________________________________________

[PROPOSITIONS]

Prop.[I] Thought is an attribute of God,
         or God is a thinking thing.

Proof.-  (1:1) Particular thoughts, or this or that thought, are modes
which, in a certain conditioned manner, express the nature of God
(I:[xxv] Coroll.).  (2) God therefore possesses the attribute (I:[D.v] )
of which the concept is involved in all particular thoughts, which
latter are conceived thereby.  (3) Thought, therefore, is one of the
infinite attributes of God, which express God's eternal and infinite
essence (I:[D.vi] ).  (4) In other words, God is a thinking thing.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (1:5) This proposition is also evident from the fact, that we
are able to conceive an infinite thinking being.  (6) For, in proportion
as a thinking being is conceived as thinking more thoughts, so is it
conceived as containing more reality or perfection.  (7) Therefore a
being, which can think an infinite number of things in an infinite
number of ways, is, necessarily, in respect of thinking, infinite.
(1:8) As, therefore, from the consideration of thought alone we conceive
an infinite being, thought is necessarily (I:[D.iv] and I:[D.vi] ) one
of the infinite attributes of God, as we were desirous of showing.

Prop.[II] Extension is an attribute of God,
          or God is an extended thing.

Proof.- (2:1) The proof of this proposition is similar to that of the last.

Prop.[III] In God there is necessarily the idea not only of his 
           essence, but also of all things which necessarily
           follow from his essence.

Proof. - (3:1) God (by [i] of this Part) can think an infinite number
of things in infinite ways, or (what is the same thing, by I:[xvi] )
can form the idea of his essence, and of all things which necessarily
follow there from.  (2) Now all that is in the power of God necessarily is.
(I:[xxxv] )  (3) Therefore, such an idea as we are considering necessarily
is, and in God alone.  Q.E.D. (I:[xv] )

Note. - (3:4) The multitude understand by the power of God the free will
of God, and the right over all things that exist, which latter are
accordingly generally considered as contingent.  (5) For it is said that
God has the power to destroy all things, and to reduce them to nothing.
(3:6) Further, the power of God is very often likened to the power of
kings.  (7) But this doctrine we have refuted (I:[xxxii] Corolls. i. and
ii), and we have shown (I:[xvi] ) that God acts by the same necessity,
as that by which he understands himself; in other words, as it follows
from the necessity of the divine nature (as all admit), that God
understands himself, so also does it follow by the same necessity, that
God performs infinite acts in infinite ways.  (8) We further showed
(I:[xxxiv] ), that God's power is identical with God's essence in action;
therefore it is as impossible for us to conceive God as not acting, as to
conceive him as nonexistent.  (9) If we might pursue the subject further,
I could point out, that the power which is commonly attributed to God is
not only human (as showing that God is conceived by the multitude as a
man, or in the likeness of a man), but involves a negation of power
(3:10) However, I am unwilling to go over the same ground so often.
(11) I would only beg the reader again and again, to turn over frequently
in his mind what I have said in from I:[xvi] to the end.  (12) No one
will be able to follow my meaning, unless he is scrupulously careful not
to confound the power of God with the human power and right of kings.
 

Prop.[IV] The idea of God, from which an infinite number of 
          things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.
 
Proof.- (4:1) Infinite intellect comprehends nothing save the attributes
of God and his modifications (I:[xxx] ).  (2) Now God is one (I:[xiv]
Coroll.).  (3) Therefore the idea of God, wherefrom an infinite number
of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[V] The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, only
         in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not
         in so far as he is unfolded in any other attribute;
         that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of
         particular things do not own as their efficient cause
         their objects (ideata) or the things perceived, but
         God himself in so far as he is a thinking thing.

Proof.- (5:1) This proposition is evident from [iii] of this Part.
(2) We there drew the conclusion, that God can form the idea of his
essence, and of all things which follow necessarily therefrom, solely
because he is a thinking thing, and not because he is the object of
his own idea.  (3) Wherefore the actual being of ideas owns for cause
God, in so far as he is a thinking thing. It may be differently proved
as follows: the actual being of ideas is (obviously) a mode of thought,
that is (I:[xxv] Coroll.) a mode which expresses in a certain manner
the nature of God, in so far as he is a thinking thing, and therefore
(I:[x] ) involves the conception of no other attribute of God, and
consequently (by I:[A.iv] ) is not the effect of any attribute save
thought.  (4) Therefore the actual being of ideas owns God as its cause,
in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, &c.  Q.E.D

Prop.[VI] The modes of any given attribute are caused by God, 
          in so far as he is considered through the attribute
          of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is
          considered through any other attribute.

Proof.- (6:1) Each attribute is conceived through itself, without any
other (I:[x] ); wherefore the modes of each attribute involve the
conception of that attribute, but not of any other.  (2)Thus (I:[A.iv] )
they are caused by God, only in so far as he is considered through the
attribute whose modes they are, and not in so far as he is considered
through any other.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (6:3) Hence the actual being of things, which are not modes
of thought, does not follow from the divine nature, because that nature
has prior knowledge of the things.  (4) Things represented in ideas
follow, and are derived from their particular attribute, in the same
manner, and with the same necessity as ideas follow (according to what
we have shown) from the attribute of thought.

Prop.[VII] The order and connection of ideas is the same
           as the order and connection of things.

Proof.- (7:1) This proposition is evident from I:[A.iv] .  (2) For the
idea of everything that is caused depends on a knowledge of the cause,
whereof it is an effect.

Corollary.- (7:3) Hence God's power of thinking is equal to his realized
power of action - that is, whatsoever follows from the infinite nature of
God in the world of extension (formaliter), follows without exception in
the same order and connection from the idea of God in the world of
thought (objective).

Note.- (7:4) Before going any further, I wish to recall to mind what has
been pointed out above-namely, that whatsoever can be perceived by the
infinite intellect as constituting the essence of substance, belongs
altogether only to one substance: consequently, substance thinking and
substance extended are one and the same substance, comprehended now
through one attribute, now through the other.  (5) So, also, a mode of
extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, though
expressed in two ways.  (6) This truth seems to have been dimly recognized
by those Jews who maintained that God, God's intellect, and the things
understood by God are identical.  (7:7) For instance, a circle existing in
nature, and the idea of a circle existing, which is also in God, are one
and the same thing displayed through different attributes.  (8) Thus,
whether we conceive nature under the attribute of extension, or under the
attribute of thought, or under any other attribute, we shall find the same
order, or one and the same chain of causes - that is, the same things
following in either case.

(7:9) I said that God is the cause of an idea-for instance, of the idea
of a circle,-in so far as he is a thinking thing; and of a circle, in so
far as he is an extended thing, simply because the actual being of the
idea of a circle can only be perceived as a proximate cause through
another mode of thinking, and that again through another, and so on to
infinity; so that, so long as we consider things as modes of thinking,
we must explain the order of the whole of nature, or the whole chain of
causes, through the attribute of thought only.  (10) And, in so far as
we consider things as modes of extension, we must explain the order of
the whole of nature through the attribute of extension only; and so on,
in the case of other attributes.  (11) Wherefore of things as they
are in themselves God is really the cause, inasmuch as he consists of
infinite attributes.  (7:12) I cannot for the present explain my
meaning more clearly.

Prop.[VIII] The ideas of particular things, or of modes, that do 
            not exist, must be comprehended in the infinite idea
            of God, in the same way as the formal essences of
            particular things or modes are contained in the
            attributes of God.

Proof. - (8:1) This proposition is evident from [vii] ;
it is understood more clearly from the preceding note.

Corollary.- (8:2) Hence, so long as particular things do not exist,
except in so far as they are comprehended in the attributes of God,
their representations in thought or ideas do not exist, except in so
far as the infinite idea of God exists; and when particular things
are said to exist, not only in so far as they are involved in the
attributes of God, but also in so far as they are said to continue,
their ideas will also involve existence, through which they are said
to continue.

Note.- (8:3) If anyone desires an example to throw more light on this
question, I shall, I fear, not be able to give him any, which adequately
explains the thing of which I here speak, inasmuch as it is unique;
however, I will endeavour to illustrate it as far as possible.  (4) The
nature of a circle is such that if any number of straight lines intersect
within it, the rectangles formed by their segments will be equal to one
another; thus, infinite equal rectangles are contained in a circle.
(8:5) Yet none of these rectangles can be said to exist, except in so
far as the circle exists; nor can the idea of any of these rectangles
be said to exist, except in so far as they are comprehended in the idea
of the circle.  (6) Let us grant that, from this infinite number of
rectangles, two only exist.  (8:7) The ideas of these two not only exist
in so far as they are contained in the idea of the circle, but also as
they involve the existence of those rectangles; wherefore they are
distinguished from the remaining ideas of the remaining rectangles.

Prop.[IX] The idea of an individual thing actually existing is
          caused by God, not in so far as he is infinite, but
          in so far as he is considered as affected by another
          idea of a thing actually existing, of which he is the
          cause, in so far as he is affected by a third idea,
          and so on to infinity.

Proof.- (9:1) The idea of an individual thing actually existing is an 
individual mode of thinking, and is distinct from other modes (by the
Corollary and Note to [viii]  of this part); thus (by [vi] of this part)
it is caused by God, in so far only as he is a thinking thing.  (2) But
not (by I:[xxviii] ) in so far as he is a thing thinking absolutely,
only in so far as he is considered as affected by another mode of thinking;
and he is the cause of this latter, as being affected by a third, and so on
to infinity.  (3) Now, the order and connection of ideas is (by [vii] of
this book) the same as the order and connection of causes.  (4) Therefore
of a given individual idea another individual idea, or God, in so far as
he is considered as modified by that idea, is the cause; and of this second
idea God is the cause, in so far as he is affected by another idea, and so
on to infinity.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (9:5) Whatsoever takes place in the individual object of any
idea, the knowledge thereof is in God, in so far only as he has the idea
of the object.

Proof.- (9:6) Whatsoever takes place in the object of any idea, its idea
is in God (by [iii] of this part), not in so far as he is infinite, but
in so far as he is considered as affected by another idea of an individual
thing (by [x} ); but (by [vii] of this part) the order and connection of
ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.  (7) The knowledge,
therefore, of that which takes place in any individual object will be in
God, in so far only as he has the idea of that object. Q.E.D.

Prop.[X] The being of substance does not appertain to the
         essence of man - in other words, substance does
         not constitute the actual being ("Forma") of man.

Proof.- (10:1) The being of substance involves necessary existence
(I:[vii] ).  (2) If, therefore, the being of substance appertains to
the essence of man, substance being granted, man would necessarily
be granted also ([D.ii] ), and, consequently, man would necessarily
exist, which is absurd ([A.i] ). Therefore, &c. Q.E.D.

Note.- (10:3) This proposition may also be proved from I:[v] , in which
it is shown that there cannot be two substances of the same nature; for
as there may be many men, the being of substance is not that which
constitutes the actual being of man.  (4) Again, the proposition is
evident from the other properties of substance - namely, that substance
is in its nature infinite, immutable, indivisible, &c., as anyone may
see for himself.

Corollary.- (10:5) Hence it follows, that the essence of man is
constituted by certain modifications of the attributes of God.
(6) For (by [ix] ) the being of substance does not belong to the
essence of man.  (7) That essence therefore (by I:[xv] ) is
something which is in God, and which without God can neither be
nor be conceived, whether it be a modification (I:[xxv] Coroll.),
or a mode which expresses God's nature in a certain conditioned
manner.

Note.- (10:8) Everyone must surely admit, that nothing can be or be
conceived without God.  (9) All men agree that God is the one and only
cause of all things, both of their essence and of their existence;
that is, God is not only the cause of things in respect to their
being made (secundum fieri), but also in respect to their being
(secundum esse).

(10:10) At the same time many assert, that that, without which a thing
cannot be nor be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing;
wherefore they believe that either the nature of God appertains to the
essence of created things, or else that created things can be or be
conceived without God; or else, as is more probably the case, they hold
inconsistent doctrines.  (10:11) I think the cause for such confusion
is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper order of philosophic
thinking.  (12) The nature of God, which should be reflected on first,
inasmuch as it is prior both in the order of knowledge and the order
of nature, they have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and
have put into the first place what they call the objects of sensation;
hence, while they are considering natural phenomena, they give no
attention at all to the divine nature, and, when afterwards they apply
their mind to the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to
bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have overlaid the
knowledge of natural phenomena, inasmuch as such hypotheses are no help
towards understanding the Divine nature.  (10:13) So that it is hardly to
be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves freely.

(10:14) However, I pass over this point.  (15) My intention here was only
to give a reason for not saying, that that, without which a thing cannot
be or be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing: individual
things cannot be or be conceived without Glod, yet God does not appertain
to their essence.  (16) I said that "I considered as belonging to the
essence of a thing that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given
also, and which being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also; or
that without which the thing, and which itself without the thing can
neither be nor be conceived." ([D.ii] )

Prop.[XI] The first element, which constitutes the actual 
          of the human mind, is the idea of some particular
          thing actually existing.

Proof.- (11:1) The essence of man (by the Coroll. of [x] ) is constituted
by certain modes of the attributes of God, namely (by [A.ii] ), by
the modes of thinking, of all which (by [A.iii] ) the idea is prior in
nature, and, when the idea is given, the other modes (namely, those of
which the idea is prior in nature) must be in the same individual (by the
same Axiom).  (2) Therefore an idea is the first element constituting the
human mind.  (3) But not the idea of a non- existent thing, for then
([viii] Coroll.) the idea itself cannot be said to exist; it must
therefore be the idea of something actually existing.  (4) But not of an
infinite thing.  (5) For an infinite thing (I:[xxi] , I:[xxii] ), must
always necessarily exist; this would (by [A.i] ) involve an absurdity.
(11:6) Therefore the first element, which constitutes the actual being of
the human mind, is the idea of something actually existing.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (11:7) Hence it follows, that the human mind is part of the
infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives
this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not
in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the
nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of
the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only
in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so
far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of
another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or
inadequately.

Note.- (11:8) Here, I doubt not, readers will come to a stand, and will
call to mind many things which will cause them to hesitate; I therefore
beg them to accompany me slowly, step by step, and not to pronounce on
my statements, till they have read to the end.

Prop.[XII] Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of the idea,
           which constitutes the human mind, must be perceived
           by the human mind, or there will necessarily be an
           idea in the human mind of the said occurrence. That
           is, if the object of the idea constituting the human
           mind be a body, nothing can take place in that body
           without being perceived by the mind.

Proof.- (12:1) Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of any idea, the
knowledge thereof is necessarily in God ([ix] , Coroll.), in so far as
he is considered as affected by the idea of the said object, that is (xi] ),
in so far as he constitutes the mind of anything.  (2) Therefore,
whatsoever takes place in the object constituting the idea of the human
mind, the knowledge thereof is necessarily in God, in so far as he
constitutes the nature of the human mind; that is (by [xi] Coroll.) the
knowledge of the said thing wild necessarily be in the mind, in other
words the mind perceives it.

Note.- (12:3) This proposition is also evident, and is more clearly to
be understood from [vii] , which see.

Prop.[XIII] The object of the idea constituting the human mind
            is the body, in other words a certain mode of
            extension which actually exists, and nothing else.

Proof.- (13:1) If indeed the body were not the object of the human mind,
the ideas of the modifications a the body would not be in God ([ix] Coroll.)
in virtue of his constituting our mind, but in virtue of his constituting
the mind of something else; that is ([xi] Coroll.) the ideas of the 
modifications of the body would not be in our mind: now (by [A.iv] ) we do
possess the ideas of the modifications of the body.  (2) Therefore the
object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body, and the body
as it actually exists ([xi] ).  (3) Further, if there were any other
object of the idea constituting the mind besides body, then, as nothing
can exist from which some effect does not follow (I:[xxxvi] ) there would
necessarily have to be in our mind an idea, which would be the effect
of that other object ([xi] ); but ([A.v] ) there is no such idea.
(13:4) Wherefore the object of our mind is the body as it exists,
and nothing else.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (13:5) We thus comprehend, not only that the human mind is united
to the body, but also the nature of the union between mind and body.
(6) However, no one will be able to grasp this adequately or distinctly,
unless he first has adequate knowledge of the nature of our body.
(13:7) The propositions we have advanced hitherto have been entirely
general, applying not more to men than to other individual things, all
of which, though in different degrees, are animated (Animata").  (8) For
of everything there is necessarily an idea in God, of which God is the
cause, in the same way as there is an idea of the human body; thus
whatever we have asserted of the idea of the human body must necessarily
also be asserted of the idea of everything else.  (13:9) Still, on the other
hand, we cannot deny that ideas, like objects, differ one from the other,
one being more excellent than another and containing more reality, just
as the object of one idea is more excellent than the object of another
idea, and contains more reality.

(13:10) Wherefore, in order io determine, wherein the human mind differs
from other things, and wherein it surpasses them, it is necessary for us
to know the nature of its object, that is, of the human body.  (11) What
this nature is, I am not able here to explain, nor is it necessary for
the proof of what I advance, that I should do so.  (12) I will only say
generally, that in proportion as any given body is more fitted than others
for doing many actions or receiving many impressions at once, so also is
the mind, of which it is the object, more fitted than others for forming
many simultaneous perceptions; and the more the actions of one body depend
on itself alone, and the fewer other bodies concur with it in action,
the more fitted is the mind of which it is the object for distinct
comprehension.  (13:13) We may thus recognize the superiority of one
mind over others, and may further see the cause, why we have only a very
confused knowledge of our body, and also many kindred questions, which
I will, in the following propositions, deduce from what has been advanced.
(13:14) Wherefore I have thought it worth while to explain and prove more
strictly my present statements.  (15) In order to do so, I must premise
a few propositions concerning the nature of bodies.

[AXIOMS]
[A.VI] All bodies are either in motion or at rest. 
[A.VII] Every body is moved sometimes more
        slowly, sometimes more quickly.

[LEMMAS]
[L.I] Bodies are distinguished from one another in
      respect of motion and rest, quickness and
      slowness, and not in respect of substance.
 
      Proof.- The first part of this proposition is, I take it,
      self-evident. That bodies are not distinguished in respect
      of substance, is plain both from I:[v]. and I:viii. It is
      brought out still more clearly from I:[xv] note.

[L.II] All bodies agree in certain respects. 
       Proof.- All bodies agree in the fact, that they involve
       the conception of one and the same attribute ([D.i] ).
       Further, in the fact that they may be moved less or more
       quickly, and may be absolutely in motion or at rest.

[L.III] A body in motion or at rest must be determined
        to motion or rest by another body, which other
        body has been determined to motion or rest by
        a third body, and that third again by a fourth,
        and so on to infinity. 
        Proof.- Bodies are individual things ([D.i] ), which ([L.I] )
        are distinguished one from the other in respect to motion and
        rest; thus (I:[xxviii] ) each must necessarily be determined
        to motion or rest by another individual thing, namely ([vi] ),
        by another body, which other body is also ([A.i] ) in motion
        or at rest.  And this body again can only have been set in
        motion or caused to rest by being determined by a third body
        to motion or rest.  This third body again by a fourth, and so
        on to infinity.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (13:16) Hence it follows, that a body in motion keeps in
motion, until it is determined to a state of rest by some other body;
and a body at rest remains so, until it is determined to a state of
motion by some other body.  (17) This is indeed self-evident.  (18) For
when I suppose, for instance, that a given body, A, is at rest, and do
not take into consideration other bodies in motion, I cannot affirm
anything concerning the body A, except that it is at rest.  (13:19) If
it afterwards comes to pass that A is in motion, this cannot have
resulted from its having been at rest, for no other consequence could
have been involved than its remaining at rest.  (20) If, on the other
hand, A be given in motion, we shall, so long as we only consider A,
be unable to affirm anything concerning it, except that it is in motion.
(13:21) If A is subsequently found to be at rest, this rest cannot be
the result of A's previous motion, for such motion can only have led
to continued motion; the state of rest therefore must have resulted from
something, which was not in A, namely, from an external cause determining
A to a state of rest.
____________________________________________________________________________

[AXIOMS]

[A.VIII] All modes, wherein one body is affected by body,
         follow simultaneously from the nature of the body
         affected and the body affecting; so that one and
         the same body may be moved in different modes,
         according to the difference in the nature of
         bodies moving it; on the other hand, different
         bodies may be moved in different modes by one
         and the same body.
 
[A.IX] When a body in motion impinges on another body at rest,
       which it is unable to move, it recoils, in order to
       continue its motion, and the angle made by the line of
       motion in the recoil and the plane of the body at rest,
       whereon the moving body has impinged, will be equal to
       the angle formed by the line of  motion of incidence and
       the same plane.

(13:22) So far we have been speaking only of the most simple bodies, which are only distinguished one from the other by motion and rest, quickness and slowness.  (23) We now pass on to compound bodies.

[13:24] Definition.- When any given bodies of the same or different
magnitude are compelled by other bodies to remain in contact, or if they
be moved at the same or different rates of speed, so that their mutual
movements should preserve among themselves a certain fixed relation, we say
that such bodies are in union, and that together they compose one body or
individual, which is distinguished from other bodies by this fact of union.

[AXIOMS]

[A.X] In proportion as the parts of an individual, or a compound
      body, are in contact over a greater or less superficies
      moved from their position; consequently the individual will,
      with greater or less difficulty, be brought to assume
      another form.  Those bodies, whose parts are in contact over
      large superficies, are called hard; those, whose parts are
      in contact over small superficies, are called soft; those,
      whose parts are in motion among one another, are called fluid.

[LEMMAS]

[L.IV] If from a body or individual, compounded of several bodies,
       be separated, and if, at the same time, an equal number of
       other bodies of the same nature take their place, the
       individual will preserve its nature as before, without
       any change in its actuality (forma).
       Proof.- Bodies ([L.i] ) are not distinguished in respect of
       substance: that which constitutes the actuality (formam) of an
       individual consists (by the last Def.) in a union of bodies; but
       this union, although there is a continual change of bodies, will
       (by our hypothesis) be maintained; the individual, therefore,
       will retain its nature as before, both in respect of substance
       and in respect of mode.  Q.E.D.

[L.V] If the parts composing an individual become greater or less
      but in such proportion, that they all preserve the same mutual
      relations of motion and rest, the individual will still
      preserve its original nature, and its actuality will not
      be  changed.
      Proof.- The same as for the last [L.iv] .

[L.VI] If certain bodies composing an individual be compelled to
       change the motion, which they have in one direction, for
       motion in another direction, but in such a  manner, that
       they be able to continue their motions and their mutual
       communication in the same relations as before, the
       individual will retain its own  nature without any change
       of its actuality.
       Proof.- This proposition is self-evident, for the individual
       is supposed to retain all that, which, in its definition,
       we spoke of as its actual being.

[L.VII] Furthermore, the individual thus composed preserves its
        nature, whether it be, as a whole, in motion or at rest,
        whether it be moved in this or that direction; so long
        as each part retains its motion, and preserves its
        communication with other parts as before.
        Proof.- This proposition is evident from the definition
        of an individual prefixed to [L.iv] .
____________________________________________________________________________

Note.- (13:25) We thus see, how a composite individual may be affected
in many different ways, and preserve its nature notwithstanding.
(26) Thus far we have conceived an individual as composed of bodies
only distinguished one from the other in respect of motion and rest,
speed and slowness; that is, of bodies of the most simple character.
(13:27) If, however, we now conceive another individual composed of
several individuals of diverse natures, we shall find that the number of
ways in which it can be affected, without losing its nature, will be
greatly multiplied. (13:28) Each of its parts would consist of several
bodies, and therefore (by [Lvi] ) each part would admit, without change
to its nature, of quicker or slower motion, and would consequently be
able to transmit its motions more quickly or more slowly to the remaining
parts.  (29) If we further conceive a third kind of individuals composed
of individuals of this second kind, we shall find that they may be
affected in a still greater number of ways without changing their
actuality.  (13:30) We may easily proceed thus to infinity, and conceive
the whole of nature as one individual, whose parts, that is, all bodies,
vary in infinite ways, without any change in the individual as a whole.
(13:31) I should feel bound to explain and demonstrate this point at more
length, if I were writing a special treatise on body.  (32) But I have
already said that such is not my object, (13:33) I have only touched on
the question, because it enables me to prove easily that which I have in
view.

____________________________________________________________________________

[POSTULATES]
[Po.I]   The human body is composed of a number of individual parts,
         of diverse nature, each one of which is in itself extremely
         complex.
[Po.II]  Of the individual parts composing the human body some are
         fluid, some soft, some hard.
[Po.III] The individual parts composing the human body, and
         consequently the human body itself, are affected in
         a variety of ways by external bodies.
[Po.IV]  The human body stands in need for its preservation of
         a number of other bodies, by which it is continually,
         so to speak, regenerated.
[Po.V]   When the fluid part of the human body is determined by an
         external body to impinge often on another soft part, it
         changes the surface of the latter, and, as it were, leaves
         the impression thereupon of the external body which impels it.
[Po.VI]  The human body can move external bodies, and arrange them in
         a variety of ways.
____________________________________________________________________________

Prop.[XIV] The human mind is capable of perceiving a great
           number of things, and is so in proportion as its
           body is capable of receiving a great number of
           impressions.

Proof.- (14:1) The human body (by [Po.iii] and [Po.vi] ) is affected
in very many ways by external bodies, and is capable in very many ways
of affecting external bodies.  (2) But ([xii ] ) the human mind must
perceive all that takes place in the human body; the human mind is,
therefore, capable of perceiving a great number of things, and is so
in proportion, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XV] The idea, which constitutes the actual being of the
          human mind, is not simple, but compounded of a great
          number of ideas.

Proof.- (15:1) The idea constituting the actual being of the human 
is the idea of the body ([xiii] ), which ([Po.i] ) is composed of a
great number of complex individual parts.  (2) But there is necessarily
in God the idea of each individual part whereof the body is composed
([viii] Coroll.); therefore ([vii] ), the idea of the human body is
composed of these numerous ideas of its component parts.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XVI] The idea of every mode, in which the human body is
           affected by external bodies, must involve the nature of
           the human body, and also the nature of the external body.

Proof.- (16:1) All the modes, in which any given body is affected, follow 
from the nature of the body affected, and also from the nature of the
affecting body (by [A.viii] ), wherefore their idea also necessarily
(by I:[A.iv] ) involves the nature of both bodies; therefore, the idea of
every mode, in which the human body is affected by external bodies,
involves the nature of the human body and of the external body.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I.- (16:2) Hence it follows, first, that the human mind perceives 
the nature of a variety of bodies, together with the nature of its own.

Corollary II.- (16:3) It follows, secondly, that the ideas, which we have
of external bodies, indicate rather the constitution of our own body tha
the nature of external bodies.  (4) I have amply illustrated this in the
I:[Appendix] to Part I.

Prop.[XVII] If the human body is affected in a manner which
            involves the nature of any external body, the 
            mind will regard the said external body as actually
            existing, or as present to itself, until the 
            body be affected in such a way, as to exclude the
            existence or the presence of the said external body.

Proof.- (17:1) This proposition is self-evident, for so long as the human 
body continues to be thus affected, so long will the human mind ([xii] )
regard this modification of the body - that is (by [XVI] ), it will have
the idea of the mode as actually existing, and this idea involves the
nature of the external body.  (2) In other words, it will have the idea
which does not exclude, but postulates the existence or presence of the
nature of the external body; therefore the mind (by [xvi] Coroll. i.)
will regard the external body as actually existing, until it is affected, 
&c.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (17:3) The mind is able to regard as present external bodies,
by which the human body has once been affected, even though they be no
longer in existence or present.

Proof.- (17:4) When external bodies determine the fluid parts of the human
body, so that they often impinge on the softer parts, they change the
surface of the last named ([Po.V] ); hence ([A.viii ] ) they are refracted
therefrom in a different manner from that which they followed before such
change; and, further, when afterwards they impinge on the new surfaces by
their own spontaneous movement, they will be refracted in the same manner,
as though they had been impelled towards those surfaces by external bodies;
consequently, they will, while they continue to be thus refracted, affect
the human body in the same manner, whereof the mind ([xii] ) will again
take cognizance - that is ([xvii] ), the mind will again regard the
external body as present, and will do so, as often as the fluid parts of
the human body impinge on the aforesaid surfaces by their own spontaneous
motion.  (17:5) Wherefore, although the external bodies, by which the human
body has once been affected, be no longer in existence, the mind will
nevertheless regard them as present, as often as this action of the body
is repeated.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (17:6) We thus see how it comes about, as is often the case, that
we regard as present things which are not. It is possible that the same
result - may be brought about by other causes; but I think it suffices
for me here to have indicated one possible explanation, just as well as
if I had pointed out the true cause.  (7) Indeed, I do not think I am
very far from the truth, for all my assumptions are based on postulates,
which rest, almost without exception, on experience, that cannot be
controverted by those who have shown, as we have, that the human body,
as we feel it, exists (Coroll. after [xiii] ).  (8) Furthermore ([vii]
Coroll., [xvi] Coroll.ii.), we clearly understand what is the difference
between the idea, say, of Peter, which constitutes the essence of Peter's
mind, and the idea of the said Peter, which is in another man, say, Paul.
(17:9) The former directly answers to the essence of Peter's own body,
and only implies existence so long as Peter exists; the latter indicates
rather the disposition of Paul's body than the nature of Peter, and,
therefore, while this disposition of Paul's body lasts, Paul's mind will
regard Peter as present to itself, even though he no longer exists.
(17:10) Further, to retain the usual phraseology, the modifications of the
human body, of which the ideas represent external bodies as present to us,
we will call the images of things, though they do not recall the figure of
things.  (11) When the mind regards bodies in this fashion, we say that
it imagines.  (12) I will here draw attention to the fact, in order to
indicate where error lies, that the imaginations of the mind, looked at in
themselves, do not contain error.  (13) The mind does not err in the mere
act of imagining, but only in so far as it is regarded as being without
the idea,-which excludes the existence of such things as it imagines to be
present to it.  (14) If the mind, while imagining non-existent things as
present to it, is at the same time conscious that they do not really exist,
this power of imagination must be set down to the efficacy of its nature,
and not to a fault, especially if this faculty of imagination depend solely
on its own nature - that is (I:[D.vii] ), if this faculty of imagination be
free.

Prop.[XVIII] If the human body has once been affected by two or
             more bodies at the same time, when the mind afterwards
             imagines any of them, it will straightway remember the
             others also.

Proof.- (18:1) The mind ([xvii] Coroll.) imagines any given body, because
the human body is affected and disposed by the impressions from an external
body, in the same manner as it is affected when certain of its parts are
acted on by the said external body; but (by our hypothesis) the body was
then so disposed, that the mind imagined two bodies at once; therefore, it
will also in the second case imagine two bodies at once, and the mind, when
it imagines one, will straightway remember the other.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (18:2) We now clearly see what Memory is. (2a) It is simply a
certain association of ideas involving the nature of things outside
the human body, which association arises in the mind according to the
order and association of the modifications (affectiones) of the human
body.  (3) I say, first, it is an association of those ideas only,
which involve the nature of things outside the human body: not of
ideas which answer to the nature of the said things: ideas of the
modifications of the human body are, strictly speaking ([xvi] ),
those which involve the nature both of the human body and of external
bodies.  (18:4) I say, secondly, that this association arises according
to the order and association of the modifications of the human body,
in order to distinguish it from that association of ideas, which arises
from the order of the intellect, whereby the mind perceives things
through their primary causes, and which is in all men the same.
(18:5) And hence we can further clearly understand, why the mind from
the thought of one thing, should straightway arrive at the thought of
another thing, which has no similarity with the first; for instance,
from the thought of the word "pomum" (an apple), a Roman would straightway
arrive at the thought of the fruit apple, which has no similitude
the articulate sound in question, nor anything in common with it,
except that the body of the man has often been affected by these two
things; that is, that the man has often heard the word "pomum," while
he was looking at the fruit; similarly every man will go on from one
thought to another, according as his habit has ordered the images
of things in his body.  (18:6) For a soldier, for instance, when he sees
the tracks of a horse in sand, will at once pass from the thought of
a horse to the thought of a horseman, and thence to the thought of war,
&c.; while a countryman will proceed from the thought of a horse to the
thought of a plough, a field, &c.  (18:7) Thus every man will follow
this or that train of thought, according as he has been in the habit
of conjoining and associating the mental images of things in this or
that manner.

Prop.[XIX] The human mind has no knowledge of the body, and
           does not know it to exist, save through the ideas
           of the modifications whereby the body is affected.

Proof.- (19:1) The human mind is the very idea or knowledge of the human
body ([xiii] ), which ([ix] ) is in God, in so far as he is regarded as
affected by another idea of a particular thing actually existing: or,
inasmuch as ([Po.iv] ) the human body stands in need of very many bodies
whereby it is, as it were, continually regenerated; and the order and
connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of causes
([vii] ); this idea will therefore be in God, in so far as he is regarded
as affected by the ideas of very many particular things.  (19:2) Thus God 
has the idea of the human body, or knows the human body, in so far as he
is affected by very many other ideas, and not in so far as he constitutes
the nature of the human mind; that is (by [xi] Coroll.), the human mind
does not know the human body.  (19:3) But the ideas of the modifications of
body are in God, in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind,
or the human mind perceives those modifications ([xii] ), and consequently
([xvi] ) the human body itself, and as actually existing; therefore the
mind perceives thus far only the human body.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XX] The idea or knowledge of the human mind is also is
          God, following in God in the same manner, and being
          referred to God in the same manner, as the idea 
          knowledge of the human body.

Proof.- (20:1) Thought is an attribute of God ([i] ); therefore ([iii] ) 
there must necessarily be in God the idea both of thought itself and of
all its modifications, consequently also of the human mind ([xi] ).
(2) Further, this idea or knowledge of the mind does not follow from God,
in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is affected by another
idea of an individual thing ([ix] ).  (20:3) But ([vii] ) the order and
connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of causes;
therefore this idea or knowledge of the mind is in God and is referred
to God, in the same manner as the idea or knowledge of the body.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXI] This idea of the mind is united to the mind in
           the same way as the mind is united to the body.

Proof.- (21:1) That the mind is united to the body we have shown from the
fact, that the body is the object of the mind ([xii]  and [xiii] ); and
so for the same reason the idea of the mind must be united with its object,
that is, with the mind in the same manner as the mind is united to the
body.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (21:2) This proposition is comprehended much more clearly from what
we said in the note to [vii] .  (3) We there showed that the idea of body
and body, that is, mind and body ([xiii] ), are one and the same individual
conceived now under the attribute of thought, now under the attribute of
extension; wherefore the idea of the mind and the mind itself are one and
the same thing, which is conceived under one and the same attribute,
namely, thought.  (4) The idea of the mind, I repeat, and the mind itself
are in God by the same necessity and follow from him from the same power
of thinking.  (21:5) Strictly speaking, the idea of the mind,  that is, the
idea of an idea, is nothing but the distinctive quality (forma) of the
idea in so far as it is conceived as a mode of thought without reference
to the object; if a man knows anything, he, by that very fact, knows that
he knows it, and at the same time knows that he knows that he knows it,
and so on to infinity.  (21:6) But I will treat of this hereafter.

Prop.[XXII] The human mind perceives not only the 
            modifications of the body, but also the
            ideas of such modifications.

Proof.- (22:1) The ideas of the ideas of modifications follow in God in
the same manner, and are referred to God in the same manner, as the ideas
of the said modifications.  (2) This is proved in the same way as [xx] .
(22:3) But the ideas of the modifications of the body are in the human mind
([xii] ), that is, in God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the
human mind; therefore the ideas of these ideas will be in God, in so far
as he has the knowledge or idea of the human mind, that is ([xxi] ), they
will be in the human mind itself, which therefore perceives not only the
modifications of the body, but also the ideas of such modifications.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXIII] The mind does not know itself, except in so far
             as it perceives the ideas of the modifications
             of the body.

Proof.- (23:1) The idea or knowledge of the mind ([xx] ) follows in God
in the same manner, and is referred to God in the same manner, as the
idea or knowledge of the body.  (2) But since ([xix] ) the human mind
does not know the human body itself, that is ([xi] Coroll.), since the
knowledge of the human body is not referred to God, in so far as he
constitutes the nature of the human mind; therefore, neither is the
knowledge of the mind referred to God, in so far as he constitutes the
essence of the human mind; therefore (by the same Coroll. of [xi] ),
the human mind thus far has no knowledge of itself.  (23:3) Further the
ideas of the modifications, whereby the body is affected, involve the
nature of the human body itself ([xvi] ), that is ([xiii] ), they agree
with the nature of the mind; wherefore the knowledge of these ideas
necessarily involves knowledge of the mind; but (by [xxii] ) the knowledge
of these ideas is in the human mind itself; wherefore the human mind thus
far only has knowledge of itself.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXIV] The human mind does not involve an adequate
            knowledge of the parts composing the human body.

Proof.- (24:1) The parts composing the human body do not belong to the
essence of that body, except in so far as they communicate their motions
to one another in a certain fixed relation (Definition [13:24] ), not
in so far as they can be regarded as individuals without relation to
the human body.  (2) The parts of the human body are highly complex
individuals ([Po.i] ), whose parts ([L.iv] ) can be separated from the
human body without in anyway destroying the nature and distinctive quality
of the latter, and they can communicate their motions ([A.viii] ) to other
bodies in another relation; therefore ([iii] ) the idea or knowledge of 
each part will be in God, inasmuch ([ix] ) as he is regarded as affected
by another idea of a particular thing, which particular thing is prior in
the order of nature to the aforesaid part ([vii] ).  (24:3) We may affirm
the same thing of each part of each individual composing the human body;
therefore, the knowledge of each part composing the human body is in God,
in so far as he is affected by very many ideas of things, and not in so
far as he has the idea of the human body only, in other words, the idea
which constitutes the nature of the human mind ([xiii] ); therefore
([xi] Coroll.), the human mind does not involve an adequate knowledge
of the human body.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXV] The idea of each modification of the human body
           does not involve an adequate knowledge of the
           external body.

Proof.- (25:1) We have shown that the idea of a modification of the human
body involves the nature of an external body, in so far as that external
body conditions the human body in a given manner.  (2) But, in so far as
the external body is an individual, which has no reference to the human
body, the knowledge or idea thereof is in God ([ix] ), in so far as God
is regarded as affected by the idea of a further thing, which ([vii] ) is
naturally prior to the said external body.  (25:3) Wherefore an adequate
knowledge of the external body is not in God, in so far as he has the
idea of the modification of the human body; in other words, the idea of
the modification of the human body does not involve an adequate knowledge
of the external body.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXVI] The human mind does not perceive any external
            body as actually existing, except through the
            ideas of the modifications of its own body.

Proof.- (26:1) If the human body is in no way affected by a given external 
body, then ([vii] ) neither is the idea of the human body, in other words,
the human mind, affected in any way by the idea of the existence of the
said external body, nor does it any manner perceive its existence. (2) But,
in so far as the human body is affected in any way by a given external
body, thus far ([xvi] and Coroll.) it perceives that external body.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (26:3) In so far as the human mind imagines an external body,
it has not an adequate knowledge thereof.

Proof.- (26:4) When the human mind regards external bodies through the
ideas of the modifications of its own body, we say that it imagines (see
[xvii] note); now the mind can only imagine external bodies as actually 
existing.  (5) Therefore (by [xxv] ), in so far as the mind imagines
external bodies, it has not an adequate knowledge of them. Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXVII] The idea of each modification of the human
             body does not involve an adequate knowledge
             of human body itself.

Proof.- (27:1) Every idea of a modification of the human body involves
the nature of the human body, in so far as the human body is regarded
as affected in a given manner ([xvi] ).  (2) But, inasmuch as the human
body is an individual which may, be affected in many other ways, the
idea of the said modification, &c. Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXVIII] The ideas of the modifications of the human body
              in so far as they have reference only to the human
              mind, are not clear and distinct, but confused.

Proof.- (28:1) The ideas of the modifications of the human body, involve
the nature both of the human body and of external bodies ([xvi] ); they
must involve the nature not only of the human body but also of its part's;
for the modifications are modes ([Po.iii] ), whereby the parts of the
human body, and, consequently, the human body as a whole are affected.
(28:2) But (by [xxiv] , [xxv] , the adequate knowledge of external bodies,
as also of the parts composing the human body, is not in God, in so far
as he is regarded as affected by the human mind, but in so far as he is
regarded as affected by other ideas.  (28:3) These ideas of modifications,
in so far as they are referred to the human mind alone, are as consequences
without premisses, in other words, confused ideas.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (28:4) The idea which constitutes the nature of the human mind is,
in the same manner, proved not to be, when considered in itself alone,
clear and distinct; as also is the case with the idea of the human mind,
and the ideas of the ideas of the modifications of the human body, in
so far as they are referred to the mind only, as everyone may easily see.

Prop.[XXIX] The idea of the idea of each modification of the
            human body does not involve an adequate knowledge
            of the human mind.

Proof.- (29:1) The idea of a modification of the human body (xxvii] ) does
not involve an adequate knowledge of the said body, in other words, does
not adequately express its nature; that is ([xiii] .) it does not agree
with the nature of the mind adequately; therefore ([A.vi] ) the idea of
this idea does not adequately express the nature of the human mind, or
does not involve an adequate knowledge thereof.

Corollary.- (29:2) Hence it follows that the human mind, when it perceives
things after the common order of nature, has not an adequate but only a
confused and fragmentary knowledge of itself, of its own body, and of
external bodies.  (3) For the mind does not know itself, except in so far
as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of body ([xxiii] ).
(29:4) It only perceives its own body ([xix] ) through the ideas of the
modifications, and only perceives external bodies through the same means;
thus, in so far as it has such ideas of modification, it has not an
adequate knowledge of itself ([xxix] ), nor of its own body ([xxvii] ),
nor of external bodies ([xxv] ), but only a fragmentary and confused
knowledge thereof ([xxviii] and note.)  Q.E.D.

Note.- (29:5) I say expressly, that the mind has not an adequate but only
a confused knowledge of itself, its own body, and of external bodies,
whenever it perceives things after the common order of nature; that is,
whenever it is determined from without, namely, by the fortuitous play
of circumstance, to regard this or that; not at such times as it is
determined from within, that is, by the fact of regarding several things
at once, to understand their points of agreement, difference, and contrast.
(29:6) Whenever it is determined in anywise from within, it regards things
clearly and distinctly, as I will show below.

Prop.[XXX] We can only have a very inadequate
           knowledge of the duration of our body.

Proof.- (30:1) The duration of our body does not depend on its essence
([A.i] ), nor on the absolute nature of God ([xxi] ).  (2) But (I:[xxviii] )
their turn a it is conditioned to exist and operate by causes, which in
turn are conditioned to exist and operate in a fixed and definite relation
by other causes, these last again being conditioned by others, and so on
to infinity.  (3) The duration of our body therefore depends on the common
order of nature, or the constitution of things.  (4) Now, however a thing
may be constituted, the adequate knowledge of that thing is in God, in
so far as he has the ideas of all things, and not in so far as he
the idea of the human body only. ([ix] Coroll.).  (30:5) Wherefore the
knowledge of the duration of our body is in God very inadequate, in so
far as he is only regarded as constituting the nature of the human mind;
that is ([xi] Coroll.), this knowledge is very inadequate in our mind.
Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXI] We can only have a very inadequate knowledge of
            the duration of particular things external to
            ourselves.

Proof.- (31:1) Every particular thing, like the human body, must be
conditioned by another particular thing to exist and operate in a fixed
and definite relation; this other particular thing must likewise be
conditioned by a third, and so on to infinity. (I:[xxviii ] )  (2) As we
have shown in the foregoing proposition, from this common property of
particular things, we have only a very inadequate know ledge of the
duration of our body; we must draw a similar conclusion with regard
to the duration of particular things, namely, that we can only have a
very inadequate knowledge of the duration thereof.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (31:3) Hence it follows that all particular things are
contingent and perishable.  (4) For we can have no adequate idea of
their duration (by [xxx] ), and this is what we must understand by
the contingency and perishableness of things. (I:[xxxiii] , Note i.)
(31:5) For (I:[xxix] ), except in this sense, nothing is contingent.

Prop.[XXXII] All ideas, in so far as they are
             referred to God, are true.

Proof.- (32:1) All ideas which are in God agree in every respect with
their objects ([vii] Coroll.), therefore (I:[A.vi] ) they are all true.
Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXIII] There is nothing positive in ideas,
              which causes them to be called false.

Proof.- (33:1) If this be denied, conceive, if possible, a positive mode
of thinking, which should constitute the distinctive quality of falsehood.
(2) Such a mode of thinking cannot be in God ([xxxii] ); external to God
it cannot be or be conceived (I:[xv] ). (3) Therefore there is nothing
positive in ideas which causes them to be called false.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXIV] Every idea, which in us is absolute
             or adequate and perfect, is true.

Proof.- (34:1) When we say that an idea in us is adequate and perfect,
we say, in other words ([xi] Coroll.), that the idea is adequate and
perfect in God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of our mind;
consequently ([xxxii] ), we say that such an idea is true.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXV] Falsity consists in the privation of knowledge, 
            which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas
            involve.

Proof.- (35:1) There is nothing positive in ideas, which causes them to
be called false ([xxxiii] ); but falsity cannot consist in simple
privation (for minds, not bodies, are said to err and to be mistaken),
neither can it consist in absolute ignorance, for ignorance and error
are not identical; wherefore it consists in the privation of knowledge,
which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas involve.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (35:2) In the note to [xvii] . I explained how error consists in
the privation of knowledge, but in order to throw more light on the
subject I will give an example.  (3) For instance, men are mistaken in
thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of
their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are
conditioned.  (4) Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their
ignorance of any cause for their actions.  (5) As for their saying
that human actions depend on the will, this is a mere phrase without
any idea to correspond thereto.  (35:6) What the will is, and how it
moves the body, they none of them know; those who boast of such knowledge,
and feign dwellings and habitations for the soul, are wont to provoke
either laughter or disgust.  (7) So, again, when we look at the sun, we
imagine that it is distant from us about two hundred feet; this error
does not lie solely in this fancy, but in the fact that, while we thus
imagine, we do not know the sun's true distance or the cause of the fancy.
(35:8) For although we afterwards learn, that the sun is distant from us
more than six hundred of the earth's diameters, we none the less shall
fancy it to be near; for we do not imagine the sun as near us, because
we are ignorant of its true distance, but because the modification of
our body involves the essence of the sun, in so far as our said body is
affected thereby.

Prop.[XXXVI] Inadequate and confused ideas follow by the same
             necessity, as adequate or clear and distinct ideas.

Proof.- (36:1) All ideas are in God (I:[xv] ), and in so far as they
are referred to God are true ([xxxii] ) and ([vii] Coroll.) adequate;
therefore there are no ideas confused or inadequate, except in respect
to a particular mind (cf. [xxiv] and [xxviii] ); therefore all ideas,
whether adequate or inadequate, follow by the same necessity ([vi] ).
Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXVII] That which is common to all (cf. [L.II] above),
              and which is equally in a part and in the whole,
              does not constitute the essence of any particular
              thing.

Proof.- (37:1) If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that it
constitutes the essence of some particular thing; for instance, the
essence of B.  (2) Then ([D.ii] ) it cannot without B either exist
or be conceived; but this is against our hypothesis.  (3) Therefore
it does not appertain to B's essence, nor does it constitute the
essence of any particular thing.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XXXVIII] Those things, which are common to all, and
               which are equally in a part and in the whole,
               cannot be conceived except adequately.

Proof.- (38:1) Let A be something, which is common to all bodies, and
which is equally present in the part of any given body and in the whole.
I say A cannot be conceived except adequately.  (2) For the idea thereof
in God will necessarily be adequate ([vii] Coroll.), both in so far as
God has the idea of the human body, and also in so far as he has the
idea of the modifications of the human body, which ([xvi] , [xxv] ,
[xxvii] ) involve in part the nature of the human body and the nature
of external bodies; that is ([xii] , [xiii] ), the idea in God will
necessarily be adequate, both in so far as he constitutes the human mind,
and in so far as he has the ideas, which are in the human mind.
(38:3) Therefore the mind ([xi] Coroll.) necessarily perceives A
adequately, and has this adequate perception, both in so far as it
perceives itself, and in so far as it perceives its own or any external
body, nor can A be conceived in any other manner.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (38:4) Hence it follows that there are certain ideas or
notions common to all men; for (by [L.iii] ) all bodies agree in
certain respects, which (by [xxxvii] ) must be adequately or clearly
and distinctly perceived by all.

Prop.XXXIX That, which is common to and a property of the
           human body and such other bodies as are wont to
           affect the human body, and which is present
           equally in each part of either, or in the whole,
           will be represented by an adequate idea in the
           mind.

Proof.- (39:1) If A be that, which is common to and a property of the
human body and external bodies, and equally present in the human body
and in the said external bodies, in each part of each external body and
in the whole, there will be an adequate idea of A in God ([vii] Coroll.),
both in so far as he has the idea of the human body, and in so far as
he has the ideas of the given external bodies.  (39:2) Let it now be
granted, that the human body is affected by an external body through
that, which it has in common therewith, namely, A; the idea of this
modification will involve the property A ([xvi] ), and therefore ([vii]
Coroll.) the idea of this modification, in so far as it involves the
property A, will be adequate in God, in so far as God is affected by
the idea of the human body; that is ([xiii] ), in so far as he
constitutes the nature of the human mind; therefore ([xi] Coroll.)
this idea is also adequate in the human mind.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (39:3) Hence it follows that the mind is fitted to perceive 
adequately more things, in proportion as its body has more in common with
other bodies.

Prop.[XL] Whatsoever ideas in the mind follow from
          ideas which are therein adequate, are also
          themselves adequate.

Proof.- (40:1) This proposition is self-evident.  (2) For when we say
that an idea in the human mind follows from ideas which are therein
adequate, we say, in other words ([xi] Coroll.), that an idea is in the
divine intellect, whereof God is the cause, not in so far as he is
infinite, nor in so far as he is affected by the ideas of very many
particular things, but only in so far as he constitutes the essence
of the human mind.

Note I.- (40:3) I have thus set forth the cause of those notions, which
are common to all men, and which form the basis of our ratiocination.
(4) But there are other causes of certain axioms or notions, which it
would be to the purpose to set forth by this method of ours; for it
would thus appear what notions are more useful than others, and what
notions have scarcely any use at all.  (40:5) Furthermore, we should
see what notions are common to all men, and what notions are only clear
and distinct to those who are unshackled by prejudice, and we should
detect those which are ill-founded.  (6) Again we should discern whence
the notions called secondary derived their origin, and consequently the
axioms on which they are founded, and other points of interest connected
with these questions.  (40:7) But I have decided to pass over the subject
here, partly because I have set it aside for another treatise, partly
because I am afraid of wearying the reader by too great prolixity.
(40:8) Nevertheless, in order not to omit anything necessary to be known,
I will briefly set down the causes, whence are derived the terms styled
transcendental, such as Being, Thing, Something.  (9) These terms arose
from the fact, that the human body, being limited, is only capable of
distinctly forming a certain number of images (what an image is
I explained in [xvii] note) within itself at the same time; if this
number be exceeded, the images will begin to be confused; if this number
of images, which the body is capable of forming distinctly within itself,
be largely exceeded, all will become entirely confused one with another.
(40:10) This being so, it is evident (from [xvii] Coroll. and [xviii] )
that the human mind can distinctly imagine as many things simultaneously,
as its body can form images simultaneously.  (11) When the images become
quite confused in the body, the mind also imagines all bodies confusedly
without any distinction, and will comprehend them, as it were, under one
attribute, namely, under the attribute of Being, Thing, &c.  (12) The same
conclusion can be drawn from the fact that images are not always equally
vivid, and from other analogous causes, which there is no need to explain
here; for the purpose which we have in view it is sufficient for us to
consider one only.  (40:13) All may be reduced to this, that these terms
represent ideas in the highest degree confused.  (14) From similar causes
arise those notions, which we call general, such as man, horse, dog, &c.
(40:15) They arise, to wit, from the fact that so many images, for
instance, of men, are formed simultaneously in the human mind, that the
powers of imagination break down, not indeed utterly, but to the extent
of the mind losing count of small differences between individuals (e.g.
colour, size, &c.) and their definite number, and only distinctly imagining
that, in which all the individuals, in so far as the body is affected by
them, agree; for that is the point, in which each of the said individuals
chiefly affected the body; this the mind expresses by the name man, and
this it predicates of an infinite number of particular individuals.
(40:16) For, as we have said, it is unable to imagine the definite number
of individuals.  (16a) We must, however, bear in mind, that these general
notions are not formed by all men in the same way, but vary in each
individual according as the point varies, whereby the body has been most
often affected and which the mind most easily imagines or remembers.
(40:17) For instance, those who have most often regarded with admiration
the stature of man, will by the name of man understand an animal of erect
stature; those who have been accustomed to regard some other attribute,
will form a different general image of man, for instance, that man is a
laughing animal, a two-footed animal without feathers, a rational animal,
and thus, in other cases, everyone will form general images of things
according to the habit of his body.

(40:18) It is thus not to be wondered at, that among philosophers, who
seek to explain things in nature merely by the images formed of them,
so many controversies should have arisen.

Note II.- [40:19] From all that has been said above it is clear, that we,
in many cases, perceive and form our general notions:- 
(1.) (40:20) From particular things represented to our intellect
      fragmentarily, confusedly, and without order through our
      senses ([xxix] Coroll.); I have settled to call such
      perceptions by the name of knowledge from the mere
      suggestions of experience.
(2.) (40:21) From symbols, e.g., from the fact of having
     read or heard certain words we remember things and
     form certain ideas concerning them, similar to those
     through which we imagine things ([xviii] note).
     (22) I shall call both these ways of regarding
     things knowledge of the first kind, opinion,
     or imagination. 
(3.) (40:23) From the fact that we have notions common to
     all men, and adequate ideas of the properties of things
     ([xxxviii] Coroll., [xxxix] and Coroll. and [xl] );
     this I call reason and knowledge of the second kind.
     (24) Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is,
     as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowledge,
     which we will call intuition. (25) This kind of
     knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the
     absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the
     adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

(40:26) I will illustrate all three kinds of knowledge by a single
example.  (27) Three numbers are given for finding a fourth, which
shall be to the third as the second is to the first.  (28) Tradesmen
without hesitation multiply the second by the third, and divide the
product by the first; either because they have not forgotten the
rule which they received from a master without any proof, or because
they have often made trial of it with simple numbers, or by virtue
of the proof of the nineteenth proposition of the seventh book of
Euclid, namely, in virtue of the general property of proportionals.

(40:29) But with very simple numbers there is no need of this.
(30) For instance, one, two, three, being given, everyone can see
that the fourth proportional is six; and this is much clearer,
because we infer the fourth number from an intuitive grasping of
the ratio, which the first bears to the second.

Prop.[XLI] Knowledge of the first kind is the only source of
           falsity, knowledge of the second and third kinds
           is necessarily true.

Proof.- (41:1) To knowledge of the first kind we have (in the foregoing
note [40:19] ) assigned all those ideas, which are inadequate and confused;
therefore this kind of knowledge is the only source of falsity ([xxxv] ).
(2) Furthermore, we assigned to the second and third kinds of knowledge
those ideas which are adequate; therefore these kinds are necessarily true
([xxxiv] ).  Q.E.D.

PROP.[XLII] Knowledge of the second and third kinds,
            not knowledge of the first kind, teaches
            us to distinguish the true from the false.

Proof.- (42:1) This proposition is self-evident.  (2) He, who knows how to 
distinguish between true and false, must have an adequate idea of true and 
false.  (3) That is ([xl] , second or third kind of knowledge.

Prop.[XLIII] He, who has a true idea, simultaneously knows that
             he has a true idea, and cannot doubt of the 
             of the thing perceived.

Proof.- (43:1) A true idea in us is an idea which is adequate in God,
in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind ([xi]
Coroll.).  (2) Let us suppose that there is in God, in so far as he is
displayed through the human mind, an adequate idea, A.  (3) The idea of
this idea must also necessarily be in God, and be referred to him in
the same way as the idea A (by [xx] , whereof the proof is of universal 
application).  (4) But the idea A is supposed to be referred to God,
in so far as he is displayed through the human mind; therefore, the
idea of the idea A must be referred to God in the same manner; that is
(by [xi] Coroll.), the adequate idea of the idea A will be in the mind,
which has the adequate idea A; therefore he, who has an adequate idea
or knows a thing truly ([xxxiv] ), must at the same time have an
adequate idea or true knowledge of his knowledge; that is, obviously,
he must be assured.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (43:5) I explained in the note to [xxi] what is meant by the
idea of an idea; but we may remark that the foregoing [xl] is in itself
sufficiently plain.  (5a) No one, who has a true idea, is ignorant
that a true idea involves the highest certainty.  (6) For to have a
true idea is only another expression for knowing a thing perfectly, or
as well as possible.  (7) No one, indeed, can doubt of this, unless
he thinks that an idea is something lifeless, like a picture on a
panel, and not a mode of thinking - namely, the very act of understanding.
(43:8) And who, I ask, can know that he understands anything, unless he
do first understand it?  (9) In other words, who can know that he is sure
of a thing, unless he be first sure of that thing?  (10) Further, what
can there be more clear, and more certain, than a true idea as a standard
of truth?  (11) Even as light displays both itself and darkness, so is
truth a standard both of itself and of falsity.

(43:12) I think I have thus sufficiently answered these questions - namely,
if a true idea is distinguished from a false idea, only in so far as
it is said to agree with its object, a true idea has no more reality or
perfection than a false idea (since the two are only distinguished by an
extrinsic mark); consequently, neither will a man who has true ideas have
any advantage over him who has only false ideas.  (13) Further, how comes
it that men have false ideas?  (43:14) Lastly, how can anyone be sure, that
he has ideas which agree with their objects?  (15) These questions, I
repeat, I have, in my opinion, sufficiently answered.  (16) The difference
between a true idea and a false idea is plain: from what was said in
[xxxv] , the former is related to the latter as being is to not-being.
(43:17) The causes of falsity I have set forth very clearly in [xix] and 
[xxxv] with the note.  (18) From what is there stated, the difference 
between a man who has true ideas, and a man who has only false ideas, is
made apparent.  (19) As for the last question - as to how a man can be sure
that he has ideas that agree with their objects, I have just pointed out,
with abundant clearness, that his knowledge arises from the simple fact,
that he has an idea which corresponds with its object - in other words,
that truth is its own standard.  (43:20) We may add that our mind, in so
far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God
([xi] Coroll.); therefore, the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as
necessarily true as the ideas of God.

Prop.[XLIV] It is not in the nature of reason to
            regard as contingent, but as necessary.

Proof.- (44:1) It is in the nature of reason to perceive things truly
([xli] ), namely (I:[A.vi] ), as they are in them selves - that is
(I:[xxix] ), not as contingent, but as necessary.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I - (44:2) Hence it follows, that it is only through our
imagination that we consider things, whether in respect to the future
or the past, as contingent.

Note.- (44:3) How this way of looking at things arises, I will briefly
explain. We have shown above ([xvii] and Coroll.) that the mind always
regards things as present to itself, even though they be not in existence,
until some causes arise which exclude their existence and presence.
(44:4) Further ([xviii] ), we showed that, if the human body has once
been affected by two external bodies simultaneously, the mind, when it
afterwards imagines one of the said external bodies, will straightway
remember the other - that is, it will regard both as present to itself,
unless there arise causes which exclude their existence and presence.
(44:5) Further, no one doubts that we imagine time, from the fact that
we imagine bodies to be moved some more slowly than others, some more
quickly, some at equal speed.  (6) Thus, let us suppose that a child
yesterday saw Peter for the first time in the morning, Paul at noon,
and Simon in the evening; then, that to-day he again sees Peter in the
morning.  (7) It is evident, from [xviii] , that, as soon as he sees the
morning light, he will imagine that the sun will traverse the same parts
of the sky, as it did when he saw it on the preceding day; in other words,
he will imagine a complete day, and, together with his imagination of the
morning, he will imagine Peter; with noon, he will imagine Paul; and
with evening, he will imagine Simon - that is, he will imagine the
existence of Paul and Simon in relation to a future time; on the other
hand, if he sees Simon in the evening, he will refer Peter and Paul to
a past time, by imagining them simultaneously with the imagination of a
past time.  (44:8) If it should at any time happen, that on some other
evening the child should see James instead of Simon, he will, on the
following morning, associate with his imagination of evening sometimes
Simon, sometimes James, not both together: for the child is supposed to
have seen, at evening, one or other of them, not both together.  (9) His
imagination will therefore waver; and, with the imagination of future
evenings, he will associate first one, then the other - that is, he will
imagine them in the future, neither of them as certain, but both as
contingent.  (44:10) This wavering of the imagination will be the same,
if the imagination be concerned with things which we thus contemplate,
standing in relation to time past or time present: consequently, we may
imagine things as contingent, whether they be referred to time present,
past, or future.

Corollary II.- (44:11) It is in the nature of reason to perceive
things under a certain form of eternity.
 
Proof.- (44:12) It is in the nature of reason to regard things, not as
contingent, but as necessary ([xliv] ).  (13) Reason perceives this
necessity of things ([xli] ) truly - that is (I:[A.vi] ), as it is in
itself.  (14) But (I:[xvi] ) this necessity of things is the very necessity
of the eternal nature of God; therefore, it is in the nature of reason to
regard things under this form of eternity.  (15) We may add that the bases
of reason are the notions ([xxxviii] ), which answer to things common to
all, and which ([xxxvii] ) do not answer to the essence of any particular
thing: which must therefore be conceived without any relation to time,
under a certain form of eternity.

Prop.[XLV] Every idea of every body, or of every particular
           thing actually existing, necessarily involves the
           eternal and infinite essence of God.

Proof.- (45:1) The idea of a particular thing actually existing
necessarily involves both the existence and the essence of the said
thing ([viii] ).  (2) Now particular things cannot be conceived
without God (I:[xv] ) ; but, inasmuch as ([vi] ) they have God for
their cause, in so far as he is regarded under the attribute of which
the things in question are modes, their ideas must necessarily
involve (I:[A.iv] ) the conception of the attribute of those
ideas - that is (I:[vi] ), the eternal and infinite essence of God.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (45:3) By existence I do not here mean duration - that is,
existence in so far as it is conceived abstractedly, and as a certain
form of quantity.  (4) I am speaking of the very nature of existence,
which is assigned to particular things, because they follow in infinite
numbers and in infinite ways from the eternal necessity of God's
nature (I:[xvi] ).  (5) I am speaking, I repeat, of the very existence
of particular things, in so far as they are in God.  (45:6) For although
each particular thing be conditioned by another particular thing to
exist in a given way, yet the force whereby each particular thing
perseveres in existing follows from the eternal necessity of God's
nature (cf. I:[xxiv] Coroll.).

Prop.[XLVI] The knowledge of the eternal and infinite
            essence of God which every idea involves
            is adequate and perfect.

Proof. (46:1) The proof of the last proposition is universal; and
whether a thing be considered as a part or a whole, the idea thereof,
whether of the whole or of a part (by [xlv] ), will involve God's
eternal and infinite essence.  (2) Wherefore, that which gives
knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God, is common to
all, and is equally in the part and in the whole; therefore ([xxxviii] )
this knowledge will be adequate.  Q.E.D.

Prop.[XLVII] The human mind has an adequate knowledge of
             the eternal and infinite essence of God.

Proof.- (47:1) The human mind has ideas ([xxii] ), from which ([xxiii] )
it perceives itself and its own body ([xix] ) and external bodies ([xvi]
Coroll.I, [xvii] ) as actually existing; therefore ([xlv] , [xlvi] )
it has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (47:2) Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the eternity
of God are known to all.  (3) Now as all things are in God, and are
conceived through God, we can from this knowledge infer many things,
which we may adequately know, and we may form that third kind of
knowledge of which we spoke in the (note to [xl] ), and of the
excellence and use of which we shall have occasion to speak in Part V.
(47:4) Men have not so clear a knowledge of God as they have of general
notions, because they are unable to imagine God as they do bodies, and
also because they have associated the name God with images of things that
they are in the habit of seeing, as indeed they can hardly avoid doing,
being, as they are, men, and continually affected by  external bodies.
(47:5) Many errors, m truth, can be traced to this head, namely, that we
do not apply names to things rightly.  (6) For instance, when a man says
that the lines drawn from the centre of a circle to its circumference are
not equal, he then, at all events, assuredly attaches a meaning to the
word circle different from that assigned by mathematicians.  (47:7) So
again, when men make mistakes in calculation, they have one set of
figures in their mind, and another on the paper.  (8) If we could see
into their minds, they do not make a mistake; they seem to do so, because
we think, that they have the same numbers in their mind as they have on
the paper.  (9) If this were not so, we should not believe them to be in
error, any more than I thought that a man was in error, whom I lately
heard exclaiming that his entrance hall had flown into a neighbour's
hen, for his meaning seemed to me sufficiently clear.  (10) Very many
controversies have arisen from the fact, that men do not rightly explain
their meaning, or do not rightly interpret the meaning of others.
(47:11) For, as a matter of fact, as they flatly contradict themselves,
they assume now one side, now another, of the argument, so as to
oppose the opinions, which they consider mistaken and absurd in their
opponents.

Prop.[XLVIII] In the mind there is no absolute or free will;
              but the mind is determined to wish this or that
              by a cause, which has also been determined by
              another cause, and this last by another cause,
              and so on to infinity.

Proof.- (48:1) The mind is a fixed and definite mode of thought ([xi] .),
therefore it cannot be the free cause of its actions (I:[xvii] Coroll.ii.);
in other words, it cannot have an absolute faculty of positive or negative
volition; but (by I:[xxviii] ) it must be determined by a cause, which has
also been determined by another cause, and this last by another, &c.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (48:2) In the same way it is proved, that there is in the mind no
absolute faculty of understanding, desiring, loving, &c.  (3) Whence it
follows, that these and similar faculties are either entirely fictitious,
or are merely abstract or general terms, such as we are accustomed to
put together from particular things.  (4) Thus the intellect and the will
stand in the same relation to this or that idea, or this or that volition,
as "lapidity" to this or that stone, or as "man" to Peter and Paul.
(48:5) The cause which leads men to consider themselves free has been
set forth in the I:[Appendix] of Part 1.  (6) But, before I proceed
further, I would here remark that, by, the will to affirm and decide,
I mean the faculty, not the desire.  (7) I mean, I repeat, the faculty,
whereby the mind affirms or denies what is true or false, not the desire,
wherewith the mind wishes for or turns away from any given thing.
(48:8) After we have proved, that these faculties of ours are general
notions, which cannot be distinguished from the particular instances
on which they are based, we must inquire whether volitions themselves
are anything besides the ideas of things. (48:9) We must inquire, I say,
whether there is in the mind any affirmation or negation beyond that,
which the idea, in so far as it is an idea, involves.  (10) On which
subject see the following proposition, and [D.iii] , lest the idea of
pictures should suggest itself.  (11) For by ideas I do not mean images
such as are formed at the back of the eye, or in the midst of the brain,
but the conceptions of thought.

Prop.[XLIX] There is in the mind no volition or affirmation
            and negation, save that which an idea, inasmuch
            as it is an idea, involves.

Proof.- (49:1) There is in the mind no absolute faculty of positive or
negative volition, but only particular volitions, namely, this or that
affirmation, and this or that negation.  (2) Now let us conceive a
particular volition, namely, the mode of thinking whereby the mind
affirms, that the three interior angles of a triangle are equal to two
right angles.  (3) This affirmation involves the conception or idea of
a triangle, that is, without the idea of a triangle it cannot be conceived.
(49:4) It is the same thing to say, that the concept A must involve the
concept B, as it is to say, that A cannot be conceived without B.
(5) Further, this affirmation cannot be made ([A.iii] ) without the
idea of a triangle.  (6) Therefore, this affirmation can neither be
nor be conceived, without the idea of a triangle.  (7) Again, this idea
of a triangle must involve this same affirmation, namely, that its three
interior angles are equal to two right angles.  (8) Wherefore, and vice
versa, this idea of a triangle can neither be nor be conceived without
this affirmation, therefore, this affirmation belongs to the essence of
the idea of a triangle, and is nothing besides.  (9) What we have said
of this volition (inasmuch as we have selected it at random) may be said
of anv other volition, namely, that it is nothing but an idea.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (49:10) Will and understanding are one and the same.

Proof.- (49:11) Will and understanding are nothing beyond the individual
volitions and ideas ([xlviii] and note).  (12) But a particular volition
and a particular idea are one and the same (by [xlviii] ); therefore,
will and under. standing are one and the same.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (49:13) We have thus removed the cause which is commonly assigned
for error.  (14) For we have shown above, that falsity consists solely
in the privation of knowledge involved in ideas which are fragmentary and
confused.  (15) Wherefore, a false idea, inasmuch as it is false, does
not involve certainty.  (16) When we say, then, that a man acquiesces in
what is false, and that he has no doubts on the subject, we do not say
that he is certain, but only that he does not doubt, or that he acquiesces
in what is false, inasmuch as there are no reasons, which should cause his
imagination to waver (see [xliv] note).  (49:17) Thus, although the man
be assumed to acquiesce in what is false, we shall never say that he is
certain.  (17a) For by, certainty we mean something positive ([xliii] ,
and note), not merely the absence of doubt.

(49:18) However, in order that the foregoing proposition may be fully,
explained, I will draw attention to a few additional points, and I will
furthermore answer the objections which may be advanced against our
doctrine.  (19) Lastly,, in order to remove every scruple, I have
thought it worth while to point out some of the advantages, which follow
therefrom.  (20) I say "some," for they will be better appreciated from
what we shall set forth in the fifth part.

(49:21) I begin, then, with the first point, and warn my readers to
make an accurate distinction between an idea, or conception of the
mind, and the images of things which we imagine.  (22) It is further
necessary that they should distinguish between idea and words, whereby
we signify things.  (23) These three - namely, images, words, and
ideas - are by many persons either are confused together, or not
distinguished with sufficient accuracy or care, and hence people are
generally in ignorance, how absolutely necessary is a knowledge of this
doctrine of the will, both philosophic purposes and for the wise
ordering of life.  (49:24) Those who think that ideas consist in images
which are formed in us by contact with external bodies, persuade them
selves that, the ideas of those things, whereof we can form no mental
picture, are not ideas, but only figments, which we invent by the free
decree of our will; they thus regard ideas as though they were inanimate
pictures on a panel, and, filled with this misconception, do not see
that an idea, inasmuch as it is an idea, involves an affirmation or
negation.  (49:25) Again, those who confuse words with ideas, or with
the affirmation which an idea involves, think that they can wish something
contrary to what they feel, affirm, or deny.  (26) This misconception
will easily be laid aside by one, who reflects on the nature of knowledge,
and seeing that it in no wise involves the conception of extension, will
therefore clearly understand, that an idea (being a mode of thinking)
does not consist in the image of anything, nor in words.  (49:27) The
essence of words and images is put together by bodily motions, which in
no wise involve the conception of thought.

(49:28) These few words on this subject will suffice: I will therefore
pass on to consider the objections, which may be raised against our
doctrine.  (29) Of these, the first is advanced by those, who think that
the will has a wider scope than the understanding, and that therefore
it is different therefrom.  (30) The reason for their holding the belief,
that the will has wider scope than the understanding, is that they assert,
that they have no need of an increase in their faculty of assent, that
is of affirmation or negation, in order to assent to an infinity of
things which we do not perceive, but that they have need of an increase
in their faculty of understanding.  (31) The will is thus distinguished
from the intellect, the latter being finite and the former infinite.
(49:32) Secondly, it may be objected that experience seems to teach us
especially clearly, that we are able to suspend our judgment before
assenting to things which we perceive; this is confirmed by the fact
that no one is said to be deceived, in so far as he perceives anything,
but only in so far as he assents or dissents.

(49:33) For instance, he who feigns a winged horse, does not therefore
admit that a winged horse exists; that is, he is not deceived, unless
he admits in addition that a winged horse does exist.  (34) Nothing
therefore seems to be taught more clearly by experience, than that the
will or faculty of assent is free and different from the faculty of
understanding.  (35) Thirdly, it may be objected that one affirmation
does not apparently contain more reality than another; in other words,
that we do not seem to need for affirming, that what is true is true,
any greater power than for affirming, that what is false is true.
(49:36) We have, however, seen that one idea has more reality or
perfection than another, for as objects are some more excellent than
others, so also are the ideas of them some more excellent than others;
this also seems to point to a difference between the understanding
and the will.  (37) Fourthly, it may be objected, if man does not act
from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally
balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass?  (49:38) Will he perish of
hunger and thirst?  (39) If I say that he would, I shall seem to have
in my thoughts an ass or the statue of a man rather than an actual man.
(49:40) If I say that he would not, he would then determine his own
action, and would consequently possess the faculty of going and doing
whatever he liked.  (41) Other objections might also be raised, but,
as I am not bound to put in evidence everything that anyone may dream,
I will only set myself to the task of refuting those I have mentioned,
and that as briefly as possible.

(49:42) To the first objection I answer, that I admit that the will has
a wider scope than the understanding, if by the understanding be meant
only clear and distinct ideas; but I deny that the will has a wider
scope than the perceptions, and the faculty of forming conceptions;
nor do I see why the faculty of volition should be called infinite,
any more than the faculty of feeling: for, as we are able by the same
faculty of volition to affirm an infinite number of things (one after
the other, for we cannot affirm an infinite number simultaneously),
so also can we, by the same faculty of feeling, feel or perceive (in
succession) an infinite number of bodies.  (43) If it be said that there
is an infinite number of things which we cannot perceive, I answer,
that we cannot attain to such things by any thinking, nor, consequently,
by any faculty of volition.  (49:44) But, it may still be urged, if God
wished to bring it about that we should perceive them, he would be
obliged to endow us with a greater faculty of perception, but not a
greater faculty of volition than we have already.  (45) This is the same
as to say that, if God wished to bring it about that we should understand
an infinite number of other entities, it would be necessary for him to
give us a greater understanding, but not a more universal idea of entity
than that which we have already, in order to grasp such infinite entities.
(49:46) We have shown that will is a universal entity or idea, whereby we
explain all particular volitions - in other words, that which is common to
all such volitions.

(49:47) As, then, our opponents maintain that this idea, common 
universal to all volitions, is a faculty, it is little to be wondered
at that they assert, that such a faculty extends itself into the
infinite, beyond the limits of the understanding: for what is universal
is predicated alike of one, of many, and of an infinite number of
individuals.

(49:48) To the second objection I reply by denying, that we have a free
power of suspending our judgment: for, when we say that anyone suspends
his judgment, we merely mean that he sees, that he does not perceive
the matter in question adequately.  (49) Suspension of judgment is,
therefore, strictly speaking, a perception, and not free will.
49:(50) In order to illustrate the point, let us suppose a boy
imagining a horse, and perceiving nothing else.  (51) Inasmuch as
this imagination involves the existence of the horse ([xvii] Coroll.),
and the boy does not perceive anything which would exclude the
existence of the horse, he will necessarily regard the horse as
present: he will not be able to doubt of its existence, although he
be not certain thereof.  (49:52) We have daily experience of such a
state of things in dreams; and I do not suppose that there is anyone,
who would maintain that, while he is dreaming, he has the free power
of suspending his judgment concerning the things in his dream, and
bringing, it about that he should not dream those things, which he
dreams that he sees; yet it happens, notwithstanding, that even in
dreams we suspend our judgment, namely, when we dream that we are
dreaming.

(49:53) Further, I grant that no one can be deceived, so far as actual
perception extends - that is, I grant that the mind's, imaginations,
regarded in themselves, do not involve error ([xvii] , note); but I
deny, that a man does not, in the act of perception, make any affirmation.
(49:54) For what is the perception of a winged horse, save affirming
that a horse has wings?  (55) If the mind could perceive nothing else
but the winged horse, it would regard the same as present to itself: it
would have no reasons for doubting its existence, nor any, faculty, of
dissent, unless the imagination of a winged horse be joined to an idea
which precludes the existence of the said horse, or unless the mind
perceives that the idea which it possesses of a winged horse is inadequate,
in which case it will either necessarily, deny the existence of such a
horse, or will necessarily be in doubt on the subject.

(49:56) I think that I have anticipated my answer to the third objection,
namely, that the will is something universal which is predicated of all
ideas, and that it only signifies that which is common to all ideas,
namely, an affirmation, whose adequate essence must, therefore, in so
far as it is thus conceived in the abstract, be in every idea, and be,
in this respect alone, the same in all, not in so far as it is considered
as constituting the idea's essence: for, in this respect, particular
affirmations differ one from the other, as much as do ideas.  (49:57) For
instance, the affirmation which involves the idea of a circle, differs
from that which involves. the idea of a triangle, as much as the idea
of a circle differs from the idea of a triangle.

(49:58) Further, I absolutely deny, that we are in need of an equal
power of thinking, to affirm that that which is true is true, and to
affirm that that which is false is true.  (59) These two affirmations, if
we regard the mind, are in the same relation to one another as being and
not-being; for there is nothing positive in ideas, which constitutes
the actualreality of falsehood ([xxxv] note, and [xlvii] note).

(49:60) We must therefore conclude, that we are easily deceived, when
we confuse universals with singulars, and the entities of reason and
abstractions with realities.  (60a) As for the fourth objection, I am
quite ready to admit, that a man placed in the equilibrium described
(namely, as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain food
and a certain drink, each equally distant from him) would die of hunger
and thirst.  (49:61) If I am asked, whether such an one should not rather
be considered an ass than a man; I answer, that I do not know, neither
do I know how a man should be considered, who hangs himself, or how we
should consider children, fools, madmen, &c.

(49:62) It remains to point out the advantages of a knowledge of this
doctrine as bearing on conduct, and this may be, easily gathered from
what has been said.  (63) The doctrine is good:-

1. (49:64) Inasmuch as it teaches us to act solely according to the
   decree of God, and to be partakers in the Divine nature, and so
   much the more, as we perform more perfect ,actions and more and
   more understand God.  (65) Such a doctrine not only completely
   tranquillizes our spirit, but also shows us where our highest
   happiness or blessedness is, namely, solely in the knowledge of
   God, whereby we are led to act only as love and piety shall bid us.
   (49:66) We may thus clearly, understand, how far astray, from a true
   estimate of virtue are those who expect to be decorated by God with
   high rewards for their virtue, and their best actions, as for having
   endured the direst slavery; as if virtue and the service of God were
   not in itself happiness and perfect freedom.

2. (49:67) Inasmuch as it teaches us, how we ought to conduct ourselves
   with respect to the gifts of fortune, or matters which are not in
   our own power, and do not follow from our nature.  (68) For it shows
   us, that we should await and endure fortune's smiles or frowns with
   an equal mind, seeing that all things follow from the eternal decree
   of God by the same necessity, as it follows from the essence of a
   triangle, that the three angles are equal to two right angles.

3. (49:69) This doctrine raises social life, inasmuch as it teaches us
   to hate no man, neither to despise, to deride, to envy, or to be
   angry, with any.  (70) Further, as it tells us that each should  
   be content with his own, and helpful to his neighbour, not from
   any womanish pity, favour, or superstition, but solely by the
   guidance of reason, according as the time and occasion demand, as I
   will show in Part III.

4. (49:71) Lastly, this doctrine confers no small advantage on the
   commonwealth; for it teaches how citizens should be governed and
   led, not so as to become slaves, but so that they may freely do
   whatsoever things are best.

(49:72) I have thus fulfilled the promise made at the beginning of this
note, and I thus bring, the second part of my treatise to a close.
(73) I think I have therein explained the nature and properties of the
human mind at sufficient length, and, considering the difficulty of the
subject, with sufficient clearness.  (74) I have laid a foundation,
whereon may be raised many excellent conclusions of the highest utility
and most necessary to be known, as will, in what follows, be partly made
plain.
____________________________________________________________________________

                      End of "The Ethics - Part II"

                "Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>
                             August 25, 1997

                           The Ethics - Part III
                   On the Nature and Origin of the Emotions
                               Circulated - 1673
                         Posthumously Published - 1677

                               Baruch Spinoza
                                1632 - 1677

____________________________________________________________________________
JBY Notes:
1.  Text was scanned from Benedict de Spinoza's
    "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics" and
    "Correspondence" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20250-X.
2.  The text is that of the translation of "The Ethics" by 
    R. H. M. Elwes.   This text is "an unabridged and unaltered
    republication of the Bohn Library edition originally published
    by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3.  JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4.  Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).
       yy = Proposition Number when given.
       xx = Sentence Number.

5.  Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:
       a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,
          indicates Part Number.  If a different Part, bring
          up that Part and then search.
       b. Include square brackets in search string.
       c. Do not include Part Number in search string.
       d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6.  Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
    or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7.  HTML version:
       Part III - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/e3elwes.htm

___________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
[PREFACE]
[DEFINITIONS]
[POSTULATES]
[PROPOSITIONS:]
   [I] .    [XI] .    [XXI] .    [XXXI] .    [XLI] .    [LI] .
   [II] .   [XII] .   [XXII] .   [XXXII] .   [XLII] .   [LII] .    
   [III] .  [XIII] .  [XXIII] .  [XXXIII] .  [XLIII] .  [LIII] .       
   [IV] .   [XIV] .   [XXIV] .   [XXXIV] .   [XLIV] .   [LIV] .    
   [V] .    [XV] .    [XXV] .    [XXXV] .    [XLV] .    [LV] .     
   [VI] .   [XVI] .   [XXVI] .   [XXXVI] .   [XLVI] .   [LVI] .   
   [VII] .  [XVII] .  [XXVII] .  [XXXVII] .  [XLVII] .  [LVII] .
   [VIII] . [XVIII] . [XXVIII] . [XXXVIII] . [XLVIII] . [LVIII] .         
   [IX] .   [XIX] .   [XXIX] .   [XXXIX] .   [XLIX] .   [LIX] .      
   [X] .    [XX] .    [XXX] .    [XL] .      [L] .
[DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS]
[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS]

____________________________________________________________________________

[PREFACE]
(Prf:1) Most writers on the emotions and on human conduct seem to be
treating rather of matters outside nature than of natural phenomena
following nature's general laws.  (2) They appear to conceive man
to be situated in nature as a kingdom within a kingdom: for they
believe that he disturbs rather than follows nature's order, that
he has absolute control over his actions, and that he is determined
solely by himself.  (Prf:3) They attribute human infirmities and
fickleness, not to the power of nature in general, but to some
mysterious flaw in the nature of man, which accordingly they bemoan,
deride, despise, or, as usually happens, abuse: he, who succeeds in
hitting off the weakness of the human mind more eloquently or more
acutely than his fellows, is looked upon as a seer.  (4) Still there
has been no lack of very excellent men (to whose toil and industry
I confess myself much indebted), who have written many noteworthy
things concerning the right way of life and have given much sage
advise to mankind.  (Prf:5) But no one, so far as I know, has defined the
nature and strength of the emotions, and the power of the mind against
them for their restraint.

(Prf:6) I do not forget, that the illustrious Descartes, though he
believed, that the mind has absolute power over its actions, strove
to explain human emotions by their primary causes, and, at the
same time, to point out of the way, by which the mind might attain
to absolute dominion over them.  (7) However, in my opinion, he
accomplishes nothing beyond a display of the acuteness of his own
great intellect, as I will show in the proper place.  (8) For the
present I wish to revert to those, who would rather abuse or deride
human emotions than understand them.  (Prf:9) Such persons will, doubtless
think it strange that I should attempt to treat of human vice
and folly geometrically, and should wish to set forth with rigid
reasoning those matters which they cry out against as repugnant to
reason, frivolous, absurd, and dreadful.  (10) However, such is my
plan.  (Prf:11) Nothing comes to pass in nature, which can be set down to
a flaw therein; for nature is always the same, and everywhere one and
the same in her efficacy and power of action; that is, nature's laws
and ordinances, whereby all things come to pass and change from one
form to another, are everywhere and always the same; so that there
should be one and the same method of understanding the nature of all
things whatsoever, namely, through nature's universal laws and rules.
(Prf:12) Thus the passions of hatred, anger, envy, and so on, considered
in themselves, follow from this same necessity and efficacy of nature;
they answer to certain definite causes, through which they are
understood, and possess certain properties as worthy of being known as
the properties of anything else, whereof the contemplation in itself
affords us delight.  (Prf:13) I shall, therefore, treat of the nature and
strength of the emotions according to the same method, as I employed
heretofore in my investigations concerning God and the mind.  (14) I
shall consider human actions and desires in exactly the same manner,
as though I were concerned with lines, planes, and solids.
____________________________________________________________________________

[DEFINITIONS]

[D.I] (1) By an adequate cause, I mean a cause through which its effect
   can be clearly and distinctly perceived.  (2) By an inadequate or
   partial cause, I mean a cause through which, by itself, its effect
   cannot be understood.

[D.II] (1) I say that we act when anything takes place, either within
   us or externally to us, whereof we are the adequate cause; that is
   (by the foregoing definition) when through our nature something
   takes place within us or externally to us, which can through our
   nature alone be clearly and distinctly understood.  (2) On the other
   hand, I say that we are passive as regards something when that
   something takes place within us, or follows from our nature
   externally, we being only the partial cause.

[D.III] (1) By emotions I mean the modifications of the body, whereby
   the active power of said body is increased or diminished, aided or
   constrained, and also the ideas of such modifications.
   N.B. (2) If we can be the adequate cause of any of these modifications,
   I then call the emotion an activity, otherwise I call it a passion, or
   state wherein the mind is passive.
____________________________________________________________________________

[POSTULATES]
Post. [Po.I] The human body can be affected in many ways, whereby its
   power of activity is increased or diminished, and also in other
   ways which do not render its power of activity either greater
   or less.
   N.B. This postulate or axiom rests on Postulate i. and Lemmas v. and
   vii., which see after (II:[xiii] ).

Post. [Po.II] The human body can undergo many changes, and, nevertheless,
   retain the impressions or traces of objects (cf. II:[Po.v] ), and,
   consequently, the same images of things (see II:[xvii] note).
___________________________________________________________________________

[PROPOSITIONS:]
Prop. [I] Our mind is in certain cases active, and in certain
          cases passive.  In so far as it has adequate ideas
          it is necessarily active, and in so far as it has
          inadequate ideas, it is necessarily passive.

Proof.- (1:1) In every human mind there are some adequate ideas, and
some ideas that are fragmentary and confused (II:[xl] note).  (2) Those
ideas which are adequate in the mind are adequate also in God,
inasmuch as he constitutes the essence of the mind (II:xl] Coroll.),
and those which are inadequate in the mind are likewise (by the same
Coroll.) adequate in God, not inasmuch as lie contains in himself the
essence of the given mind alone, but as he, at the same time, contains
the minds of other things.  (1:3) Again, from any given idea some effect
must necessarily follow (I:[xxxvi] ); of this effect God is the adequate
cause [I] not inasmuch as he is infinite, but inasmuch as he
is conceived as affected by the given idea (II:[ix] ).  (4) But of that
effect whereof God is the cause, inasmuch as he is affected by an idea
which is adequate in a given mind, of that effect, I repeat, the mind
in question is the adequate cause (II:[xi] Coroll.).  (1:5) Therefore our
mind, in so far as it has adequate ideas, [D.II] is in certain
cases necessarily, active; this was our first point.  (1:6) Again,
whatsoever necessarily, follows from the idea which is adequate in God,
not by virtue of his possessing in himself the mind of one man only,
but by virtue of his containing, together with the mind of that one
man, the minds of other things also, of such an effect (II:[xi] Coroll.)
the mind of the given man is not an adequate, but only, a partial cause;
thus, [D.II] the mind, inasmuch as it has inadequate ideas, is in
certain cases necessarily passive; this was our second point.
(1:7) Therefore our mind, &c. Q.E.D.

Corollary. (1:8) Hence it follows that the mind is more or less liable
to be acted upon, in proportion as it possesses inadequate ideas, and,
contrariwise, is more or less active in proportion as it possesses
adequate ideas.

Prop. [II] Body cannot determine mind to think, neither can mind
           determine body to motion or rest or any state different
           from these, if such there be.

Proof.- (2:1) All modes of thinking have for their cause God, by virtue
of his being a thinking thing, and not by, virtue of his being displayed
under any, other attribute (II:[vi] ).  (2) That, therefore, which
determines the mind to thought is a mode of thought, and not a mode of
extension; that is (II:[D.i] ), it is not body.  (3) This was our first
point.  (2:4) Again, the motion and rest of a body, must arise from another
body, which has also been determined to a state of motion or rest by a
third body, and absolutely, everything which takes place in a body, must
spring from God, in so far as he is regarded as affected by some mode of
extension, and not by some mode of thought (II:[vi] ); that is, it cannot
spring from the mind, which is a mode of thought.  (5) This was our
second point.  (6) Therefore body cannot determine mind, &c. Q.E.D.

Note.- (2:7) This is made more clear by what was said in the note to
II:[vii] , namely, that mind and body are one and the same thing,
conceived first under the attribute of thought, secondly, under the
attribute of extension.  (8) Thus it follows that the order or
concatenation of things is identical, whether nature be conceived
under the one attribute or the other; consequently the order of
states of activity and passivity in our body is simultaneous in
nature with the order of states of activity and passivity in the
mind.  (9) The same conclusion is evident from the manner in which
we proved (II:[xii] ).

(2:10) Nevertheless, though such is the case, and though there be no
further room for doubt, I can scarcely believe, until the fact is
proved by experience, that men can be induced to consider the question
calmly and fairly, so firmly are they convinced that it is merely at
the bidding of the mind, that the body is set in motion or at rest,
or performs a variety of actions depending solely on the mind's will
or the exercise of thought.  (2:11) However, no one has hitherto laid
down the limits to the powers of the body, that is, no one has as yet
been taught by experience what the body can accomplish solely by the
laws of nature, in so far as she is regarded as extension.  (12) No one
hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism,
that he can explain all its functions; nor need I call attention to the
fact that many actions are observed in the lower animals, which far
transcend human sagacity, and that somnambulists do many things in their
sleep, which they would not venture to do when awake: these instances
are enough to show, that the body can by the sole laws of its nature do
many things which the mind wonders at.

(2:13) Again, no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body,
nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor
how quickly it can move it.  (14) Thus, when men say that this or that
physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion
over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing
in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said
action, and do not wonder at it.

(2:15) But, they will say,, whether we know or do not know the means
whereby the mind acts on the body, we have, at any rate, experience
of the fact that unless the human mind is in a fit state to think,
the body remains inert.  (16) Moreover, we have experience, that the
mind alone can determine whether we speak or are silent, and a variety
of similar states which, accordingly, we say depend on the mind's
decree.  (17) But, as to the first point, I ask such objectors,
whether experience does not also teach, that if the body be inactive
the mind is simultaneously unfitted for thinking?  (18) For when the
body is at rest in sleep, the mind simultaneously is in a state of
torpor also, and has no power of thinking, such as it possesses when
the body, is awake.  (2:19) Again, I think everyone's experience will
confirm the statement, that the mind is not at all times equally, fit
for thinking on a given subject, but according as the body is more or
less fitted for being stimulated by, the image of this or that object,
so also is the mind more or less fitted for contemplating the said object.

(2:20) But, it will be urged, it is impossible that solely from the laws
of nature considered as extended substance, we should be able to deduce
the causes of buildings, pictures, and things of that kind, which are
produced only by, human art; nor would the human body, unless it were
determined and led by the mind, be capable of building a single temple.
(21) However, I have just pointed out that the objectors cannot fix the
limits of the body's power, or say, what can be concluded from a
consideration of its sole nature, whereas they, have experience of many
things being accomplished solely by the laws of nature, which they would
never have believed possible except under the direction of mind: such
are the actions performed by, somnambulists while asleep, and wondered
at by their performers when awake.  (2:22) I would further call attention
to the mechanism of the human body, which far surpasses in complexity,
all that has been put together by, human art, not to repeat what I have
already, shown, namely, that from nature, under whatever attribute she
be considered, infinite results follow.  (23) As for the second
objection, I submit that the world would be much happier, if men were
as fully, able to keep silence as they, are to speak.  (24) Experience
abundantly shows that men can govern anything more easily than their
tongues, and restrain anything more easily than their appetites; whence
it comes about that many believe, that we are only, free in respect to
objects which we moderately desire, because our desire for such can
easily be controlled by the thought of something else frequently
remembered, but that we are by no means free in respect to what we
seek with violent emotion, for our desire cannot then be allayed with
the remembrance of anything else.  (2:25) However, unless such persons
had proved by experience that we do many things which we afterwards
repent of, and again that we often, when assailed by contrary, emotions,
see the better and follow the worse, there would be nothing to prevent
their believing that we are free in all things.  (2:26) Thus an infant
believes that of its own free will it desires milk, an angry child
believes that it freely desires vengeance, a timid child believes that
it freely desires to run away; further, a drunken man believes that he
utters from the free decision of his mind words which, when he is sober,
he would willingly, have withheld: thus, too, a delirious man, a
garrulous woman, a child, and others of like complexion, believe that
they speak from the free decision of their mind, when they are in
reality unable to restrain their impulse to talk.  (2:27) Experience
teaches us no less clearly, than reason, that men believe themselves
to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and
unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined; and,
further, it is plain that the dictates of the mind are but another name
for the appetites, and therefore vary, according to the varying state
of the body.  (2:28) Everyone shapes his actions according to his emotion,
those who are assailed by conflicting emotions know not what they wish;
those who are not attacked by any emotion are readily swayed this way
or that.  (29) All these considerations clearly show that a mental
decision and a bodily appetite, or determined state, are simultaneous,
or rather are one and the same thing, which we call decision, when it
is regarded under and explained through the attribute of thought, and
a conditioned state, when it is regarded under the attribute of
extension, and deduced from the laws of motion and rest.  (30) This will
appear yet more plainly in the sequel.  (31) For the present I wish to
call attention to another point, namely, that we cannot act by the
decision of the mind, unless we have a remembrance of having done so.
(2:32) For instance, we cannot say a word without remembering that we have
done so.  (33) Again, it is not within the free power of the mind to
remember or forget a thing at will.  (34) Therefore the freedom of the
mind must in any case be limited to the power of uttering or not uttering
something which it remembers.  (35) But when we dream that we speak, we
believe that we speak from a free decision of the mind, yet we do not
speak, or, if we do, it is by a spontaneous motion of the body.
(2:36) Again, we dream that we are concealing something, and we seem
to act from the same decision of the mind as that, whereby we keep
silence when awake concerning something we know.  (37) Lastly, we dream
that from the free decision of our mind we do something, which we should
not dare to do when awake.

(2:38) Now I should like to know whether there be in the mind two sorts
of decisions, one sort illusive, and the other sort free?  (39) If our
folly does not carry us so far as this, we must necessarily admit,
that the decision of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not
distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more
than the affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being an idea,
necessarily involves (II:[xlix] ).  (2:40) Wherefore these decisions of
the mind arise in the mind by the same necessity, as the ideas of
things actually existing.  (41) Therefore those who believe, that they
speak or keep silence or act in any way from the free decision of their
mind, do but dream with their eyes open.

Prop. [III] The activities of the mind arise solely from
            adequate ideas; the passive states of the mind
            depend solely on inadequate ideas.

Proof.- (3:1) The first element, which constitutes the essence of the
mind, is nothing else but the idea of the actually existent body
(II:[xi] and II:[xiii] ), which (II:[xv] ) is compounded of many other
ideas, whereof some are adequate and some inadequate (II:[xxix] Coroll.,
II:[xxxviii] Coroll.).  (2) Whatsoever therefore follows from the
nature of mind, and has mind for its proximate cause, through which
it must be understood, must necessarily follow either from an adequate
or from an inadequate idea.  (3:3) But in so far as the mind ([i] )
has inadequate ideas, it is necessarily passive: wherefore the
activities of the mind follow solely from adequate ideas, and
accordingly the mind is only passive in so far as it has inadequate
ideas. Q.E.D.

Note.- (3:4) Thus we see, that passive states are not attributed to the
mind, except in so far as it contains something involving negation,
or in so far as it is regarded as a part of nature, which cannot be
clearly and distinctly perceived through itself without other parts:
I could thus show, that passive states are attributed to individual
things in the same way that they are attributed to the mind, they
cannot otherwise be perceived, but my purpose is solely to treat of
the human mind.

Prop. [IV] Nothing can be destroyed, except
           by a cause external to itself.

Proof.- (4:1) This proposition is self-evident, for the definition of
anything affirms the essence of that thing, but does not negative it;
in other words, it postulates the essence of the thing, but does not
take it away.  (2) So long therefore as we regard only the thing
itself, without taking into account external causes, we shall not be
able to find in it anything which could destroy it. Q.E.D.

Prop. [V] Things are naturally contrary, that is,
          cannot exist in the same object, in so
          far as one is capable of destroying
          the other.

Proof.- (5:1) If they could agree together or co-exist in the same object,
there would then be in the said object something which could destroy it;
but this, by the foregoing proposition, is absurd, therefore things, &c.
Q.E.D.

Prop. [VI] Everything, in so far as it is in itself,
           endeavours to persist in its own being.

Proof.- (6:1) Individual things are modes whereby the attributes of God
are expressed in a given determinate manner (I:[xxv] Coroll.); that is
(I:[xxxiv] ), they are things which express in a given determinate
manner the power of God, whereby God is and acts; now no thing contains
in itself anything whereby it can be destroyed, or which can take away
its existence ([iv] ); but contrariwise it is opposed to all could
take away its existence [v] .  (6:2) Therefore, in so far as it can,
and in so far as it is in itself, it endeavours to persist in its own
being. Q.E.D.

Prop. [VII] The endeavour, wherewith everything endeavours
            to persist in its own being, is nothing else but
            the actual essence of the thing in question.

Proof.- (7:1) From the given essence of any thing certain consequences
necessarily follow (I:[xxxvi] ), nor have things any power save such
as necessarily follows from their nature as determined (I:[xxix] );
wherefore the power of any given thing, or the endeavour whereby,
either alone or with other things, it acts, or endeavours to act, that
is ([vi] ), the power or endeavour, wherewith it endeavours to
persist in its own being is nothing else but the given or actual essence
of the thing in question. Q.E.D.

Prop. [VIII] The endeavour, whereby a thing endeavours to
             persist in its being, involves no finite time,
             but an indefinite time.

Proof.- (8:1) If it involved a limited time, which should determine the
duration of the thing, it would then follow solely from that power
whereby the thing exists, that the thing could not exist beyond the
limits of that time, but that it must be destroyed; but this ([iv] )
is absurd.  (2) Wherefore the endeavour wherewith a thing exists
involves no definite time; but, contrariwise, since ([iv] ) it will
by the same power whereby it already exists always continue to exist,
unless it be destroyed by some external cause, this endeavour involves
an indefinite time.

Prop. [IX] The mind, both in so far as it has clear and distinct
           ideas, and also in so far as it has confused ideas,
           endeavours to persist in its being for an indefinite
           period, and of this endeavour it is conscious.

Proof.- (9:1) The essence of the mind is constituted by adequate and
inadequate ideas ([iii] ), therefore ([vii] ), both in so far
as it possesses the former, and in so far as it possesses the latter,
it endeavours to persist in its own being, and that for an indefinite
time ([viii] ).  (2) Now as the mind (II:[xxiii] ) is necessarily
conscious of itself through the ideas of the modifications of the body,
the mind is therefore ([vii] ) conscious of its own endeavour.

Note.- (9:3) This endeavour, when referred solely to the mind, is called
will, when referred to the mind and body in conjunction it is called
appetite; it is, in fact, nothing else but man's essence, from the
nature of which necessarily follow all those results which tend to its
preservation; and which man has thus been determined to perform.
(9:4) Further, between appetite and desire there is no difference,
except that the term desire is generally applied to men, in so far as
they are conscious of their appetite, and may accordingly be thus defined: 
Desire is appetite with consciousness thereof.  (9:5) It is thus plain
from what has been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long
for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other
hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it,
long for it, or desire it.

Prop. [X] An idea, which excludes the existence of our body,
          cannot be postulated in our mind, but is contrary
          thereto.

Proof.- (10:1) Whatsoever can destroy our body, cannot be postulated
therein ([v] ).  (2) Therefore neither can the idea of such a thing
occur in God, in so far as he has the idea of our body ([ix] Coroll.);
that is (II:[xi] , II:[xiii] ), the idea of that thing cannot be postulated
as in our mind, but contrariwise, since (II:[xi] , II:[xiii] ) the first
element, that constitutes the essence of the mind, is the idea of the
human body as actually existing, it follows that the first and chief
endeavour of our mind is the endeavour to affirm the existence of our
body: thus, an idea, which negatives the existence of our body, is
contrary to our mind, &c. Q.E.D.

Prop. [XI] Whatsoever increases or diminishes, helps or hinders
           the power of activity in our body, the idea thereof
           increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power
           of thought in our mind.

Proof.- (11:1) This proposition is evident from II:[vii] or from II:[xiv] .

Note.- (11:2) Thus we see, that the mind can undergo many changes, and
can pass sometimes to a state of greater perfection, sometimes to a
state of lesser perfection.  (3) These passive states of transition
explain to us the emotions of pleasure and pain.  (4) By pleasure
therefore in the following propositions I shall signify a passive
state wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection.  (5) By pain
I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to a lesser
perfection.  (11:6) Further, the emotion of pleasure in reference to the
body and mind together I shall call stimulation (titillatio) or merriment
(hilaritas), the emotion of pain in the same relation I shall call
suffering or melancholy.  (7) But we must bear in mind, that stimulation
and suffering are attributed to man, when one part of his nature is more
affected than the rest, merriment and melancholy, when all parts are
alike affected.  (8) What I mean by desire I have explained in the note
to Prop.[ix] of this part; beyond these three I recognize no other primary
emotion; I will show as I proceed, that all other emotions arise from
these three.  (11:9) But, before I go further, I should like here to
explain at greater length Prop.[x] of this part, in order that we may
clearly understand how one idea is contrary to another.  (10) In the
note.[II:[xvii] ] we showed that the idea, which constitutes the essence of
mind, involves the existence of body, so long as the body itself exists.
(11:11) Again, it follows from what we pointed out in the Coroll.II:[viii] ,
that the present existence of our mind depends solely on the fact, that
the mind involves the actual existence of the body.  (12) Lastly, we
showed (II:[xvii] , II:[xviii] note) that the power of the mind, whereby, it
imagines and remembers things, also depends on the fact, that it involves
the actual existence of the body.  (13) Whence it follows, that the
present existence of the mind and its power of imagining are removed,
as soon as the mind ceases to affirm the present existence of the body.
(11:14) Now the cause, why the mind ceases to affirm this existence of
the body, cannot be the mind itself ([iv] ), nor again the fact that
the body ceases to exist.  (15) For (by [vi] ) the cause, why the
mind affirms the existence of the body, is not that the body began to
exist; therefore, for the same reason, it does not cease to affirm the
existence of the body, because the body ceases to exist; but (II:[xvii] )
this result follows from another idea, which excludes the present
existence of our body and, consequently, of our mind, and which is
therefore contrary to the idea constituting the essence of our mind.

Prop. [XII] The mind, as far as it can, endeavours to conceive
            those things, which increase or help the power of
            activity in the body.

Proof.- (12:1) So long as the human body is affected in a mode, which
involves the nature of any external body, the human mind will regard
that external body as present (II:[xvii] ), and consequently (II:[vii] ),
so long as the human mind regards an external body as present, that
is (II:[xvii] note), conceives it, the human body is affected in a mode,
which involves the nature of the said external body; thus so long as
the mind conceives things, which increase or help the power of activity
in our body, the body is affected in modes which increase or help its
power of activity ([Po.i] ); consequently ([xi] ) the mind's
power of thinking is for that period increased or helped.  (12:2) Thus
([vi] , [ix] ) the mind, as far as it can, endeavours to imagine
such things.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XIII] When the mind conceives things which diminish
             or hinder the body's power of activity, it
             endeavours, as far as possible, to remember
             things which exclude the existence of the
             first-named things.

Proof.- (13:1) So long as the mind conceives anything of the kind alluded
to, the power of the mind and body is diminished or constrained (cf.
[xii] Proof); nevertheless it will continue to conceive it, until
the mind conceives something else, which excludes the present existence
thereof (II:[xvii] ); that is (as I have just shown), the power of the mind
and of the body is diminished, or constrained, until the mind conceives
something else, which excludes the existence of the former thing
conceived: therefore the mind ([ix] ), as far as it can, will
endeavour to conceive or remember the latter.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (13:2) Hence it follows, that the mind shrinks from
conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of
itself and of the body.

Note.- [13:3] From what has been said we may clearly understand the
nature of Love and Hate.  (4) Love is nothing else but pleasure
accompanied by the idea of an external cause: Hate is nothing else
but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause.  (5) We further
see, that he who loves necessarily endeavours to have, and to keep
present to him, the object of his love; while he who hates endeavours
to remove and destroy the object of his hatred.  (6) But I will treat
of these matters at more length hereafter.

Prop. [XIV] If the mind has once been affected by two
            emotions at the same time, it will, whenever
            it is afterwards affected by one of the two,
            be also affected by the other.

Proof.- (14:1) If the human body has once been affected by two bodies
at once, whenever afterwards the mind conceives one of them, it will
straightway remember the other also (II:[xviii] ).  (2) But the mind's
conceptions indicate rather the emotions of our body than the nature
of external bodies (II:[xvi] Coroll.ii.); therefore, if the body, and
consequently the mind ([D.iii] ) has been once affected by two
emotions at the same time, it will, whenever it is afterwards affected
by one of the two, be also affected by the other.

Prop. [XV] Anything can, accidentally, be the
           cause of pleasure, pain, or desire.

Proof.- (15:1) Let it be granted that the mind is simultaneously affected
by two emotions, of which one neither increases nor diminishes its power
of activity, and the other does either increase or diminish the said power
([Po.i] ).  (2) From the foregoing proposition it is evident that,
whenever the mind is afterwards affected by the former, through its true
cause, which (by hypothesis) neither increases nor diminishes its power
of action, it will be at the same time affected by the latter, which does
increase or diminish its power of activity, that is ([xi] note) it
will be affected with pleasure or pain.  (3) Thus the former of the two
emotions will, not through itself, but accidentally, be the cause of
pleasure or pain.  (4) In the same way also it can be easily shown,
that a thing may be accidentally the cause of desire.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- [15:5] Simply from the fact that we have regarded a thing
with the emotion of pleasure or pain, though that thing be not the
efficient cause of the emotion, we can either love or hate it.

Proof.- (15:6) For from this fact alone it arises ([xiv] ), that the
mind afterwards conceiving the said thing is affected with the emotion
of pleasure or pain, that is ([xi] note), according as the power of
the mind and body may be increased or diminished, &c.; and consequently
([xii] ), according as the mind may desire or shrink from the
conception of it ([xiii] Coroll.), in other words ([xiii] note),
according as it may love or hate the same.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (15:7) Hence we understand how it may happen, that we love or
hate a thing without any cause for our emotion being known to us;
merely, as the phrase is, from sympathy or antipathy.  (8) We should
refer to the same category those objects, which affect us pleasurably
or painfully, simply because they resemble other objects which affect
us in the same way.  (9) This I will show in the next Prop.  (10) I am
aware that certain authors, who were the first to introduce these terms
"sympathy" and "antipathy," wished to signify thereby some occult
qualities in things; nevertheless I think we may be permitted to use
the same terms to indicate known or manifest qualities.

Prop. [XVI] Simply from the fact that we conceive, that a given
            object has some point of resemblance with another
            object which is wont to affect the mind pleasurably
            or painfully, although the point of resemblance be
            not the efficient cause of the said emotions, we shall
            still regard the first-named object with love or hate.

Proof.- (16:1) The point of resemblance was in the object (by hypothesis), 
when we regarded it with pleasure or pain, thus ([xiv] ), when the
mind is affected by the image thereof, it will straightway be affected
by one or the other emotion, and consequently the thing, which we
perceive to have the same point of resemblance, will be accidentally
([xv] ) a cause of pleasure or pain.  (2) Thus (by the foregoing
Corollary [15:5] ), although the point in which the two objects resemble
one another be not the efficient cause of the emotion, we shall still
regard the first- named object with love or hate.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XVII] If we conceive that a thing, which is wont to affect 
             us painfully, has any point of resemblance with another
             thing which is wont to affect us with an equally strong
             emotion of pleasure, we shall hate the first-named thing,
             and at the same time we shall love it.

Proof.- (17:1) The given thing is (by hypothesis) in itself a cause of
pain, and ([xiii] note), in so far as we imagine it with this
emotion, we shall hate it: further, inasmuch as we conceive that it has
some point of resemblance to something else, which is wont to affect us
with an equally strong emotion of pleasure, we shall with an equally
strong impulse of pleasure love it ([xvi] ); thus we shall both
hate and love the same thing.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (17:2) This disposition of the mind, which arises from two contrary
emotions, is called vacillation; it stands to the emotions in the same
relation as doubt does to the imagination (II:[xliv] note); vacillation and
doubt do not differ one from the other, except as greater differs from
less.  (3) But we must bear in mind that I have deduced this vacillation
from causes, which give rise through themselves to one of the emotions,
and to the other accidentally.  (4) I have done this, in order that they
might be more easily deduced from what went before; but I do not deny
that vacillation of the disposition generally arises from an object,
which is the efficient cause of both emotions.  (17:5) The human body is
composed (II:[Po.i] ) of a variety of individual parts of different nature,
and may therefore (II:[A.viii] ) be affected in a variety of different
ways by one and the same body; and contrariwise, as one and the same
thing can be affected in many ways, it can also in many different ways
affect one and the same part of the body.  (6) Hence we can easily
conceive, that one and the same object may be the cause of many and
conflicting emotions.

Prop. [XVIII] A man is as much affected pleasurably or painfully 
              by the image of a thing past or future as by the
              image of a thing present.

Proof.- (18:1) So long as a man is affected by the image of anything, he 
will regard that thing as present, even though it be non-existent
(II:[xvii] & Coroll.), he will not conceive it as past or future, except
in so far as its image is joined to the image of time past or future
(II:[xliv] note).  (2) Wherefore the image of a thing, regarded in itself
alone, is identical, whether it be referred to time past, time future,
or time present; that is (II:[xvi] Coroll.), the disposition or emotion
of the body is identical, whether the image be of a thing past, future,
or present.  (3) Thus the emotion of pleasure or pain is the same,
whether the image be of a thing past or future.  Q.E.D.

Note I - (18:4) I call a thing past or future, according as we either
have been or shall be affected thereby.  (5) For instance, according
as we have seen it, or are about to see it, according as it has
recreated us, or will recreate us, according as it has harmed us, or
will harm us.  (6) For, as we thus conceive it, we affirm its existence;
that is, the body is affected by no emotion which excludes the existence
of the thing, and therefore (II:[xvii] ) the body is affected by the image
of the thing, in the same way as if the thing were actually present.
(7) However, as it generally happens that those, who have had many
experiences, vacillate, so long as they regard a thing as future or
past, and are usually in doubt about its issue (II:[xliv] note); it
follows that the emotions which arise from similar images of things
are not so constant, but are generally disturbed by the images of other
things, until men become assured of the issue.

Note II.- (18:8) From what has just been said, we understand what is meant 
by the terms Hope, Fear, Confidence, Despair, Joy, and Disappointment
(Conscientio morsus - thus rendered by Mr. Pollock.).  (9) Hope is nothing 
else but an inconstant pleasure, arising from the image of something future 
or past, whereof we do not yet know the issue.  (10) Fear, on the other
hand, is an inconstant pain also arising from the image of something
concerning which we are in doubt.  (11) If the element of doubt be removed
from these emotions, hope becomes Confidence and fear becomes Despair.
(18:12) In other words, Pleasure or Pain arising from the image of something
concerning which we have hoped or feared.  (13) Again, Joy is Pleasure
arising from the image of something past whereof we doubted the issue.
(14) Disappointment is the Pain opposed to Joy.

Prop. [XIX] He who conceives that the object of his love is 
            destroyed will feel pain; if he conceives that
            it is preserved he will feel pleasure.

Proof.- (19:1) The mind, as far as possible, endeavours to conceive
those things which increase or help the body's power of activity
([xii] ); in other words ([xii] note), those things which it
loves.  (2) But conception is helped by those things which postulate
the existence of a thing, and contrariwise is hindered by those which
exclude the existence of a thing (II:[xvii] ); therefore the images of
things, which postulate the existence of an object of love, help the
mind's endeavour to conceive the object of love, in other words
([xi] note), affect the mind pleasurably; contrariwise those things,
which exclude the existence of an object of love, hinder the aforesaid
mental endeavour; in other words, affect the mind painfully.  (3) He,
therefore, who conceives that the object of his love is destroyed will
feel pain, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XX] He who conceives that the object of his hate is 
           destroyed will feel pleasure.

Proof.- (20:1) The mind ([xiii] ) endeavours to conceive those
things, which exclude the existence of things whereby the body's power
of activity is diminished or constrained; that is ([xiii] note),
it endeavours to conceive such things as exclude the existence of what
it hates; therefore the image of a thing, which excludes the existence
mental effort, in other words ([xi] note), affects the mind
pleasurably.  (2) Thus he who conceives that the object of his hate is
destroyed will feel pleasure.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXI] He who conceives, that the object of his love is 
            affected pleasurably or painfully, will himself be
            affected pleasurably or painfully; and the one or
            the other emotion will be greater or less in the
            lover according as it is greater or less in the
            thing loved.

Proof.- (21:1) The images of things (as we showed in [xix] ) which
postulate the existence of the object of love, help the mind's endeavour
to conceive the said object.  (2) But pleasure postulates the existence
of something feeling pleasure, so much the more in proportion as the
emotion of pleasure is greater; for it is ([xi] note) a transition
to a greater perfection; therefore the image of pleasure in the object of
love helps the mental endeavour of the lover; that is, it affects the
lover pleasurably, and so much the more, in proportion as this emotion
may have been greater in the object of love.  (3) This was our first point.
(4) Further, in so far as a thing is affected with pain, it is to that
extent destroyed, the extent being in proportion to the amount of pain
([xi] note); therefore ([xix] ) he who conceives, that the 
of his love is affected painfully, will himself be affected painfully,
in proportion as the said emotion is greater or less in the object of
love.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXII] If we conceive that anything pleasurably affects 
             some object of our love, we shall be affected with
             love towards that thing. Contrariwise, if we conceive
             that it affects an object of our love painfully, we
             shall be affected with hatred towards it.

Proof.- (22:1) He, who affects pleasurably or painfully the object of our
love, affects us also pleasurably or painfully - that is, if we conceive
the loved object as affected with the said pleasure or pain ([xxi] ).
(2) But this pleasure or pain is postulated to come to us accompanied
by the idea of an external cause; therefore ([xiii] note), if we
conceive that anyone affects an object of our love pleasurably or
painfully, we shall te affected with love or hatred towards him.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (22:3) [xxi] explains to us the nature of Pity, which we may define
as pain arising from another's hurt. (4) What term we can use for pleasure
arising from another's gain, I know not.

(22:5) We will call the love towards him who confers a benefit on another,
Approval; and the hatred towards him who injures another, we will call
Indignation.  (6) We must further remark, that we not only feel pity for a
thing which we have loved (as shown in [xxi] ), but also for a thing
which we have hitherto regarded without emotion, provided that we deem
that it resembles ourselves (as I will show presently).  (7) Thus, we
bestow approval on one who has benefitted anything resembling ourselves,
and contrariwise, are indignant with him who has done it an injury.

Prop. [XXIII] He who conceives, that an object of his hatred is
              painfully affected, will feel pleasure. Contrariwise,
              if he thinks that the said object is pleasurably
              affected, he will feel pain. Each of these emotions
              will be greater or less, according as its contrary is
              greater or less in the object of hatred.

Proof.- (23:1) In so far as an object of hatred is painfully affected,
it is destroyed, to an extent proportioned to the strength of the pain
([xi] note).  (2) Therefore, he ([xx] ) who conceives, that
some object of his hatred is painfully affected, will feel pleasure,
to an extent proportioned to the amount of pain he conceives in the
object of his hatred.  (3) This was our first point.  (4) Again, 
pleasure postulates the existence of the pleasurably affected thing
([xi] note), in proportion as the pleasure is greater or less.
(23:5) If anyone imagines that an object of his hatred is pleasurably
affected, this conception ([xiii] ) will hinder his own endeavour
to persist; in other words ([xi] note), he who hates will be
painfully affected.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (23:6) This pleasure can scarcely be felt unalloyed, and without
any mental conflict.  (7) For (as I am about to show in [xxvii] ),
in so far as a man conceives that something similar to himself is
affected by pain, he will himself be affected in like manner; and he
will have the contrary emotion in contrary circumstances.  (8) But here
we are regarding hatred only.

Prop. [XXIV] If we conceive that anyone pleasurably affects an 
             object of our hate, we shall feel, hatred towards
             him also. If we conceive that he painfully affects
             the said object, we shall feel love towards him.

Proof. (24:1) This proposition is proved in the same way as [xxii] , 
which see.

Note. (2) These and similar emotions of hatred are attributable to envy,
which, accordingly, is nothing else but hatred, in so far as it is
regarded as disposing a man to rejoice in another's hurt, and to grieve
at another's advantage.

Prop. XXV. We endeavour to affirm, concerning ourselves, and 
           concerning what we love, everything that we conceive
           to affect pleasurably ourselves, or the loved object.
           Contrariwise, we endeavour to negative everything,
           which we conceive to affect painfully ourselves or
           the loved object.

Proof.- (25:1) That, which we conceive to affect an object of our love
pleasurably or painfully, affects us also pleasurably, or painfully
([xxi] ).  (2) But the mind ([xii] ) endeavours, as far as
possible, to conceive those things which affect us pleasurably; in
other words (II:[xvii] & Coroll.), it endeavours to regard them as present.
(25:3) And, contrariwise ([xiii] ), it endeavours to exclude the
existence of such things as affect us painfully; therefore, we endeavour
to affirm concerning ourselves, and concerning the loved object,
whatever we conceive to affect ourselves, or the loved object pleasurably. 
Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVI] We endeavour to affirm, concerning that which we 
             hate, everything which we conceive to affect it
             painfully; and, contrariwise, we endeavour to deny,
             concerning it, everything which we conceive to
             affect it pleasurably.

Proof.- (26:1) This proposition follows from [xxiii] , as the
foregoing proposition followed from [xxi] .

Note.- (26:2) Thus we see that it may readily happen, that a man 
easily think too highly of himself, or a loved object, and, contrariwise,
too meanly of a hated object.  (3) This feeling is called pride, in
reference to the man who thinks too highly of himself, and is a species
of madness, wherein a man dreams with his eyes open, thinking that he can
accomplish all things that fall within the scope of his conception, and
thereupon accounting them real, and exulting in them, so long as he is
unable to conceive anything which excludes their existence, and
determines his own power of action.  (26:4) Pride, therefore, is pleasure
springing from a man thinking too highly of himself.  (5) Again, the
pleasure which arises from a man thinking too highly of another is called
over-esteem.  (6) Whereas the pleasure which arises from thinking too
little of a man is called disdain.

Prop. [XXVII] By the very fact that we conceive a thing, which is 
              like ourselves, and which we have not regarded with
              any emotion, to be affected with any emotion, we are
              ourselves affected with a like emotion (affectus).

Proof.- (27:1) The images of things are modifications of the human body,
whereof the ideas represent external bodies as present to us (II:[xvii] );
in other words (II:[x] ), whereof the ideas involve the nature of our body,
and, at the same time, the nature of external bodies as present. 
(2) If, therefore, the nature of the external body be similar to the
nature of our body, then the idea which we form of the external body
will involve a modification of our own body similar to the modification
of the external body.  (3) Consequently, if we conceive anyone similar
to ourselves as affected by any emotion, this conception will express a
modification of our body similar to that emotion.  (27:4) Thus, from the
fact of conceiving a thing like ourselves to be affected with any emotion,
we are ourselves affected with a like emotion.  (5) If, however, we hate
the said thing like ourselves, we shall, to that extent, be affected by
a contrary, and not similar, emotion.  Q.E.D.

Note I.- (27:6) This imitation of emotions, when it is referred to pain,
is called compassion (cf. [xxii] note); when it is referred to desire,
it is called emulation, which is nothing else but the desire of anything,
engendered in us by the fact that we conceive that others have the like
desire.

Corollary I.- (27:7) If we conceive that anyone, whom we have hitherto
regarded with no emotion, pleasurably affects something similar to
ourselves, we shall be affected with love towards him.  (8) If, on the
other hand, we conceive that he painfully affects the same, we shall be
affected with hatred towards him.

Proof.- (27:9) This is proved from the last proposition in the same manner
as III.[xxii] is proved from [xxi] .
 
Corollary II.- (27:10) We cannot hate a thing which we pity, because its 
misery affects us painfully. 

Proof.- (27:11) If we could hate it for this reason, we should rejoice in
its pain, which is contrary to the hypothesis.

Corollary III.- (27:12) We seek to free from misery, as far as we can,
a thing which we pity.

Proof.- (27:13) That, which painfully affects the object of our pity,
affects us also with similar pain (by the foregoing proposition);
therefore, we shall endeavour to recall everything which removes its
existence, or which destroys it (cf. [xiii] ); in other words
([ix] note), we shall desire to destroy it, or we shall be
determined for its destruction; thus, we shall endeavour to free
from misery a thing which we pity.  Q.E.D.

Note II.- (27:14) This will or appetite for doing good, which arises
from pity of the thing whereon we would confer a benefit, is called
benevolence, and is nothing else but desire arising from compassion.
(15) Concerning love or hate towards him who has done good or harm to
something, which we conceive to be like ourselves, see [xxii] note.

Prop. [XXVIII] We endeavour to bring about whatsoever we 
               conceive to conduce to pleasure; but we
               endeavour to remove or destroy whatsoever
               we conceive to be truly repugnant thereto,
               or to conduce to pain.

Proof.- (28:1) We endeavour, as far as possible, to conceive that which
we imagine to conduce to pleasure ([xii] ); in other words (II:[xvii] )
we shall endeavour to conceive it as far as possible as present or
actually existing.  (2) But the endeavour of the mind, or the mind's
power of thought, is equal to, and simultaneous with, the endeavour of
the body, or the body's power of action.  (3) (This is clear from
II:[vii] Coroll. and II:[xi] Coroll.).  (4) Therefore we make an absolute
endeavour for its existence, in other words (which by [ix] note come
to the same thing) we desire and strive for it; this was our first point.
(28:5) Again, if we conceive that something, which we believed to be the
cause of pain, that is ([xiii] note), which we hate, is destroyed,
we shall rejoice ([xx] ).  (6) We shall, therefore (by the first part
of this proof), endeavour to destroy, the same, or ([xiii] ) to
remove it from us, so that we may not regard it as present; this was our
second point.  (7) Wherefore whatsoever conduces to pleasure, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIX. We shall also endeavour to do whatsoever we conceive men
            (NB. By "men" in this and the following propositions,
            I mean men whom we regard without any particular emotion.)
            to regard with pleasure, and contrariwise we shall shrink
            from doing that which we conceive men to shrink from.

Proof.- (29:1) From the fact of imagining, that men love or hate
anything, we shall love or hate the same thing ([xxvii] ).
(2) That is ([xiii] note), from this mere fact we shall feel pleasure
or pain at the thing's presence.  (3) And so we shall endeavour to do 
whatever we conceive men to love or regard with pleasure, etc.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (29:44) This endeavour to do a thing or leave it undone, solely
in order to please men, we call ambition, especially when we so eagerly
endeavour to please the vulgar, that we do or omit certain things to
our own or another's hurt: in other cases it is generally called
kindliness.  (5) Furthermore I give the name of praise to the pleasure,
with which we conceive the action of another, whereby he has endeavoured
to please us; but of blame to the pain wherewith we feel aversion to his
action.

Prop. [XXX] If anyone has done something which he conceives as
            affecting other men pleasurably, he will be affected
            by pleasure, accompanied by the idea of himself as
            cause; in other words, he will regard himself with
            pleasure. On the other hand, if he has done anything
            which he conceives as affecting others painfully,
            he will regard himself with pain.

Proof.- (30:1) He who conceives, that he affects others with pleasure or 
pain, will, by that very fact, himself be affected with pleasure or pain
([xxvii] ), but, as a man (II:[xix] and II:[xxiii] ) is conscious of
himself through the modifications whereby he is determined to action, it
follows that he who conceives, that he affects others pleasurably, will
be affected with pleasure accompanied by the idea of himself as cause; in
other words, will regard himself with pleasure.  (2) And so mutatis 
mutandis in the case of pain. Q.E.D. 

Note.- (30:3) As love ([xiii] ) is pleasure accompanied by the idea of 
an external cause, and hatred is pain accompanied by the idea of an
external cause; the pleasure and pain in question will be a species of
love and hatred. (4) But, as the terms love and hatred are used in
reference to external objects, we will employ other names for the emotions
now under discussion: pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external
cause (So Van Vloten and Bruder. The Dutch version and Camerer read,
"an internal cause." "Honour" = Gloria.) we will style Honour, and the
emotion contrary thereto we will style Shame: I mean in such cases as
where pleasure or pain arises from a man's belief, that he is being
praised or blamed: otherwise pleasure accompanied by the idea of an
external cause (So Van Vloten and Bruder. The Dutch version and Camerer
read, "an internal cause." is called self-complacency, and its contrary
pain is called repentance.  (30:5) Again, as it may happen (II:[xvii]
Coroll.) that the pleasure, wherewith a man conceives that he affects
others, may exist solely in his own imagination, and as ([xxv] ) everyone
endeavours to conceive concerning himself that which he conceives will
affect him with pleasure, it may easily come to pass that a vain man may
be proud and may imagine that he is pleasing to all, when in reality he
may be an annoyance to all.

Prop. [XXXI] If we conceive that anyone loves, desires, or hates
             anything which we ourselves love, desire, or hate,
             we shall thereupon regard the thing in question with
             more steadfast love, &c. On the contrary, if we think
             that anyone shrinks from something that we love, we
             shall undergo vacillation of soul.

Proof.- (31:1) From the mere fact of conceiving that anyone loves anything 
we shall ourselves love that thing ([xxvii] ): but we are assumed to
love it already; there is, therefore, a new cause of love, whereby our
former emotion is fostered; hence we shall thereupon love it more 
steadfastly. (2) Again, from the mere fact of conceiving that anyone
shrinks from anything, we shall ourselves shrink from that thing 
([xxvii] ).  (3) If we assume that we at the same time love it, we
shall then simultaneously love it and shrink from it; in other words, we
shall be subject to vacillation ([xvii] note).  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (31:4) From the foregoing, and also from II:[xxviii] , it
follows that everyone endeavours, as far as possible, to cause others to
love what he himself loves, and to hate what he himself hates: as the
poet says: " As lovers let us share every hope and every fear:
ironhearted were he who should love what the other leaves." 
(Ovid. Amores, II.xix.4, 5. Spinoza transposes the verses. 
      "Speremus pariter, pariter metuamus amantes;
       Ferreus est, si quis, quod sinit alter, amat.")

Note.- (31:5) This endeavour to bring it about, that our own likes and
dislikes should meet with universal approval, is really ambition (see
[xxix] note) ; wherefore we see that everyone by nature desires
(appetere), that the rest of mankind should live according to his own
individual disposition: when such a desire is equally present in all,
everyone stands in everyone else's way, and in wishing to be loved or
praised by all, all become mutually hateful.

Prop. [XXXII] If we conceive that anyone takes delight in something,
              which only one person can possess, we shall endeavour
              to bring it about that the man in question shall not
              gain possession thereof.

Proof.- (32:1) From the mere fact of our conceiving that another person
takes delight in a thing (II:[xxvii] & Coroll.) we shall ourselves love that
thing and desire to take delight therein.  (2) But we assumed that the
pleasure in question would be prevented by another's delight in its
object; we shall, therefore, endeavour to prevent his possession thereof
([xxviii] ).  Q.E.D.

Note.- (32:3) We thus see that man's nature is generally so constituted,
that he takes pity on those who fare ill, and envies those who fare well
with an amount of hatred proportioned to his own love for the goods in
their possession.  (4) Further, we see that from the same property of
human nature, whence it follows that men are merciful, it follows also
that they are envious and ambitious.  (5) Lastly, if we make appeal to
Experience, we shall find that she entirely confirms what we have said;
more especially if we turn our attention to the first years of our life.
(32:6) We find that children, whose body is continually, as it were, in
equilibrium, laugh or cry simply because they see others laughing or
crying; moreover, they desire forthwith to imitate whatever they see
others doing, and to possess themselves whatever they conceive as
delighting others: inasmuch as the images of things are, as we have said,
modifications of the human body, or modes wherein the human body, is 
affected and disposed by external causes to act in 
this or that manner.

Prop. [XXXIII] When we love a thing similar to ourselves we 
               endeavour, as far as we can, to bring about that
               it should love us in return.

Proof.- (33:1) That which we love we endeavour, as far as we can, to
conceive in preference to anything else ([xii] ).  (2) If the thing
be similar to ourselves, we shall endeavour to affect it pleasurably in
preference to anything else ([xxix] ).  (3) In other words, we shall
endeavour, as far as we can, to bring it about, that the thing should be
affected with pleasure accompanied by the idea of ourselves, that is
([xiii] note), that it should love us in return.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXIV] The greater the emotion with which we conceive a
              loved object to be affected towards us, the greater
              will be our complacency.

Proof.- (34:1) We endeavour ([xxxiii] ), as far as we can, to bring
about, that what we love should love us in return: in other words, that
what we love should be affected with pleasure accompanied by the idea of
ourself as cause.  (2) Therefore, in proportion as the loved object is
more pleasurably affected because of us, our endeavour will be assisted -
that is ([xi] &note) the greater will be our pleasure.  (3) But when
we take pleasure in the fact, that we pleasurably affect something
similar to ourselves, we regard ourselves with pleasure ([xxx] );
therefore the greater the emotion with which we conceive a loved object
to be affected, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXV] If anyone conceives, that an object of his love joins
             itself to another with closer bonds of friendship than
             he himself has attained to, he will be affected with
             hatred towards the loved object and with envy towards
             his rival.

Proof.- (35:1) In proportion as a man thinks, that a loved object is well
affected towards him, will be the strength of his self-approval (by the
last Prop.), that is ([xxx] note), of his pleasure; he will,
therefore ([xxviii] ), endeavour, as far as he can, to imagine the
loved object as most closely bound to him: this endeavour or desire
will be increased, if he thinks that someone else has a similar desire
([xxxi] ).  (2) But this endeavour or desire is assumed to be
checked by the image of the loved object in conjunction with the image
of him whom the loved object has joined to itself ; therefore ([xi]
note) he will for that reason be affected with pain, accompanied by the
idea of the loved object as a cause in conjunction with the image of his
rival; that is, he will be ([xiii] ) affected with hatred towards
the loved object and also towards his rival ([xv] Coroll.), which
latter he will envy as enjoying the beloved object.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (35:3) This hatred towards an object of love joined with envy is
called Jealousy, which accordingly is nothing else but a wavering of the
disposition arising from combined love and hatred, accompanied by the
idea of some rival who is envied.  (4) Further, this hatred towards the
object of love will be greater, in proportion to the pleasure which the
jealous man had been wont to derive from the reciprocated love of the
said object; and also in proportion to the feelings he had previously
entertained towards his rival.  (5) If he had hated him, he will forthwith
hate the object of his love, because he conceives it is pleasurably
affected by one whom he himself hates: and also because he is compelled
to associate the image of his loved one with the image of him whom he
hates.  (35:6) This condition generally comes into play in the case of love 
for a woman: for he who thinks, that a woman whom be loves prostitutes 
herself to another, will feel pain, not only because his own desire is
restrained, but also because, being compelled to associate the image of
her he loves with the parts of shame and the excreta of another, he
therefore shrinks from her.

(35:7) We must add, that a jealous man is not greeted by his beloved with
the same joyful countenance as before, and this also gives him pain as
a lover, as I will now show.

Prop. [XXXVI] He who remembers a thing, in which he has once
              taken delight, desires to possess it under the
              same circumstances as when he first took delight
              therein.

Proof.- (36:1) Everything, which a man has seen in conjunction with the
object of his love, will be to him accidentally a cause of pleasure
([xv] ); he will, therefore, desire to possess it, in conjunction
with that wherein he has taken delight; in other words, he will desire
to possess the object of his love under the same circumstances as when
he first took delight therein.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (36:2) A lover will, therefore, feel pain if one of the
aforesaid attendant circumstances be missing.

Proof.- (36:3) For, in so far as he finds some circumstance to be missing, 
he conceives something which excludes its existence.  (4) As he is assumed
to be desirous for love's sake of that thing or circumstance (by, the last
Prop.), he will, in so far as he conceives it to be missing, feel pain
([xix] ).  Q.E.D.

Note. (36:5) This pain, in so far as it has reference to the absence of
the object of love, is called Regret.

Prop. [XXXVII] Desire arising through pain or pleasure, hatred
               or love, is greater in proportion as the emotion
               is greater.

Proof. - (37:1) Pain diminishes or constrains man's power of activity
([xi] note), in other words ([vii] ), diminishes or constrains
the effort, wherewith he endeavours to persist in his own being;
therefore ([v] ) it is contrary to the said endeavour: thus all
the endeavours of a man affected by pain are directed to removing that
pain.  (2) But (by the definition of pain), in proportion as the pain
is greater, so also is it necessarily opposed to a greater part of man's
power of activity; therefore the greater the pain, the greater the power
of activity employed to remove it; that is, the greater will be the
desire or appetite in endeavouring to remove it.  (3) Again, since
pleasure ([xi] note) increases or aids a man's power of activity
it may easily be shown in like manner, that a man affected by pleasure
has no desire further than to preserve it, and his desire will be in
proportion to the magnitude of the pleasure.

(37:4) Lastly, since hatred and love are themselves emotions of pain and
pleasure, it follows in like manner that the endeavour, appetite, or
desire, which arises through hatred or love, will be greater in
proportion to the hatred or love.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXVIII] If a man has begun to hate an object of his love,
                so that love is thoroughly destroyed, he will,
                causes being equal, regard it with more hatred
                than if he had never loved it, and his hatred
                will be in proportion to the strength of his
                former love.

Proof.- (38:1) If a man begins to hate that which he had loved, more of
his appetites are put under restraint than if he had never loved it.
(2) For love is a pleasure ([xiii] note) which a man endeavours as
far as he can to render permanent ([xxviii] ) ; he does so by
regarding the object of his love as present, and by affecting it as far
as he can pleasurably; this endeavour is greater in proportion as the
love is greater, and so also is the endeavour to bring about that the
beloved should return his affection ([xxxiii] ).  (38:3) Now these
endeavours are constrained by hatred towards the object of love
([xiii] Coroll. and [xxiii] ); wherefore the lover ([xi] note)
will for this cause also be affected with pain, the more so in proportion
as his love has been greater; that is, in addition to the pain caused by
hatred, there is a pain caused by the fact that he has loved the object;
wherefore the lover will regard the beloved with greater pain, or in
other words, will hate it more than if he had never loved it, and with
the more intensity in proportion as his former love was greater.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXIX] He who hates anyone will endeavour to do him an
              injury, unless he fears that a greater injury will
              thereby accrue to himself; on the other hand, he
              who loves anyone will, by the same law, seek to
              benefit him.

Proof.- (39:1) To hate a man is ([xiii] note) to conceive him as a
cause of pain; therefore he who hates a man will endeavour to remove or
destroy him.  (2) But if anything more painful, or, in other words, a
greater evil, should accrue to the hater thereby and if the hater thinks
he can avoid such evil by not carrying out the injury, which he planned
against the object of his hate he will desire to abstain from inflicting
that injury ([xxviii] ), and the strength of his endeavour
([xxxvii] ) will be greater than his former endeavour to do injury,
and will therefore prevail over it, as we asserted. (39:3) The second part
of this proof proceeds in the same manner. Wherefore he who hates another, 
etc.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (39:4) By good I here mean every kind of pleasure, and all that
conduces thereto, especially that which satisfies our longings,
whatsoever they may be.  (5) By evil, I mean every kind of pain,
especially that which frustrates our longings.  (6) For I have shown
([ix] note) that we in no case desire a thing because we deem it
good, but, contrariwise, we deem a thing good because we desire it:
consequently we deem evil that which we shrink from; everyone,
therefore, according to his particular emotions, judges or estimates
what is god, what is bad, what is better, what is worse, lastly, what
is best, and what is worst.  (7) Thus a miser thinks that abundance
of money is the best, and want of money the worst; an ambitious man
desires nothing so much as glory, and fears nothing so much as shame.
(39:8) To an envious man nothing is more delightful than another's
misfortune, and nothing more painful than another's success.  (9) So
every man, according to his emotions, judges a thing to be good or bad,
useful or useless.  (10) The emotion, which induces a man to turn from
that which he wishes, or to wish for that which he turns from, is called
timidity, which may accordingly be defined as the fear whereby a man is
induced to avoid an evil which he regards as future by encountering a
lesser evil ([xxviii] ).  (11) But if the evil which he fears be shame,
timidity becomes bashfulness.  (39:12) Lastly, if the desire to avoid a
future evil be checked by the fear of another evil, so that the man
knows not which to choose, fear becomes consternation, especially if
both the evils feared be very great.

Prop. [XL] He, who conceives himself to be hated by another,
           and believes that he has given him no cause for
           hatred, will hate that other in return.

Proof.- (40:1) He who conceives another as affected with hatred, will
thereupon be affected himself with hatred ([xxvii] ), that is,
with pain, accompanied by the idea of an external cause.  (2) But,
by the hypothesis, he conceives no cause for this pain except him
who is his enemy; therefore, from conceiving that he is hated by
some one, he will be affected with pain, accompanied by the idea
of his enemy; in other words, he will hate his enemy in return.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (40:3) He who thinks that he has given just cause for hatred will
([xxx] & note) be affected with shame; but this case ([xxv] )
rarely happens.  (4) This reciprocation of hatred may also arise from
the hatred, which follows an endeavour to injure the object of our hate
([xxxix] ).  (5) He therefore who conceives that he is hated by
another will conceive his enemy as the cause of some evil or pain; thus
he will be affected with pain or fear, accompanied by the idea of his
enemy as cause; in other words, he will be affected with hatred towards
his enemy, as I said above.

Corollary I.- (40:6) He who conceives, that one whom he loves hates him,
will be a prey to conflicting hatred and love.  (7) For, in so far as he
conceives that he is an object of hatred, he is determined to hate his
enemy in return.  (8) But, by the hypothesis, he nevertheless loves him:
wherefore he will be a prey to conflicting hatred and love. 

Corollary II.- (40:9) If a man conceives that one, whom he has hitherto
regarded without emotion, has done him any injury from motives of hatred,
he will forthwith seek to repay the injury in kind.

Proof.- (40:10) He who conceives, that another hates him, will (by the
last proposition) hate his enemy in return, and ([xxvi] ) will
endeavour to recall everything which can affect him painfully; he will
moreover endeavour to do him an injury ([xxxix] ).  (11) Now the
first thing of this sort which he conceives is the injury done to
himself; he will, therefore, forthwith endeavour to repay it in kind.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (40:12) The endeavour to injure one whom we hate is called Anger;
the endeavour to repay in kind injury done to ourselves is called Revenge.

Prop. [XLI] If anyone conceives that he is loved by another, and
            believes that he has given no cause for such love,
            he will love that other in return.
            (Cf. [xv] Coroll., and [xvi] )

Proof.- (41:1) This proposition is proved in the same way as the
preceding one.  (1a) See also the note appended thereto.

Note.- (41:2) If he believes that he has given just cause for the love
he will take pride therein ([xxx] & note) ; this is what most often
happens ([xxv] ), and we said that its contrary took place whenever
a man conceives himself to be hated by another.  (3) (See note to
preceding proposition.)  (4) This reciprocal love, and consequently the
desire of benefitting him who loves us ([xxxix] ), and who endeavours
to benefit us, is called gratitude or thankfulness.  (5) It thus appears
that men are much more prone to take vengeance than to return benefits.

Corollary.- (41:6) He who imagines, that he is loved by one whom he hates,
will be a prey to conflicting hatred and love.  (7) This is proved in the
same way as the first corollary of the preceding proposition.

Note.-(41:8) If hatred be the prevailing emotion, he will endeavour to
injure him who loves him; this emotion is called cruelty, especially if
the victim be believed to have given no ordinary cause for hatred.

Prop. [XLII] He who has conferred a benefit on anyone from
             motives of love or honour will feel pain, if he
             sees that the benefit is received without gratitude. 

Proof.- (42:1) When a man loves something similar to himself, he
endeavours, as far as he can, to bring it about that he should be
loved thereby in return ([xxxiii] ). (2) Therefore he who has
conferred a benefit confers it in obedience to the desire, which he
feels of being loved in return; that is ([xxxiv] ) from the
hope of honour or ([xxx] note) pleasure; hence he will endeavour,
as far as he can, to conceive this cause of honour, or to regard it
as actually existing.  (42:3) But, by the hypothesis, he conceives
something else, which excludes the existence of the said cause of
honour: wherefore he will thereat feel pain ([ix] ).  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLIII] Hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can
              on the other hand be destroyed by love.

Proof.- (43:1) He who conceives, that an object of his hate hates him in
return, will thereupon feel a new hatred, while the former hatred (by
hypothesis) still remains ([xl] ).  (2) But if, on the other hand,
he conceives that the object of hate loves him, he will to this extent
([xxxviii] ) regard himself with pleasure, and ([xxix] ) will
endeavour to please the cause of his emotion.  (3) In other words, he
will endeavour not to hate him ([xli] ), and not to affect him
painfully; this endeavour ([xxxvii] ) will be greater or less in
proportion to the emotion from which it arises.  (43:4) Therefore, if it
be greater than that which arises from hatred, and through which the man
endeavours to affect painfully the thing which he hates, it will get the
better of it and banish the hatred from his mind.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLIV] Hatred which is completely vanquished by love
             passes into love: and love is thereupon greater
             than if hatred had not preceded it.
Proof.- (44:1) The proof proceeds in the same way as ([xxxviii] )
for he who begins to love a thing, which he was wont to hate or regard
with pain, from the very fact of loving, feels pleasure.  (2) To this
pleasure involved in love is added the pleasure arising, from aid given
to the endeavour to remove the pain involved in hatred ([xxxvii] ),
accompanied by the idea of the former object of hatred as cause.

Note.- (44:3) Though this be so, no one will endeavour to hate anything,
or to be affected with pain, for the sake of enjoying this greater
pleasure; that is, no one will desire that he should be injured, in
the hope of recovering from the injury, nor long to be ill for the
sake of getting well. (4) For everyone will always endeavour to
persist in his being, and to ward off pain as far as he can. (5) If
the contrary is conceivable, namely, that a man should desire to hate
someone, in order that he might love him the more thereafter, he will
always desire to hate him. (44:6) For the strength of the love is 
proportion to the strength of the hatred, wherefore the man would
desire, that the hatred be continually increased more and more, and,
for a similar reason, he would desire to become more and more ill,
in order that he might take a greater pleasure in being restored to
health: in such a case he would always endeavour to be ill, which
([vi] ) is absurd.

Prop. [XLV] If a man conceives, that anyone similar to himself
            hates anything also similar to himself, which he
            loves, he will hate that person.

Proof.- (45:1) The beloved object feels reciprocal hatred twards him who
hates it ([xl] ); therefore the lover, in conceiving that anyone hates
the beloved object, conceives the beloved thing as affected by hatred, in
other words ([xiii] ), by pain; consequently he is himself affected by
pain accompanied by the idea of the hater of the beloved thing as cause;
that is, he will hate him who hates anything which he himself loves
([xiii] note).  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLVI] If a man has been affected pleasurably or painfully
             by anyone, of a class or nation different front his
             own, and if the pleasure or pain has been accompanied
             by the idea of the said stranger as cause, under the
             general category of the class or nation: the man will
             feel love or hatred, not only to the individual
             stranger, but also to the whole class or nation whereto
             he belongs.

Proof.- (46:1) This is evident from [xvi] .

Prop. [XLVII] Joy arising from the fact, that anything we hate
              is destroyed, or suffers other injury, is never
              unaccompanied by a certain pain in us.

Proof.- (47:1) This is evident from [xxvii] .  (2) For in so far
as we conceive a thing similar to ourselves to be affected with pain,
we ourselves feel pain.

Note.- (47:3) This proposition can also be proved from the Corollary to
II:[xvii] . (4) Whenever we remember anything, even if it does not actually,
exist, we regard it only as present, and the body is affected in the same
manner; wherefore, in so far as the remembrance of the thing is strong,
a man is determined to regard it with pain; this determination, while the
image of the thing in question lasts, is indeed checked by the remembrance
of other things excluding the existence of the aforesaid thing, but is not
destroyed: hence, a man only feels pleasure in so far as the said
determination is checked: for this reason the joy arising from the injury
done to what we hate is repeated, every time we remember that object of
hatred.  (47:5) For, as we have said, when the image of the thing in
question is aroused, inasmuch as it involves the thing's existence, it
determines the man to regard the thing with the same pain as he was wont
to do, when it actually did exist.  (6) However, since he has joined to the
image of the thing other images, which exclude its existence, this
determination to pain is forthwith checked, and the man rejoices afresh as
often as the repetition takes place.  (7) This is the cause of men's
pleasure in recalling past evils, and delight in narrating dangers from
which they have escaped.  (47:8) For when men conceive a danger, they
conceive it as still future, and are determined to fear it; this
determination is checked afresh by the idea of freedom, which became
associated with the idea of the danger when they escaped therefrom: this
renders them secure afresh: therefore they, rejoice afresh.

Prop. [XLVIII] Love or hatred towards, for instance, Peter is
               destroyed, if the pleasure involved in the former,
               or the pain involved in the latter emotion, be
               associated with the idea of another cause: and will
               be diminished in proportion as we conceive Peter 
               to have been the sole cause of either emotion.

Proof.- (48:1) This Prop. is evident from the mere definition of love and
hatred ([xiii] note).  (2) For pleasure is called love towards Peter,
and pain is called hatred towards Peter, simply in so far as Peter is
regarded as the cause of one emotion or the other.  (3) When this condition
of causality is either wholly or partly removed, the emotion towards Peter
also wholly or in part vanishes.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLIX] Love or hatred towards a thing, which we conceive
             to be free, must, other conditions being similar,
             be greater than if it were felt towards a thing
             acting by necessity.

Proof.- (49:1) A thing which we conceive as free must (I:[D.vii] ) be
perceived through itself without anything else. (2) If, therefore, we
conceive it as the cause of pleasure or pain, we shall therefore
([xiii] note) love it or hate it, and shall do so with the utmost
love or hatred that can arise from the given emotion. (49:3) But if the
thing which causes the emotion be conceived as acting by necessity, we
shall then (by the same I:[D.vii] ) conceive it not as the sole cause, but
as one of the causes of the emotion, and therefore our love or hatred
towards it will be less.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (49:4) Hence it follows, that men, thinking themselves to be free,
feel more love or hatred towards one another than towards anything else:
to this consideration we must add the imitation of emotions treated of
in [xxvii] , [xxxiv] , [xl] , and [xliii] .

Prop. [L] Anything whatever can be, accidentally,
          a cause of hope or fear.

Proof.- (50:1) This proposition is proved in the same way as [xv] ,
which see, together with [xviii] note.

Note.- (50:2) Things which are accidentally the causes of hope or fear
are called good or evil omens.  (3) Now, in so far as such omens are the
cause of hope or fear, they are (by the definitions of hope and fear
given in [xviii] note) the causes also of pleasure and pain;
consequently we, to this extent, regard them with love or hatred, and
endeavour either to invoke them as means towards that which we hope for,
or to remove them as obstacles, or causes of that which we fear.  (4) It
follows, further, from [xxv] , that we are naturally so constituted
as to believe readily in that which we hope for, and with difficulty
in that which we fear; moreover, we are apt to estimate such objects
above or below their true value.  (50:5) Hence there have arisen 
superstitions, whereby men are everywhere assailed.  (6) However, I do
not think it worth while to point out here the vacillations springing
from hope and fear; it follows from the definition of these emotions,
that there can be no hope without fear, and no fear without hope, as I
will duly explain in the proper place.  (50:7) Further, in so far as we
hope for or fear anything, we regard it with love or hatred; thus
everyone can apply by himself to hope and fear what we have said
concerning love and hatred.

Prop. [LI] Different men may be differently affected by the same
           object, and the same man may be differently affected
           at different times by the same object.

Proof.- (51:1) The human body is affected by external bodies in a variety
of ways (II:[Po.iii] ).  (2) Two men may therefore be differently affected
at the same time, and therefore (by II:[A.viii] ) may be differently
affected by one and the same object.  (3) Further (by (II:[Po.iii] )the
human body can be affected sometimes in one way, sometimes in another;
consequently (by (II:[A.viii] ) it may be differently affected at different
times by one and the same object.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (51:4) We thus see that it is possible, that what one man loves
another may hate, and that what one man fears another may not fear; or,
again, that one and the same man may love what he once hated, or may be
bold where he once was timid, and so on.  (5) Again, as everyone judges
according to his emotions what is good, what bad, what better, and what
worse ([xxxix] note), it follows that men's judgments may vary no
less than their emotions, (This is possible, though the human mind 
part of the divine intellect, as I have shown in II:[xiii] note.) , hence
when we compare some with others, we distinguish them solely by the
diversity of their emotions, and style some intrepid, others timid,
others by some other epithet.  (51:6) For instance, I shall call a man
intrepid, if he despises an evil which I am accustomed to fear; if I
further take into consideration, that, in his desire to injure his
enemies and to benefit those whom he loves, he is not restrained by the
fear of an evil which is sufficient to restrain me, I shall call him
daring.  (51:7) Again, a man will appear timid to me, if he fears an evil
which I am accustomed to despise; and if I further take into consideration
that his desire is restrained by the fear of an evil, which is not
sufficient to restrain me, I shall say that he is cowardly; and in like
manner will everyone pass judgment.

(51:8) Lastly, from this inconstancy in the nature of human judgment,
inasmuch as a man often judges of things solely by his emotions, and
inasmuch as the things which he believes cause pleasure or pain, and
therefore endeavours to promote or prevent, are often purely imaginary,
not to speak of the uncertainty of things alluded to in [xxviii] ;
we may readily conceive that a man may be at one time affected with
pleasure, and at another with pain, accompanied by the idea of himself
as cause.  (51:9) Thus we can easily understand what are Repentance and
Self-complacency.  (10) Repentance is pain, accompanied by the idea of
one's self as cause; Self- complacency is pleasure accompanied by the
idea of one's self as cause, and these emotions are most intense because
men believe themselves to be free ([xlix] ).

Prop. [LII] An object which we have formerly seen in conjunction
            with others, and which we do not conceive to have any
            property that is not common to many, will not be
            regarded by us for so long, as an object which we
            conceive to have some property peculiar to itself.

Proof.- (52:1) As soon as we conceive an object which we have seen in
conjunction with others, we at once remember those others ([xviii]
&Note), and thus we pass forthwith from the contemplation of one object
to the contemplation of another object.  (2) And this is the case with
the object, which we conceive to have no property that is not common
to many.  (3) For we thereupon assume that we are regarding therein
nothing, which we have not before seen in conjunction with other objects.
(52:4) But when we suppose that we conceive in an object something
special, which we have never seen before, we must needs say that the
mind, while regarding that object, has in itself nothing which it can
fall to regarding instead thereof; therefore it is determined to the
contemplation of that object only. (5) Therefore an object, &c.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (52:6) This mental modification, or imagination of a particular
thing, in so far as it is alone in the mind, is called Wonder; but if
it be excited by an object of fear, it is called Consternation, because
wonder at an evil keeps a man so engrossed in the simple contemplation
thereof, that he has no power to think of anything else whereby he might
avoid the evil.  (52:7) If, however, the object of wonder be a man's
prudence, industry, or anything of that sort, inasmuch as the said
man is thereby regarded as far surpassing ourselves, wonder is called
Veneration; otherwise, if a man's anger, envy, &c., be what we wonder at,
the emotion is called Horror.  (52:8) Again, if it be the prudence,
industry, or what not, of a man we love, that we wonder at, our love
will on this account be the greater ([xii] ), and when joined to
wonder or veneration is called Devotion.  (9) We may in like manner
conceive hatred, hope, confidence, and the other emotions, as associated
with wonder; and we should thus be able to deduce more emotions than
those which have obtained names in ordinary, speech.  (52:10) Whence it
is evident, that the names of the emotions have been applied in accordance
rather with their ordinary manifestations than with an accurate knowledge
of their nature.

(52:11) To wonder is opposed to Contempt, which generally arises from
the fact that, because we see someone wondering at, loving, or fearing
something, or because something, at first sight, appears to be like
things, which we ourselves wonder at, love, fear, &c., we are, in
consequence ([xv] Coroll. and [xxvii] ), determined to wonder
at, love, or fear that thing.  (52:12) But if from the presence, or more
accurate contemplation of the said thing, we are compelled to deny
concerning it all that. can be the cause of wonder, love, fear, &c.,
the mind then, by, the presence of the thing, remains determined to
think rather of those qualities which are not in it, than of those
which are in it; whereas, on the other hand, the presence of the object
would cause it more particularly to regard that which is therein.
(52:13) As devotion springs from wonder at a thing which we love, so
does Derision spring from contempt of a thing which we hate or fear,
and Scorn from contempt of folly, as veneration from wonder at prudence.
(14) Lastly, we can conceive the emotions of love, hope, honour, &c.,
in association with contempt, and can thence deduce other emotions,
which are not distinguished one from another by any recognized name.

Prop. [LIII] When the mind regards itself and its own power of
             activity, it feels pleasure: and that pleasure is
             greater in proportion to the distinctness wherewith
             it conceives itself and its own power of activity.
 
Proof.- (53:1) A man does not know himself except through the
modifications of his body, and the ideas thereof (II:[xix] , and
II:[xiii] ).  (2) When, therefore, the mind is able to contemplate itself,
it is thereby assumed to pass to a greater perfection, or ([xi] note)
to feel pleasure; and the pleasure will be greater in proportion to the
distinctness, wherewith it is able to conceive itself and its own power
of activity.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (53:3) This pleasure is fostered more and more, in proportion
as a man conceives himself to be praised by others.  (4) For the more he
conceives himself as praised by others, the more will he imagine them to
be affected with pleasure, accompanied by the idea of himself ([xxix]
note); thus he is ([xxvii] ) himself affected with greater pleasure, 
accompanied by the idea of himself.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [LIV] The mind endeavours to conceive only such
            things as assert its power of activity.

Proof.- (54:1) The endeavour or power of the mind is the actual essence
thereof ([vii] ); but the essence of the mind obviously only affirms
that which the mind is and can do; not that which it neither is nor can
do; therefore the mind endeavours to conceive only such things as assert
or affirm its power of activity.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [LV] When the mind contemplates its own
           weakness, it feels pain thereat.

Proof.- (55:1) The essence of the mind only affirms that which the mind
is, or can do; in other words, it is the mind's nature to conceive only
such things as assert its power of activity (last Prop.).  (2) Thus,
when we say that the mind contemplates its own weakness, we are merely
saying that while the mind is attempting to conceive something which
asserts its power of activity, it is checked in its endeavour - in other
words ([xi] note), it feels pain.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.-(55:3) This pain is more and more fostered, if a man conceives
that he is blamed by others; this may be proved in the same way as
[liii] Coroll.

Note.- (55:4) This pain, accompanied by the idea of our own weakness, is
called humility; the pleasure, which springs from the contemplation of
ourselves, is called self-love or self-complacency.  (5) And inasmuch
as this feeling is renewed as often as a man contemplates his own
virtues, or his own power of activity, it follows that everyone is
fond of narrating his own exploits, and displaying the force both of
his body and mind, and also that, for this reason, men are troublesome
one to another. (55:6) Again, it follows that men are naturally envious
([xxiv] note, and [xxxii] note), rejoicing in the shortcomings
of their equals, and feeling pain at their virtues.  (7) For whenever
a man conceives his own actions, he is affected with pleasure ([liii] ),
in proportion as his actions display more perfection, and he conceives
them more distinctly - that is (II:[xl] note), in proportion as he can
distinguish them from others, and regard them as something special.
(55:8) Therefore, a man will take most pleasure in contemplating himself,
when he contemplates some quality which he denies to others.  (9) But,
if that which he affirms of himself be attributable to the idea of man
or animals in general, he will not be so greatly pleased: he will, on
the contrary, feel pain, if he conceives that his own actions fall short
when compared with those of others.  (10) This pain ([xxviii] ) he will
endeavour to remove, by putting a wrong construction on the actions of
his equals, or by, as far as he can, embellishing his own.

(55:11) It is thus apparent that men are naturally prone to hatred and envy,
which latter is fostered by their education.  (12) For parents are
accustomed to incite their children to virtue solely by the spur of
honour and envy.  (13) But, perhaps, some will scruple to assent to what
I have said, because we not seldom admire men's virtues, and venerate
their possessors.  (14) In order to remove such doubts, I append the
following corollary.

Corollary.- (55:15) No one envies the virtue of anyone who is not his
equal.

Proof - (55:16) Envy is a species of hatred ([xxiv] note) or
([xiii] note) pain, that is ([xi] note), a modification whereby
a man's power of activity, or endeavour towards activity, is checked.
(17) But a man does not endeavour or desire to do anything, which cannot
follow from his nature as it is given; therefore a man will not desire
any power of activity or virtue (which is the same thing) to be attributed
to him, that is appropriate to another's nature and foreign to his own;
hence his desire cannot be checked, nor he himself pained by the
contemplation of virtue in some one unlike himself, consequently he
cannot envy such an one. (55:18) But he can envy his equal, who is assumed
to have the same nature as himself.  Q.E.D. 

Note.- (55:19) When, therefore, as we said in the note to [lii] ,
we venerate a man, through wonder at his prudence, fortitude, &c.,
we do so, because we conceive those qualities to be peculiar to him,
and not as common to our nature; we, therefore, no more envy their
possessor, than we envy trees for being tall, or lions for being
courageous.

Prop. [LVI] There are as many kinds of pleasure, of pain, of
            desire, and of every emotion compounded of these,
            such as vacillations of spirit, or derived from
            these, such as love, hatred, hope, fear, &c., 
            there are kinds of objects whereby we are affected.

Proof.- (56:1) Pleasure and pain, and consequently the emotions compounded
thereof, or derived therefrom, are passions, or passive states (III.[xi]
note); now we are necessarily passive (III.[i] ), in so far as we have
inadequate ideas; and only in so far as we have such ideas are we passive
([iii] ); that is, we are only necessarily passive (II:[xl] note), in
so far as we conceive, or ([xvii] &note) in so far as we are affected
by an emotion, which involves the nature of our own body, and the nature
of an external body.  (2) Wherefore the nature of every passive state must
necessarily be so explained, that the nature of the object whereby we are
affected be expressed.  (56:3) Namely, the pleasure, which arises from,
say, the object A, involves the nature of that object A, and the pleasure,
which arises from the object B, involves the nature of the object B;
wherefore these two pleasurable emotions are by nature different, inasmuch
as the causes whence they arise are by nature different.  (4) So again the
emotion of pain, which arises from one object, is by nature different from
the pain arising from another object, and, similarly, in the case of love,
hatred, hope, fear, vacillation, &c.

(56:5) Thus, there are necessarily as many kinds of pleasure, pain, love,
hatred, &c., as there are kinds of objects whereby we are affected.
(6) Now desire is each man's essence or nature, in so far as it is
conceived as determined to a particular action by any given modification
of itself ([ix] note); therefore, according as a man is affected
through external causes by this or that kind of pleasure, pain, love,
hatred, &c., in other words, according as his nature is disposed in
this or that manner, so will his desire be of one kind or another, and
the nature of one desire must necessarily differ from the nature of
another desire, as widely as the emotions differ, wherefrom each desire
arose. (56:7) Thus there are as many kinds of desire, as there are 
kinds of pleasure, pain, love, &c., consequently (by what has been shown) 
there are as many kinds of desire, as there are kinds of objects whereby
we are affected.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (56:8) Among the kinds of emotions, which, by the last proposition,
must be very numerous, the chief are luxury, drunkenness, lust, avarice,
and ambition, being merely species of love or desire, displaying the
nature of those emotions in a manner varying according to the object,
with which they are concerned.  (9) For by luxury, drunkenness, lust,
avarice, ambition, &c., we simply mean the immoderate love of feasting,
drinking, venery, riches, and fame.  (56:10 )Furthermore, these emotions,
in so far as we distinguish them from others merely by the objects
wherewith they are concerned, have no contraries.  (11) For temperance,
sobriety, and chastity, which we are wont to oppose to luxury,
drunkenness, and lust, are not emotions or passive states, but indicate
a power of the mind which moderates the last-named emotions.  (12) However,
I cannot here explain the remaining kinds of emotions (seeing that they
are as numerous as the kinds of objects), nor, if I could, would it be 
necessary.  (56:13) It is sufficient for our purpose, namely, to determine
the strength of the emotions, and the mind's power over them, to have a
general definition of each emotion.  (14) It is sufficient, I repeat, to
understand the general properties of the emotions and the mind, to enable
us to determine the quality and extent of the mind's power in moderating
and checking the emotions.  (56:15) Thus, though there is a great
difference between various emotions of love, hatred, or desire, for
instance between love felt towards children, and love felt towards a
wife, there is no need for us to take cognizance of such differences,
or to track out further the nature and origin of the emotions.

Prop. [LVII] Any emotion of a given individual differs from the
             emotion of another individual, only in so far as the
             essence of the one individual differs from the essence
             of the other.

Proof.- (57:1) This proposition is evident from II:[A.viii] .
(2) Nevertheless, we will prove it from the nature of the three primary
emotions.

(3) All emotions are attributable to desire, pleasure, or pain,
as their definitions above given show.  (4) But desire is each man's
nature or essence ([ix] note); therefore desire in one individual differs 
from desire in another individual, only in so far as the nature or essence
of the one differs from the nature or essence of the other.  (5) Again,
pleasure and pain are passive states or passions, whereby every man's power
or endeavour to persist in his being is increased or diminished, helped or
hindered ([xi] & note).  (57:6) But by the endeavour to persist in its 
being, in so far as it is attributable to mind and body in conjunction, we 
mean appetite and desire (III.[ix] note); therefore pleasure and pain are
identical with desire or appetite, in so far as by external causes they
are increased or diminished, helped or hindered, in other words, they
are every man's nature; wherefore the pleasure and pain felt by one man
differ from the pleasure and pain felt by another man, only in so far as
the nature or essence of the one man differs from the essence of the
other; consequently, any emotion of one individual only differs, &c.
Q.E.D. 

Note.- (57:7) Hence it follows, that the emotions of the animals which
are called irrational (for after learning the origin of mind we cannot
doubt that brutes feel) only differ from man's emotions, to the extent
that brute nature differs from human nature.  (8) Horse and man are alike
carried away by the desire of procreation; but the desire of the former
is equine, the desire of the latter is human.  (9) So also the lusts and
appetites of insects, fishes, and birds must needs vary according to the
several natures. (57:10) Thus, although each individual lives content and
rejoices in that nature belonging to him wherein he has his being, yet
the life, wherein each is content and rejoices, is nothing else but the
idea, or soul, of the said individual, and hence the joy of one only
differs in nature from the joy of another, to the extent that the essence
of one differs from the essence of another. (57:11) Lastly, it follows from
the foregoing proposition, that there is no small difference between the
joy which actuates, say, a drunkard, and the joy possessed by a
philosopher, as I just mention here by the way. (12) Thus far I have
treated of the emotions attributable to man, in so far as he is passive.
(57:13) It remains to add a few words on those attributable to him in
so far as he is active.

Prop. [LVIII] Besides pleasure and desire, which are passivities
              or passions, there are other emotions derived from
              pleasure and desire, which are attributable to us
              in so far as we are active.

Proof.- (58:1) When the mind conceives itself and its power of activity,
it feels pleasure ([liii] ): now the mind necessarily contemplates
itself, when it conceives a true or adequate idea (II:[xliii] ). (2) But the
mind does conceive certain adequate ideas (II:[xl] note 2). (3) Therefore,
it feels pleasure in so far as it conceives adequate ideas; that is, in
so far as it is active ([i] ).  (58:4) Again, the mind, both in so
far as it has clear and distinct ideas, and in so far as it has confused
ideas, endeavours to persist in its own being ([ix] ); but by such
an endeavour we mean desire (by the note to the same Prop.); therefore,
desire is also attributable to us, in so far as we understand, or
([i] ) in so far as we are active.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [LIX] Among all the emotions attributable to the mind as
            active, there are none which cannot be referred to
            pleasure or desire.

Proof.- (59:1) All emotions can be referred to desire, pleasure, or pain,
as their definitions, already given, show.  (2) Now by pain we mean that
the mind's power of thinking is diminished or checked ([xi] &note);
therefore, in so far as the mind feels pain, its power of understanding,
that is, of activity, is diminished or checked ([i] ); therefore, no
painful emotions can be attributed to the mind in virtue of its being
active, but only emotions of pleasure and desire, which (by the last Prop.)
are attributable to the mind in that condition.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (59:3) All actions following from emotion, which are attributable
to the mind in virtue of its understanding, I set down to strength of
character (fortitudo), which I divide into courage (animositas) and
highmindedness (generositas).  (4) By courage I mean the desire whereby
every man strives to preserve his own being in accordance solely with
the dictates of reason.  (5) By highmindedness I mean the desire whereby
every man endeavours, solely under the dictates of reason, to aid men
and to unite them to himself in friendship.  (59:6) Those actions, 
therefore, which have regard solely to the good of the agent I set clown
to courage, those which aim at the good of others I set down to
highmindedness.  (7) Thus temperance, sobriety, and presence of mind in
danger, &c., are varieties of courage; courtesy, mercy, &c., are varieties
of highmindedness.  (8) I think I have thus explained, and displayed
through their primary causes the principal emotions and vacillations of
spirit, which arise from the combination of the three primary emotions,
to wit, desire, pleasure, and pain.  (59:9) It is evident from what I
have said, that we are in many ways driven about by external causes,
and that like waves of the sea driven by contrary winds we toss to and
fro unwitting of the issue and of our fate.  (10) But I have said, that
I have only set forth the chief conflicting emotions, not all that might
be given.  (11) For, by proceeding in the same way as above, we can
easily show that love is united to repentance, scorn, shame, &c. 
(59:12) I think everyone will agree from what has been said, that the
emotions may be compounded one with another in so many ways, and so many
variations may arise therefrom, as to exceed all possibility of
computation.  (13) However, for my purpose, it is enough to have
enumerated the most important; to reckon up the rest which I have
omitted would be more curious than profitable.  (14) It remains to remark
concerning love, that it very often happens that while we are enjoying a
thing which we longed for, the body, from the act of enjoyment, acquires
a new disposition, whereby it is determined in another way, other images
of things are aroused in it, and the mind begins to conceive and desire
something fresh. (59:15) For example, when we conceive something which
generally delights us with its flavour, we desire to enjoy, that is, to
eat it.  (16) But whilst we are thus enjoying, it, the stomach is filled
and the body is otherwise disposed.  (17) If, therefore, when the body is
thus otherwise disposed, the image of the food which is present be
stimulated, and consequently the endeavour or desire to eat it be
stimulated also, the new disposition of the body will feel repugnance to
the desire or attempt, and consequently the presence of the food which we
formerly longed for will become odious.  (18) This revulsion of feeling
is called satiety or weariness.  (59:19) For the rest, I have neglected
the outward modifications of the body observable in emotions, such, for
instance, as trembling, pallor, sobbing, laughter, &c., for these are
attributable to the body only, without any reference to the mind.
59:(20) Lastly, the definitions of the emotions require to be supplemented
in a few points; I will therefore repeat them, interpolating such
observations as I think should here and there be added.

____________________________________________________________________________

[DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS]
[DE.I] Desire is the actual essence of man, in so far as it is
       conceived, as determined to a particular activity by some
       given modification of itself.

Explanation.- (E1:1) We have said above, in the note to II:[ix] of this
part, that desire is appetite, with consciousness thereof; further,
that appetite is the essence of man, in so far as it is determined
to act in a way tending to promote its own persistence.  (2) But, in
the same note, I also remarked that strictly speaking, I recognize no
distinction between appetite and desire. (3) For whether a man be
conscious of his appetite or not, it remains one and the same appetite. 
(E1:4) Thus, in order to avoid the appearance of tautology, I have
refrained from explaining desire by appetite; but I have taken care
to define it in such a manner, as to, comprehend, under one head, all
those endeavours of human nature, which we distinguish by the terms
appetite, will, desire, or impulse.  (5) I might, indeed, have said, that 
desire is the essence of man, in so far as it is conceived as determined
to a particular activity; but from such a definition (cf. II:[xxiii] ) it
would not follow that the mind can be conscious of its desire or appetite.
(E1:6) Therefore, in order to imply the cause of such consciousness, it
was necessary to add, in so far as it is determined by some given
modification, &c.  (7) For, by a modification of man's essence, we
understand every disposition of the said essence, whether such disposition 
be innate, or whether it be conceived solely under the attribute of
thought, or solely under the attribute of extension, or whether, lastly,
it be referred simultaneously to both these attributes.  (E1:8) By the
term desire, then, I here mean all man's endeavours, impulses, appetites,
and volitions, which vary according to each man's disposition, and are,
therefore, not seldom opposed one to another, according as a man is drawn
in different directions, and knows not where to turn.

[De.II] Pleasure is the transition of a man from a
        less to a greater perfection.

[De.III] Pain is the transition of a man from a
         greater to less perfection.

Explanation.- (E3:1) I say transition: for pleasure is not perfection
itself.  (2) For, if man were born with the perfection to which he passes,
he would possess the same, without the emotion of pleasure.  (3) This
appears more clearly from the consideration of the contrary emotion, pain.
(E3:4) No one can deny, that pain consists in the transition to a less
perfection, and not in the less perfection itself: for a man cannot be
pained, in so far as he partakes of perfection of any degree.  (5) Neither
can we say, that pain consists in the absence of a greater perfection.
(6) For absence is nothing, whereas the emotion of pain is an activity;
wherefore this activity can only be the activity of transition from a
greater to a less perfection - in other words, it is an activity whereby
a man's power of action is lessened or constrained (cf. [xi] note).
(E3:7) I pass over the definitions of merriment, stimulation, melancholy,
and grief,. because these terms are generally used in reference to the
body, and are merely kinds of pleasure and pain.

[De.IV] Wonder is the conception (imaginatio) of anything, wherein
        the mind comes to a stand, because the particular concept
        in question has no connection with other concepts
        (cf. [lii] & Note).

Explanation.- (E4:1) In the note to II:[xviii] we showed the reason, why
the mind, from the contemplation of one thing, straightway falls to the
contemplation of another thing, namely, because the images of the two
things are so associated and arranged, that one follows the other.
(2) This state of association is impossible, if the image of the thing
be  new; the mind will then be at a stand in the contemplation thereof,
until it is determined by other causes to think of something else.

(E4:3) Thus the conception of a new object, considered in itself, is of
the same nature as other conceptions; hence, I do not include wonder
among the emotions, nor do I see why I should so include it, inasmuch
as this distraction of the mind arises from no positive cause drawing
away the mind from other objects, but merely, from the absence of a
cause, which should determine the mind to pass from the contemplation
of one object to the contemplation of another.

(E4:4) I, therefore, recognize only three primitive or primary emotions
(as I said in I:[xi] Note), namely, pleasure, pain, and desire.  (5) I have
spoken of wonder, simply because it is customary to speak of certain
emotions springing from the three primitive ones by, different names,
when they are referred to the objects of our wonder.  (6) I am led by,
the same motive to add a definition of contempt.

[De.V] Contempt is the conception (imaginatio) of anything which
       touches the mind so little, that its presence leads the mind
       to imagine those qualities which are not in it rather than
       such as are in it (cf. [lii] note).

(65:1) The definitions of veneration and scorn [contempt] I here pass
over, for I am not aware that any emotions are named after them.

[De.VI] Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea
        of an external cause.

Explanation.- (E6:1) This definition explains sufficiently clearly the 
essence of love; the definition given by those authors who say that love
is the lover's wish to unite himself to the loved object expresses a
property, but not the essence of love; and, as such authors have not
sufficiently discerned love's essence, they have been unable to acquire
a true conception of its properties, accordingly, their definition is on
all hands admitted to be very obscure.  (E6:2) It must, however, be noted,
that when I say, that it is a property of love, that the lover should
wish to unite himself to the beloved object, I do not here mean by wish
consent, or conclusion, or a free decision of the mind (for I have shown
such, in II:[xlviii] , to be fictitious); neither do I mean a desire of
being united to the loved object when it is absent, or of continuing in
its presence when it is at hand; for love can be conceived without either
of these desires; but by wish I  mean the contentment, which is in the
lover, on account of the presence of the beloved object, whereby the
pleasure of the lover is strengthened, or at least maintained.

[De.VII] Hatred is pain [a Sadness], accompanied by the idea
         of an external cause.

Explanation.- (E7:1) These observations are easily, grasped after what
has been said in the explanation of the proceeding definition (cf. also
[xiii] note).

[De.VIII] Inclination (propensio) is pleasure, accompanied
          by the idea of something which is accidentally a
          cause of pleasure.

[De.IX] Aversion (aversio) is pain, accompanied by the idea
        of something which is accidentally the cause of pain
        (cf. [xv] note).

[De.X] Devotion is love towards one whom we admire (admiratio),
       [wonder at].

Explanation.- (E10:1) Wonder (admiratio) arises (as we have shown,
[lii] ) from the novelty of a thing.  (2) If, therefore, it
happens that the object of our wonder is often conceived by us,
we shall cease to wonder at it; thus we see, that the emotion of
devotion readily degenerates into simple love.

[De.XI] Derision is pleasure arising from our conceiving the
        presence of a quality, which we despise, in an object
        which we hate.

Explanation.- (E11:1) In so far as we despise a thing which we hate,
we deny existence thereof ([lii] note), and to that extent rejoice
([xx] ).  (2) But since we assume that man hates that which he
derides, it follows that the pleasure in question is not without alloy
(cf. [xlvii] note). 

[De.XII] Hope is an inconstant pleasure, arising from the idea
         of something past or future, whereof we to a certain
         extent doubt the issue.

[De.XIII] Fear is an inconstant pain arising from the idea of
          something past or future, whereof we to a 
          extent doubt the issue (cf. [xviii] note).

Explanation.- (E13:1) From these definitions it follows, that there is
no hope unmingled with fear, and no fear unmingled with hope.  (2) For
he, who depends on hope and doubts concerning the issue of anything, is
assumed to conceive something, which excludes the existence of the said
thing in the future; therefore he, to this extent, feels pain
(cf. [xix] ); consequently, while dependent on hope, he fears for
the issue. (E13:3) Contrariwise be, who fears, in other words doubts,
concerning the issue of something which he hates, also conceives something
which excludes the existence of the thing in question; to this extent he
feels pleasure, and consequently to this extent he hopes that it will turn
out as he desires ([xx] ).

[De.XIV] Confidence is pleasure arising from the idea of
         something past or future, wherefrom all cause of
         doubt has been removed.

[De.XV] Despair is pain arising from the idea of something
        past or future, wherefrom all cause of doubt has
        been removed.

Explanation.- (E15:1) Thus confidence springs from hope, and despair from
fear, when all cause for doubt as to the issue of an event has been
removed: this comes to pass, because man conceives something past or
future as present and regards it as such, or else because he conceives
other things, which exclude the existence of the causes of his doubt.
(E15:2) For, although we can never be absolutely certain of the issue
of any particular event (II:[xxxi] Coroll.), it may nevertheless happen
that we feel no doubt concerning it.  (3) For we have shown, that to
feel no doubt concerning a thing is not the same as to be quite certain
of it ([xlix] note).  (E15:4) Thus it may happen that we are affected
by the same emotion of pleasure or pain concerning a thing past or future,
as concerning the conception of a thing present; this I have already shown
in [xviii] , to which, with its note, I refer the reader.

[De.XVI] Joy is pleasure accompanied by the idea of something
         past, which has had an issue beyond our hope.

[De.XVII] Disappointment is pain accompanied by the idea of
          something past, which has had an issue contrary to
          our hope.

[De.XVIII] Pity is pain accompanied by the idea of evil,
           which has befallen someone else whom we conceive
           to be like ourselves. (cf. [xxii] note, and
           [xxvii] note).

Explanation.- (E18:1) Between pity and sympathy (misericordia) there
seems to be no difference, unless perhaps that the former term is used
in reference to a particular action, and the latter in reference to a
disposition.

[De.XIX] Approval is love towards one who has done good to
         another. 

[De.XX] Indignation is hatred towards one who has done evil
        to another.

Explanation.- (E20:1) I am aware that these terms are employed in senses
somewhat different from those usually assigned. (2) But my purpose is to
explain, not the meaning of words, but the nature of things.  (3) I
therefore make use of such terms, as may convey my meaning without any
violent departure from their ordinary signification. (4) One statement
of my method will suffice.  (E20:5) As for the cause of the above-named
emotions see [xxvii] Coroll.i., and [xxii] note.

[De.XXI] Partiality is thinking, too highly of
         anyone because of the love we bear him.

[De.XXII] Disparagement (despectus) is thinking too
          meanly of anyone, because we hate him.

Explanation.- (E22:1) Thus partiality is an effect of love, and
disparagement an effect of hatred: so that partiality may also be
defined as love, in so far as it induces a man to think too highly
of a beloved object.  (2) Contrariwise, disparagement may be defined
as hatred, in so far as it induces a man to think too meanly of 
hated object. Cf. [xxvi] note.

[De.XXIII] Envy is hatred, in so far as it induces a man
           to be pained by another's good fortune, and to
           rejoice in another's evil fortune.

Explanation.- (E23:1) Envy is generally opposed to sympathy, which,
by doing some violence to the meaning of the word, may therefore
be thus defined:

[De.XXIV] Sympathy (misericordia) is love, in so far as it
          induces a man to feel pleasure at another's good
          fortune, and pain at another's evil fortune.

Explanation.- (E24:1) Concerning envy see the notes to [xxiv] note
and [xxxii] note.  (2) These emotions also arise from pleasure or pain
accompanied by the idea of something external, as cause either in itself
or accidentally. (3) I now pass on to other emotions, which are
accompanied by the idea of something within as a cause.

[De.XXV] Self-approval is pleasure arising from a man's
         contemplation of himself and his own power of action.

[De.XXVI] Humility is pain arising from a man's contemplation
          of his own weakness of body or mind.

Explanation.- (E26:1) Self-complacency is opposed to humility, in so far
as we thereby mean pleasure arising from a contemplation of our own power
of action; but, in so far as we mean thereby pleasure accompanied by the
idea of any action which we believe we have performed by the free decision
of our mind, it is opposed to repentance, which we may thus define:

[De.XXVII] Repentance is pain accompanied by the idea of
           some action, which we believe we have performed
           by the free decision of our mind.

Explanation.- (E27:1) The causes of these emotions we have set forth in
[li] note, and in [liii] , [liv] , [lv] & Note.  (2) Concerning
the free decision of the mind see II:[xxxv] note.  (3) This is perhaps the
place to call attention to the fact, that it is nothing wonderful that
all those actions, which are commonly called wrong, are followed by pain,
and all those, which are called right, are followed by pleasure.  (4) We
can easily gather from what has been said, that this depends in great
measure on education.  (E27:5) Parents, by reprobating the former class
of actions, and by frequently chiding their children because of them,
and also by persuading to and praising the latter class, have brought it
about, that the former should be associated with pain and the latter with
pleasure.  (E27:6) This is confirmed by experience.  (7) For custom and
religion are not the same among all men, but that which some consider
sacred others consider profane, and what some consider honourable others
consider disgraceful.  (8) According as each man has been educated, he
feels repentance for a given action or glories therein.

[De.XXVIII] Pride is thinking, too highly of one's self from self-love.

Explanation.- (E28:1) Thus pride is different from partiality, for the
latter term is used in reference to an external object, but pride is
used of a man thinking too highly of himself.  (2) However, as partiality
is the effect of love, so is pride the effect or property of self-love,
which may therefore be thus defined, love of self or self-approval, in so
far as it leads a man to think too highly of himself.  (3) To this emotion
there is no contrary.  (4) For no one thinks too meanly of himself because
of self-hatred; I say that no one thinks too meanly of himself, in so far
as he conceives that he is incapable of doing this or that.  (E28:5) For
whatsoever a man imagines that he is incapable of doing, he imagines this
of necessity, and by that notion he is so disposed, that he really cannot
do that which he conceives that he cannot do.  (6) For, so long as he
conceives that he cannot do it, so long is he not determined to do it, and
consequently so long is it impossible for him to do it.  (7) However, if
we consider such matters as only depend on opinion, we shall find it
conceivable that a man may think too meanly of himself; for it may happen,
that a man, sorrowfully regarding his own weakness, should imagine that he
is despised by all men, while the rest of the world are thinking of
nothing less than of despising him.  (E28:8) Again, a man may think too 
meanly of himself, if he deny of himself in the present something in
relation to a future time of which he is uncertain. (9) As, for instance,
if he should say that he is unable to form any clear conceptions, or that
he can desire and do nothing but what is wicked and base, &c.  (10) We may
also say, that a man thinks too meanly, of himself, when we see him from
excessive fear of shame refusing to do things which others, his equals,
venture.  (E28:11) We can, therefore, set down as a contrary to pride an
emotion which I will call self- abasement, for as from self-complacency
springs pride, so from humility springs self-abasement, which I will
accordingly thus define:

[De.XXIX] Self-abasement is thinking too meanly of
          one's self by reason of pain.

Explanation.- (E29:1) We are nevertheless generally accustomed to oppose
pride to humility, but in that case we pay more attention to the effect
of either emotion than to its nature.  (2) We are wont to call proud the man
who boasts too much ([xxx] note), who talks of nothing but his own
virtues and other people's faults, who wishes to be first; and lastly
who goes through life with a style and pomp suitable to those far above
him in station.  (E29:3) On the other hand, we call humble the man who too
often blushes, who confesses his faults, who sets forth other men's
virtues, and who, lastly, walks with bent head and is negligent of his
attire.  (4) However, these emotions, humility and self-abasement, are
extremely rare.  (E29:5) For human nature, considered in itself, strives
against them as much as it can (see [xiii] , [liv] ); hence those
who are believed to be most self-abased and humble, are generally in
reality the most ambitious and envious.

[De.XXX] Honour (Gloria) is pleasure accompanied by the
         idea of some action of our own, which we believe
         to be praised by others.

[De.XXXI] Shame is pain accompanied by the idea of
          some action of our own, which we believe
          to blamed by others.

Explanation.- (E31:1) On this subject see the note to [xxx] .
(2) But we should here remark the difference which exists between
shame and modesty [sense of shame].  (3) Shame is the pain following
the deed whereof we are ashamed. (4) Modesty is the fear or dread
of shame, which restrains a man from committing a base action.
(E31:5) Modesty is usually opposed to shamelessness, but the latter
is not an emotion, as I will duly show; however, the names of the
emotions (as I have remarked already) have regard rather to their
exercise than to their nature.

(E31:6) I have now fulfilled my task of explaining the emotions arising
from pleasure and pain.  (7) I therefore proceed to treat of those whic
I refer to desire.

[De.XXXII] Regret is the desire or appetite to possess
           something, kept alive by the remembrance 
           the said thing, and at the same time
           constrained by the remembrance of other
           things which exclude the existence of it.
 
Explanation.- (E32:1) When we remember a thing, we are by that very fact,
as I have already said more than once, disposed to contemplate it with
the same emotion as if it were something present; but this disposition
or endeavour, while we are awake, is generally checked by the images of
things which exclude the existence of that which we remember.  (2) Thus
when we remember something which affected us with a certain pleasure,
we by that very fact endeavour to regard it with the same emotion of
pleasure as though it were present, but this endeavour is at once checked
by the remembrance of things which exclude the existence of the thing in
question. (E32:3) Wherefore regret is, strictly speaking a pain opposed
to that pleasure, which arises from the absence of something we hate
(cf. [xlvii] note). (4) But, as the name regret seems to refer to
desire, I set this emotion down, among the emotions springing from desire.

[De.XXXIII] Emulation is the desire of something,
            engendered in us by our conception
            that others have the same desire.

Explanation.- (E33:1) He who runs away, because he sees others running
away, or he who fears, because he sees others in fear; or again, he who,
on seeing that another man has burnt his hand, draws towards him his own
hand, and moves his body as though his own hand were burnt; such an one
can be said to imitate another's emotion, but not to emulate him; not
because the causes of emulation and imitation are different, but because
it has become customary to speak of emulation only in him, who imitates
that which we deem to be honourable, useful, or pleasant.  (E33:2) As to
the cause of emulation, cf. [xxvii] & Note.  (3) The reason why this
emotion is generally coupled with envy may be seen from [xxxii] &Note.

[De.XXXIV] Thankfulness or Gratitude is the desire or
           zeal springing from love, whereby we endeavour
           to benefit him, who with similar feelings of
           love has conferred a benefit, on us.
           Cf. [xxxix] note and [xl] .

[De.XXXV] Benevolence is the desire of benefitting one
          whom we pity. Cf. [xxvii] note.

[De.XXXVI] Anger is the desire, whereby through hatred
          we are induced to injure one whom we hate.
          [xxxix] .

[De.XXXVII] Revenge is the desire whereby we are induced,
            through mutual hatred, to injure one who, with
            similar feelings, has injured us.
            (See II:[xl] Coroll.ii. & Note.)

[De.XXXVIII] Cruelty or savageness (saevitia) is the desire,
             whereby a man is impelled to injure one whom we
             love or pity.

Explanation.- (E38:1) To cruelty is opposed clemency, which is not
a passive state of the mind, but a power whereby man restrains his
anger and revenge.

[De.XXXIX] Timidity is the desire to avoid a greater evil,
           which we dread, by undergoing a lesser evil.
           Cf. [xxxix] note.

[De.XL] Daring is the desire, whereby a man is set on to do
        something dangerous which his equals fear to attempt.

[De.XLI] Cowardice is attributed to one, whose desire is
         checked by the fear of some danger which his
         equals dare to encounter.

Explanation.- (E41:1) Cowardice is, therefore, nothing else but the fear
of some evil, which most men are wont not to fear; hence I do not reckon
it among the emotions springing from desire.  (2) Nevertheless, I have
chosen to explain it here, because, in so far as we look to the desire,
it is truly opposed to the emotion of daring.

[De.XLII] Consternation is attributed to one, whose desire
          of avoiding evil is checked by amazement at the
          evil which he fears.

Explanation.- (E42:1) Consternation is, therefore, a species of cowardice.
(2) But, inasmuch as consternation arises from a double fear, it may be
more conveniently defined as a fear which keeps a man so bewildered and
wavering, that he is not able to remove the evil.  (3) I say bewildered,
in so far as we understand his desire of removing the evil to be
constrained by his amazement.  (4) I say wavering, in so far as we
understand the said desire to be constrained by the fear of another evil,
which equally torments him: whence it comes to pass that he knows not,
which he may avert of the two.  (5) On this subject, see [xxxix] note,
and [lii] note.  (E42:6) Concerning cowardice and daring, see
[li] note.

[De.XLIII] Courtesy, or deference (politeness - humanitas seu
           modestia), is the desire of acting in a way that
           should please men, and refraining from that which
           should displease them.

[De.XLIV] Ambition is the immoderate desire of power.

Explanation.- (E44:1) Ambition is the desire, whereby all the emotions
(cf. [xxvii] and [xxxi] ) are fostered and strengthened; therefore
this emotion can with difficulty be overcome.  (2) For, so long as a man
is bound by any desire, he is at the same time necessarily bound by this.

(E44:3) "The best men",says Cicero, "are especially led by honour.
(4) Even philosophers, when they write a book contemning honour, sign
their names thereto," and so on.

[De.XLV] Luxury is excessive desire, or even love of
         living sumptuously.

[De.XLVI] Intemperance is the excessive desire and
          love of drinking.

[De.XLVII] Avarice is the excessive desire and love of riches.
 
[De.XLVIII] Lust is desire and love in the matter of
            sexual intercourse.

Explanation.- (E48:1) Whether this desire be excessive or not, it is
still called lust.  (2) These last five emotions (as I have shown in
[lvi] ) have no contraries. (3) For deference is a species of
ambition. Cf. [xxix] note.

(E48:4) Again, I have already pointed out, that temperance, sobriety,
and chastity, indicate rather a power than a passivity of the mind.
(5) It may, nevertheless, happen, that an avaricious, an ambitious,
or a timid man may abstain from excess in eating, drinking, or sexual
indulgence, yet avarice, ambition, and fear are not contraries to luxury,
drunkenness, and debauchery.  (E48:6) For an avaricious man often is glad
to gorge himself with food and drink at another man's expense.  (7) An 
ambitious man will restrain himself in nothing, so long as he thinks his
indulgences are secret; and if he lives among drunkards and debauchees,
he will, from the mere fact of being ambitious, be more prone to those
vices.  (8) Lastly, a timid man does that which he would not.
(E48:9) For though an avaricious man should, for the sake of avoiding
death, cast his riches into the sea, he will none the less remain
avaricious; so, also, if a lustful man is downcast, because he
cannot follow his bent, he does not, on the ground of abstention,
cease to be lustful.  (10) In fact, these emotions are not so much
concerned with the actual feasting, drinking, &c., as with the
appetite and love of such.  (E48:11) Nothing, therefore, can be opposed
to these emotions, but high-mindedness and valour, whereof I will speak
presently.

(E48:12) The definitions of jealousy and other waverings of the mind I
pass over in silence, first, because they arise from the compounding
of the emotions already described; secondly, because many of them have
no distinctive names, which shows that it is sufficient for practical
purposes to have merely a general knowledge of them.  (13) However, it
is established from the definitions of the emotions, which we have set
forth, that they all spring from desire, pleasure, or pain, or, rather,
that there is nothing besides these three; wherefore each is wont to be
called by a variety of names in accordance with its various relations
and extrinsic tokens.  (E48:14) If we now direct our attention to these
primitive emotions, and to what has been said concerning the nature of
the mind, we shall be able thus to define the emotions, in so far as
they are referred to the mind only.
____________________________________________________________________________

[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS]

(Gen:1) Emotion, which is called a passivity of the soul, is a confused
idea whereby the mind affirms concerning its body, or any part thereof,
a force for existence (existendi vis) greater or less than before, and
by the presence of which the mind is determined to think of one thing
rather than another.

Explanation.- (Gen:2) I say, first, that emotion or passion of the soul
is a confused idea.  (3) For we have shown that the mind is only passive,
in so far as it has inadequate or confused ideas. ([iii] )
(4) I say, further, whereby the mind affirms concerning its body or any
part thereof a force for existence greater than before.  (5) For all the
ideas of bodies, which we possess, denote rather the actual disposition
of our own body ([xvi] Coroll.ii.) than the nature of an external
body.  (6) But the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion must
denote or express the disposition of the body, or of some part thereof,
which is possessed by the body, or some part thereof, because its power
of action or force for existence is increased or diminished, helped or
hindered.  (Gen:7) But it must be noted that, when I say a greater or
less force for existence than before, I do not mean that the mind
compares the present with the past disposition of the body, but that
the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion affirms of the
body, which, in fact, involves more or less of reality than before.

(Gen9:8) And inasmuch as the essence of mind consists in the fact
(II:[xi] , II:[xiii] ), that it affirms the actual existence of its own
body, and inasmuch as we understand by perfection the very essence
of a thing, it follows that the mind passes to greater or less
perfection, when it happens to affirm concerning its own body, or
any part thereof, something involving more or less reality than
before.

(Gen:9) When, therefore, I said above that the power of the mind is
increased or diminished, I merely meant that the mind had formed of
its own body, or of some part thereof, an idea involving more or less
of reality, than it had already affirmed concerning its own body.
(Gen:10) For the excellence of ideas, and the actual power of thinking
are measured by the excellence of the object.  (11) Lastly, I have
added by the presence of which the mind is determined to think of one
thing rather than another, so that, besides the nature of pleasure
and pain, which the first part of the definition explains, I might
also express the nature of desire.

____________________________________________________________________________

                      End of "The Ethics - Part III"

                "Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>
                             October 20, 1997

                           The Ethics - Part IV
                             Of Human Bondage,
                     or the Strength of the Emotions

                             Circulated - 1673
                       Posthumously Published - 1677

                             Baruch Spinoza
                              1632 - 1677

____________________________________________________________________________

JBY Notes:
1.  Text was scanned from Benedict de Spinoza's
    "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics" and
    "Correspondence" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20250-X.
2.  The text is that of the translation of "The Ethics" by 
    R. H. M. Elwes.   This text is "an unabridged and unaltered
    republication of the Bohn Library edition originally published
    by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3.  JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4.  Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).
       yy = Proposition Number when given.
       xx = Sentence Number.

5.  Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:
       a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,
          indicates Part Number.  If a different Part, bring
          up that Part and then search.
       b. Include square brackets in search string.
       c. Do not include Part Number in search string.
       d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6.  Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
    or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7.  HTML version:
       Part IV - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/e4elwes.htm
____________________________________________________________________________

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
[PREFACE]
[DEFINITIONS]
[AXIOM]
Propositions:
[I] .   [XI] .   [XXI] .   [XXXI] .   [XLI] .   [LI] .   [LXI] .   [LXXI]
[II] .  [XII] .  [XXII] .  [XXXII] .  [XLII] .  [LII] .  [LXII] .  [LXXII  
[III] . [XIII] . [XXIII] . [XXXIII] . [XLIII] . [LIII] . [LXIII] . [LXXIII]    
[IV] .  [XIV] .  [XXIV] .  [XXXIV] .  [XLIV] .  [LIV] .  [LXIV] .  
[V] .   [XV] .   [XXV] .   [XXXV] .   [XLV] .   [LV] .   [LXV] .  
[VI] .  [XVI] .  [XXVI] .  [XXXVI] .  [XLVI] .  [LVI] .  [LXVI] . 
[VII] . [XVII] . [XXVII] . [XXXVII] . [XLVII] . [LVII] . [LXVII] .
[VIII] .[XVIII] .[XXVIII] .[XXXVIII] .[XLVIII] .[LVIII] .[LXVIII] .         
[IX] .  [XIX] .  [XXIX] .  [XXXIX] .  [XLIX] .  [LIX] .  [LXIX] .    
[X] .   [XX] .   [XXX] .   [XL] .     [L] .     [LX] .   [LXX] .
         
[APPENDIX]

____________________________________________________________________________

[PREFACE]
(Prf:1) Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name
bondage: for, when a man is a 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.  (2) Why this is so, and what is good or evil in the
emotions, I propose to show in this part of my treatise.  (3) But,
before I begin, it would be well to make a few prefatory observations on
perfection and imperfection, good and evil.

(Prf:4) 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.  (5) 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.  (Prf:6) 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.  (7) Such
seems to be the primary meaning of these terms.

(Prf:8) 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.  (Prf:9) 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.  (10) 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. (Prf:11) 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.

(Prf:12) Now we showed in the I:[Appendix] , that Nature does not work
with an end in view.  (13) For the eternal and infinite Being, which we
call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists.
(14) For we have shown, that by the same necessity of its nature, whereby
it exists, it likewise works (I:xvi.).  (15) The reason or cause why God
or Nature exists, and the reason why he acts, are one and the same.
(Prf:16) 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.
(17) 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.  (18) 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.  (Prf:19) 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.
(Prf:20) 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.  (21) 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 I:[Appendix] .  
(Prf:22) 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 (II:[D.vi] ), that
by reality and perfection I mean the same thing.  (23) 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.  (24) 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.  (25) 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.  (Prf:26) 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.

(Prf:27) 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.
(28) Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and
indifferent.  (29) 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.

(Prf:30) Nevertheless, though this be so, the terms should still be
retained.  (31) 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.

(Prf:32) 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.
(33) Again, we shall that men are more perfect, or more imperfect,
in proportion as they approach more or less nearly to the said type.
(Prf:34) For it must be specially remarked that, when I say that a man
passes from a lesser to a greater perfection, or vice versG, 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.  (Prf:35) 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.  (36) 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.
(Prf:37) For no given thing can be said to be more perfect, because it
has passed a longer time in existence.  (38) 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

[DEFINITIONS]
[D.I]   By good I mean that which we certainly know to be useful to us.
[D.II]  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.)
[D.III] Particular things I call contingent in so far as, while
        regarding nothing therein, which necessarily asserts
        their existence or excludes it.
[D.IV]  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 I:[xxxiii] note.i., I drew no distinction between possible
        that place no need to distinguish them accurately.)
[D.V]   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.
[D.VI]  What I mean by emotion felt towards a thing, future, present,
        III:[xviii] notes.i., & ii., 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.)
[D.VII]  By an end, for the sake of which we do something, I mean a desire.
[D.VIII] By virtue (virtus) and power I mean the same thing; that is
         (III:[vii] ), virtue, in so far as it is referred to man, is
         nature or essence, in so far as it has the power of effecting
         what can only be understood by the laws of that nature.

____________________________________________________________________________

[AXIOM]
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.
____________________________________________________________________________

PROPOSITIONS.

Prop. [I] No positive quality possessed by a false idea is removed by
          the presence of what is true, in virtue of its being true.

Proof.- (1:1) Falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge which
inadequate ideas involve (II:[xxxv] ), nor have they any positive quality
on account of which they are called false (II:[xxxiii] ) ; contrariwise,
in so far as they are referred to God, they are true (II:[xxxii] ).
(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 ([iii] ) is absurd.
(1:3) Therefore, no positive quality possessed by a false idea, &c. Q.E.D.

Note.- (1:4) This proposition is more clearly understood from II:[xvi] 
Coroll. ii.  (5) 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.  (6) 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
tho 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.  (7) For, as we said in III:[xxxv] note,
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.  (1:8) Thus, when
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.  (9) 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 II:[xvii].

Prop. [II] We are only passive, in so far as we are apart
           of Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself
           without other parts.
Proof.- (2:1) We are said to be passive, when something arises in us,
whereof we are only a partial cause (III:[De.ii] ), that is (III:[De.i] ),
something which cannot be deduced solely from the laws of our nature.
(2) 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.

Prop. [III] The force whereby a man persists in existing is limited,
            and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes.

Proof.- (3:1) This is evident from the axiom of this part.  (2) 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.

Prop. [IV] 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.- (4:1) The power, whereby each particular thing, and consequently
being, is the power of God or of Nature (I:[xxiv] Coroll.); not in so far
as it is infinite, but in so far as it can be explained by the actual human
essence (III:[vii] ).  (2) 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 (I:[xxxiv] ).
(4:3) This was our first point.  (4) 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.  (5) But the first alternative is absurd
(by [III] , the proof of which is universal, and can be applied to all
individual things).  (4:6) 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
(we have shown) necessarily exist; such a result must follow from the 
infinite power of God, and consequently (I:[xvi] ) 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.  (4:7) It would therefore
follow (I:[xxi] ) that man is infinite, which (by the first part of this
proof) is absurd.  (8) It is, therefore, impossible, that man should not
undergo any changes save those whereof he is the adequate cause.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (4:9) Hence it follows, that man is necessarily always a 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.

Prop. [V] 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.- (5:1) The essence of a passion cannot be explained through our 
essence alone (III:[De.i] & III:[De.ii] ), that is (III:[vii] ), the
power of a passion cannot be defined by the power, whereby we ourselves
endeavour to persist in existing, but (as is shown in II:[xvi] ) mus
necessarily be defined by the power of an external cause compared with
our own. Q.E.D.

Prop. [VI] 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.- (6:1) 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 the foregoing Prop.); therefore ([iii] ) it can overcome a
man's power, &e.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [VII] An emotion can only be controlled or destroyed
            by another emotion contrary thereto, and with
            more power for controlling emotion.

Proof.- (7:1) 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. III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS] ).
(2) 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.  (3) Now this modification of the
body ([v] ) receives from its cause the force for persistence in 
being; which force can only be checked or destroyed by a bodily cause
(II:[vi] ), in virtue of the body being affected with a modification
contrary to (III:[v] ) and stronger than itself ([AXIOM] ); wherefore
(II:[xii] ) the mind is affected by the idea of a modification contrary
to, and stronger than the former modification, in other words, (by
III:[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.- (7:4) 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.
(7:5) 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 III:[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.

Prop. [VIII] 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.- (8:1) We call a thing good or evil, when it is of service or
the reverse in preserving our being ([D.i] & [D.ii] ), that is (III:[vii] ),
when it increases or diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity.
(2) 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 (II:[xxii] ). 
(8:3) But this idea is united to the emotion in the same way as mind
is united to body (II:[xxi] ); 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.  (4) Therefore the knowledge of good and
evil is nothing else but the emotion, in so far as we are conscious
thereof.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [IX] 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.- (9:1) Imagination or conception is the idea, by which the mind
regards a thing as present (II:[xvii] note), but which indicates the
disposition of the mind rather than the nature of the external thing
(II:[xvi] Coroll. ii).  (2) An emotion is therefore a conception, in so
far as it indicates the disposition of the body.  (3) But a conception
(by II:[xvii] ) 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.- (9:4) When I said above in III:[xviii] 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.- (9:5) 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.

Prop. [X] 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.- (10:1) 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 Prop.) we are, so far, more
intensely affected towards it.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (10:2) From the remarks made in [D.vi] 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.

Prop. [XI]  An emotion towards that which we conceive as
            necessary is, when other conditions are equal,
            more intense than an emotion towards that which
            impossible, or contingent, or non-necessary.

Proof.- (11:1) 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
(I:[xxxiii] note i.); wherefore ([ix] ) 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.

Prop. XII. 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.- (12:1) 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 ([D.iii] ); but, on the other hand, we (by
hypothesis) conceive certain things, which exclude its present existence.
(2) But, in so far as we conceive a thing to be possible in the future,
we there by conceive things which assert its existence ([iv] ), that is
(III:[xviii] ), things which promote hope or fear: wherefore an
emotion towards something possible is more vehement.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (12:3) 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.- (12:4) Emotion towards a thing, which we conceive to exist,
is more intense than it would be, if we conceived the thing as future
([ix] Coroll.), and is much more vehement, than if the future time be
conceived as far distant from the present ([x] ).  (5) 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.

Prop. [XIII] 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.- (13:1) In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent, we 
not affected by the image of any other thing, which asserts the
existence of the said thing ([D.iii] ), but, on the other hand
(by hypothesis), we conceive certain things excluding its present
existence.  (2) 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 (II:[xviii]
& Note), which is so far the same as regarding it as present (II:[xvii]
Coroll.).  (3) Therefore ([ix] ) 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.

Prop. [XIV] 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.- (14:1) An emotion is an idea, whereby the mind affirms
of its body a greater or less force of existing than before (by
[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.  (2) But, in so far as such
knowledge is an emotion ([viii] ) if it have more strength for
restraining emotion, it will to that extent be able to restrain
the given emotion.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XV] 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.- (15:1) From the true knowledge of good and evil, in so
far as it is an emotion, necessarily arises desire (III:[De.i] ),
the strength of which is proportioned to the strength of the emotion
wherefrom it arises (III:xxvii] ).  (2) 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
(III:[i] ), and must therefore be understood through our essence only
(III:[D.ii] ); consequently (III:[vii] ) its force and increase can be
defined solely by human power.  (3) 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 ([iii] ); 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.

Prop. [XVI] 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.- (16:1) Emotion towards a thing, which we conceive as future,
is fainter than emotion towards a thing that is present ([ix] Coroll.).
(2) 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 Prop.,
the proof whereof is of universal application).  (3) Wherefore desire
arising from such knowledge, when concerned with the future, can be
more easily controlled or quenched, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XVII] 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.- (17:1) This Prop. is proved in the same way as the last
Prop. from [xii] Coroll.

Note.- (17:2) 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.  (3) This state of things gave rise
to the exclamation of the poet: (Ov. Met. vii.20, "Video meliora
proboque, Deteriora sequor.")

        The better path I gaze at and approve, 
        The worse - I follow."

(17:4) Ecclesiastes seems to have had the same thought in his mind,
when he says, "He who increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."  (5) 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.  (6) I have said, that in the present part I shall
merely treat of human infirmity.  (17:7) The power of reason over the
emotions I have settled to treat separately.

Prop. [XVIII] Desire arising from pleasure is, other
              conditions being equal, stronger than
              desire arising from pain.

Proof.- (18:1) Desire is the essence of a man (III:[De.I] ), that is,
the endeavour whereby a man endeavours to persist in his own being.
(2) 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.  (3) Thus the former is
the stronger of the two.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (18:4) 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.  (5) 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.
 
(18:6) 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.

(18:7) 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.
(8) This is as necessarily true, as that a whole is greater than its
part. (Cf. III:[iv] )

(18:9) Again, as virtue is nothing else but action in accordance with
the laws of one's own nature ([D.viii] ), 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.  (18:10) Further, it follows from II:[Po.iv] , 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. (11) 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.  (12) There are, then, many things outside
ourselves, which are useful to us, and are, therefore, to be desired.
(18:13) Of such none can be discerned more excellent, than those which
are in entire agreement with our nature.  (14) 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.

(18:15) Therefore, to man there is nothing more useful than man - nothing,
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.  (16) 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.

(18:17) Such are the dictates of reason, which I purposed thus briefly
to indicate, before beginning to prove them in greater detail.  (18) 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.  (19) 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.

Prop. [XIX] Every man, by the laws of his nature, necessarily
            desires or shrinks from that which he deems to be
            good or bad.

Proof.- (19:1) The knowledge of good and evil is ([viii] ) 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.  (2) Now this appetite is nothing else but man's nature or
essence (Cf. the Definition of Appetite given in III.[ix] note, and
III:[De.I] ).  (3) Therefore, every man, solely by the laws of his nature,
desires the one, and shrinks from the other, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XX] 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.- (20:1) Virtue is human power, which is defined solely by man's
essence ([D.viii] ), that is, which is defined solely by the endeavour
made by man to persist in his own being.  (2) Wherefore, the more a man
endeavours, and is able to preserve his own being, the more is he endowed
with virtue, and, consequently (III:[iv] & III:[vi] ), in so far as a man
neglects to preserve his own being, he is wanting in power.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (20:3) 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.  (4) 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.  (5) 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 (III:[x] )  (20:6) 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.

Prop. [XXI] 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.- (21:1) The proof of this proposition, or rather the propositio
itself, is self-evident, and is also plain from the definition of desire.
(21:2) For the desire of living, acting, &C., blessedly or rightly, is
(III:[De.i] ) the essence of man - that is (III:[vii] ), the endeavour
made by everyone to preserve his own being.  (3) Therefore, no one can
desire, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXII] No virtue can be conceived as prior to this
             endeavour to preserve one's own being.

Proof.- (22:1) The effort for self-preservation is the essence of a
thing (III:[vii] ); 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.  (2) Therefore no virtue,
&c.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (22:3) The effort for self-preservation is the first and
only foundation of virtue.  (4) For prior to this principle nothing
can be conceived, and without it no virtue can be conceived.

Prop. [XXIII] 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.- (23:1) In so far as a man is determined to an action through
having inadequate ideas, he is passive (III:[i] ), that is (III:[D.i]
& III:[D.iii] ), he does something, which cannot be perceived solely
through his essence, that is (by [D.viii] ), which does not follow from
his virtue.  (2) 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.

Prop. [XXIV] 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.- (24:1) To act absolutely in obedience to virtue is nothing else
but to act according to the laws of one's own nature. (2) But we only
act, in so far as we understand (III:[iii] ) : 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 ([xxii] Coroll.).  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXV] No one wishes to preserve his being
            for the sake of anything else.

Proof.- (25:1) The endeavour, wherewith everything endeavours to persist
in its being, is defined solely by the essence of the thing itself
(III:[vii] ); from this alone, and not from the essence of anything else,
it necessarily follows (III:[vi] ) that everyone endeavours to preserve
his being.  (2) Moreover, this proposition is plain from [xxii] Coroll.,
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.  (3) Therefore no
one, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVI] 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.- (26:1) The effort for self-preservation is nothing else but the
essence of the thing in question (III:[vii] ), which, in so far as it
exists such as it is, is conceived to have force for continuing in
existence (III:[vi] ) and doing such things as necessarily follow from
its given nature (see of Def. of Appetite in III:[De.i] , II:[ix] Note).
(26:2) But the essence of reason is nought else but our mind, in so far
as it clearly and distinctly understands (see the definition in II:[xl]
Note:ii.) ; therefore (III:[xl] ) whatsoever we endeavour in obedience
to reason is nothing else but to understand.  (3) 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 ([xxii] Coroll.) the first and single basis of virtue,
nor shall we endeavour to understand things for the sake of any ulterior
object ([xxv] ); 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.

Prop. [XXVII] 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.- (27:1) 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 the foregoing Prop.).  (2) But
the mind (II:[xli] & Note) cannot possess certainty concerning anything,
except in so far as it has adequate ideas, or (what by II:[xl] Note, is
the same thing) in so far as it reasons.  (3) Therefore we know nothing
to be good or evil save such things as really conduce, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVIII] The mind's highest good is the knowledge
               of God, and the mind's highest virtue is
               to know God.

Proof.- (28:1) The mind is not capable of understanding anything higher
than God, that is (I:[D.vi] ), than a Being absolutely infinite, and
without which (I:[xv] ) nothing can either be or be conceived; therefore
([xxvi] & [xxvii] ), the mind's highest utility or ([D.i] ) good is
the knowledge of God.  (2) 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.  (3) The mind's absolute virtue is therefore to understand.
(28:4) 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.

Prop. [XXIX] 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.- (29:1) 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 (I:[xxviii] ), whose nature (II:[vi] ) must be
understood through the same nature as that, through which human nature
is conceived.  (2) 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 ([viii] ), that is (III:[xi] Note), 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.

Prop. [XXX] 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.- (30:1) We call a thing bad when it is the cause of pain ([viii] ),
that is (by the Def., which see in III:[xi] Note), when it diminishes or
checks our power of action.  (2) 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 (III:[iv] ) is absurd.  (30:3) 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.

Prop. [XXXI] In so far as a thing is in harmony
             with  nature, it is necessarily good.

Proof.- (31:1) In so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, 
cannot be bad for it. It will therefore necessarily be either good or
indifferent.  (2) If it be assumed that it be neither good nor bad,
nothing will follow from its nature ([D.i] ), which tends to the
preservation of our nature, that is (by the hypothesis), which tends
to the preservation of the thing itself; but this (III:[vi] ) is absurd;
therefore, in so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it is
necessarily good.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (31:3) 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 versG, in proportion as a thing is more useful for us, so is it
more in harmony with our nature.  (4) For, in so far as it is not in
harmony with our nature, it will necessarily be different therefrom or
contrary thereto.  (5) If different, it can neither be good nor bad
([xxix] ); 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.
(31:6) 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 versa.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXII] In so far as men are a prey to passion,
              they cannot, in that respect, be said
              to be naturally in harmony.

Proof. (32:1) Things, which are said to be in harmony naturally, are
understood to agree in power (III:[vii] ), not in want of power or
negation, and consequently not in passion (III:[iii] Note); wherefore
men, in so far as they are a prey to their passions, cannot be said
to be naturally in harmony.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (32:2) 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.  (3) 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.

Prop. [XXXIII] 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.- (33:1) The nature or essence of the emotions cannot be explained
solely through our essence or nature (III:[D.i] & III:[Dii] ), but it
must be defined by the power, that is (III:[vii] ), 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 (III:[lvi] ), and that men may be differently affected
by one and the same object (III:[li] ), 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.

Prop. [XXXIV] In so far as men are assailed by emotions which are
              passions, they can be contrary one to another.

Proof.- (34:1) 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 (III:[xvi] ), or because Peter has sole possession
of a thing which Paul also loves (III:[xxxii] & Note), or for other
causes (of which the chief are enumerated in III:[lv] Note) ; it may
therefore happen that Paul should hate Peter (III:[De.vii] ),
consequently it may easily happen also, that Peter should hate Paul in
return, and that each should endeavour to do the other an injury,
(III:[xxxix] ), that is ([xxx] ), that they should be contrary one to
another.  (34:2) But the emotion of pain is always a passion or
passive state (III:[lix] ); hence men, in so far as they are assailed
by emotions which are passions, can be contrary one to another.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (34:3) 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, II:[xxx] and
II:[xxxi] would be untrue.  (4) But if we give the matter our unbiased
attention, we shall see that the discrepancy vanishes.  (5) 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.  (6) For, in so far as each loves the same
thing, the love of each is fostered thereby (III:[xxxi] ), that is
(III:[De.vi] ) the pleasure of each is fostered thereby.  (7) 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.
(34:8) The cause for their opposition lies, as I have said, solely in
the fact that they are assumed to differ.  (9) 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.  (10) 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.  (34:11) 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.

Prop. XXXV. In so far only as men live in obedience to reason,
            do they always necessarily agree in nature.

Proof.- (35:1) In so far as men are assailed by emotions that are
passions, they can be different in nature ([xxxiii] ), and at variance
one with another.  (2) But men are only said to be active, in so far
as they act in obedience to reason (III:[iii] ); therefore, what so ever
follows from human nature in so far as it is defined by reason must
(III:[D.ii] ) be understood solely through human nature as its proximate
cause.  (35:3) 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 ([xix] ); and further, since that which we, in accordance with reason,
deem good or bad, necessarily is good or bad (II:[xli] ); 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 ([xxxi] Coroll.); in other words,
such things as are in harmony with each man's nature.  (35:4) Therefore,
men in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily live
always in harmony one with another.  Q.E.D.

Corollary I - (35:5) There is no individual thing in nature, which is
more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason.  (6) For
that thing is to man most useful, which is most in harmony with his
nature ([xxxi] Coroll.); that is, obviously, man.  (7) But man acts
absolutely according to the laws of his nature, when he lives in obedience
to reason (III:[D.ii] ), and to this extent only is always necessarily in
harmony with the nature of another man (by the last Prop.); wherefore
among individual things nothing is more useful to man, than a man who
lives in obedience to reason.  Q.E.D.

Corollary II.- (35:8) As every man seeks most that which is useful to
him, so are men most useful one to another.  (9) For the more a man
seeks what is useful to him and endeavours to preserve himself, the
more is he endowed with virtue ([xx] ), or, what is the same thing
([D.viii] ), 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.
(35:10) But men are most in natural harmony, when they live in
obedience to reason (by [xxxiv] ).); therefore (by the foregoing Coroll.)
men will be most useful one to another, when each seeks most that which
is useful to him.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (35:11) 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."  (12) 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.  (13) 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.  (14) 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.  (35:15) But I will treat of
this more at length elsewhere.

Prop. [XXXVI] The highest good of those who follow
              virtue is common to all, and therefore
              all can equally rejoice therein.

Proof.- (36:1) To act virtuously is to act in obedience with reason
([xxiv] ), and whatsoever we endeavour to do in obedience to reason
is to understand ([xxvi] ); therefore ([xxviii] ) the highest good
for those who follow after virtue is to know God; that is (II:[xlvii]
& 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.- (36:2) Someone may ask how it would be, if the highest good of
those who follow after virtue were not common to all?  (3) Would it not
then follow, as above ([xxxiv] ), that men living in obedience to reason,
that is ([xxxv] ), men in so far as they agree in nature, would be at
variance one with another?  (4) To such an inquiry, I make answer, that
it follows not accidentally but from the very nature of reason, that
main'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.  (36:5) For it belongs to the essence of the human mind
(II:[xlvii] ), to have an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite
essence of God.

Prop. [XXXVII] 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.- (37:1) Men, in so far as they live in obedience to reason, are
most useful to their fellow men ([xxxv] Coroll. i.); therefore ([xix] ),
we shall in obedience to reason necessarily endeavour to bring about
that men should live in obedience to reason.  (2) 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 ([xxvi] );
wherefore the good, which each follower of virtue seeks for himself,
he will desire also for others.  (3) Again, desire, in so far as it is
referred to the mind, is the very essence of the mind (III:[De.i] );
now the essence of the mind consists in knowledge (III:[xi] ), which
involves the knowledge of God (II:[xlvii] ), and without it (I:[xv] ),
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.- (37:4) The good, which a man desires for himself and
loves, he will love more constantly, if he sees that others love it
also (III:[xxxi] ); 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 (III:[xxxvii] ), in proportion as his own enjoyment of the good
is greater.

Note 1- (37:5) 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.  (6) 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.  (7) But he, who
endeavours to lead men by reason, does not act by impulse but courteously
and kindly, and his intention is always consistent.  (8) 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.  (37:9) The desire of
well-doing, which is engendered by a life according to reason, I call
piety.  (10) Further, the desire, whereby a man living according to reason
is bound to associate others with himself in friendship, I call honour
(Honestas); 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.  (37:11) 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.

(37:12) Such are the matters which I engaged to prove in [xviii] , 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.
(13) 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.  (14) Nay,
as everyone's right is defined by his virtue, or power, men have far
greater rights over beasts than beasts have over men.  (15) 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 (III:[lvii] Note).  (16) It
remains for me to explain what I mean by, just and unjust, sin and merit.
37:(17) On these points see the following note.

Note II.- (37:18) In I:[APPENDIX] I undertook to explain praise and
blame, merit and sin, justice and injustice.

(37:19) Concerning praise and blame I have spoken in III:[xxix] Note:
the time has now come to treat of the remaining terms.  (20) But I
must first say a few words concerning man in the state of nature and
in society.

(37:21) 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 ([xix] and [xx] ), avenges the wrongs
done to him (III:[xl] Coroll. ii.), and endeavours to preserve that which
he loves and to destroy - that which he hates (III:[xxviii] ).  (22) 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 ([xxxv] Coroll. i.).  (23) But seeing that they are a prey to
their emotions, which far surpass human power or virtue ([vi] ), they are
often drawn in different directions, and being at variance one with another
([xxxiii] , [xxxiv] ), stand in need of mutual help ([xxxv] Note).
(37:24) 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.  (25) The way in which this end can be obtained,
so that men who are necessarily a prey to their emotions ([iv] Coroll.),
inconstant, and diverse, should be able to render each other mutually
secure, and feel mutual trust, is evident from [vii] and III:[xxxix] .
(37:26) 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.

(37:27) 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
([xvii] Note).  (28) 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.  (37:29) 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.

(37:30) 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.
(37:31) Sin, then, is nothing else but disobedience, which is therefore
punished by the right of the State only.  (32) 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.

(37:33) 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.  (34) 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.
(37:35) 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.

(37:36) 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.  (37) But I have said enough.

Prop. [XXXVIII] Whatsoever disposes the human body, so as to
                render it capable of being affected in an
                increased number of ways, or of affecting
                ways, is useful to man ; and is so, 
                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.- (38:1) Whatsoever thus increases the capabilities of the body
increases also the mind's capability of perception (II:[xiv] ); therefore,
whatsoever thus disposes the body and thus renders it capable, is
necessarily good or useful ([xxvi] , [xxvii] ); and is so in proportion
to the extent to which it can render the body capable; contrariwise
(II:[xiv] , [xxvi] , [xxvii] ), it is hurtful, if it renders the body in
this respect less capable.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXIX] 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.- (39:1) The human body needs many other bodies for its preservation
(II:[Po.iv] ).  (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 (Def. II:[13:24] ).  (3) 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 [xxxviii] ).
(39:4) 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 numbers of ways; therefore it is bad.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (39:5) The extent to which such causes can injure or be of service
to the mind will be explained in the Fifth Part.  (6) 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.  (7) 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.  (8) 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.
(39:9) It sometimes happens, that a man undergoes such changes, that I
should hardly call him the same.  (10) 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.  (11) If this instance seems incredible, what shall we say
of infants?  (39:12) 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.  (13) However, I prefer to leave such questions
undiscussed, lest I should give ground to the superstitious for raising
new issues.

Prop. [XL] 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.- (40:1) For whatsoever causes men to live together in harmony
also causes them to live according to reason ([xxxv] ), and is therefore
([xxvi] and [xxvii] ) good, and (for the same reason) whatsoever brings
about discord is bad.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLI] Pleasure in itself is not bad but good:
            contrariwise, pain in itself is bad.

Proof.- (41:1) Pleasure (III:[xi] & 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 ([xxxviii] )
pleasure in itself is good, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLII] Mirth cannot be excessive, but is always good;
             contrariwise, Melancholy is always bad.

Proof.- (42:1) Mirth (see its Def. in III:[xi] Note) 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 (III:[xi] ), 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 ([xxxix] ), and cannot be excessive.  (42:2) But Melancholy
(see its Def. in the same note to III:[xi] Note) 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 ([xxxviii] ) it is
always bad.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLIII] Stimulation may be excessive and bad;
              on the other hand, grief may be good,
              in so far as stimulation or pleasure
              is bad.

Proof.- (43:1) 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,
III:[xi] Note); the power of this emotion may be sufficient to overcome
other actions of the body ([vi] ), and may remain obstinately fixed
therein, thus rendering it incapable of being affected in a variety of
other ways: therefore ([xxxviii] .) it may be bad.  (2) Again, grief,
which is pain, cannot as such be good ([xli] ).  (43:3) But, as its force
and increase is defined by the power of an external cause compared with
our own ([v] ), we can conceive infinite degrees and modes of strength
in this emotion ([iii] ); 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.

Prop. [XLIV] Love and desire may be excessive.

Proof.- (44:1) Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of an external
cause (III:[De.vi] ); therefore stimulation, accompanied by the idea of
an external cause is love (III:[xi] Note); hence love maybe excessive.
(2) Again, the strength of desire varies in proportion to the emotion
from which it arises (III:[xxxvii] ).  (3) Now emotion may overcome all
the rest of men's actions ([vi] ); 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.- (44:4) Mirth, which I have stated to be good, can be conceived
more easily than it can be observed.  (5) 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 a
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.  (6) 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.  (6) 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.  (44:7) But, in reality, Avarice, Ambition,
Lust, &c., are species of madness, though they may not be reckoned among
diseases.

Prop. [XLV] Hatred can never be good.

Proof.- (45:1) When we hate a man, we endeavour to destroy him
               (III:[xxxix] ), that is ([xxxvii] ), we endeavour
               to do something that is bad.  (2) Therefore, &c. Q.E.D.

N.B. (45:3) Here, and in what follows, I mean by hatred only hatred
towards men.

Corollary I.- (45:4) Envy, derision, contempt, anger, revenge, and other
emotions attributable to hatred, or arising therefrom, are bad; this is
evident from III:[xxxix] and [xxxvii] .

Corollary II.- (45:5) Whatsoever we desire from motives of hatred is base,
and in a State unjust.  (6) This also is evident from III:[xxxix] , and
from the definitions of baseness and injustice in [xxxvii] Note.

Note.- (45:7) Between derision (which I have in Coroll. I. stated to be
bad) and laughter I recognize a great difference.  (8) For laughter,
as also jocularity, is merely pleasure; therefore, so long as it be not
excessive, it is in itself good ([xli] ).  (9) Assuredly nothing forbids
man to enjoy himself, save grim and gloomy superstition.  (10) For why
is it more lawful to satiate one's hunger and thirst than to drive away
one's melancholy?  (11) 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 axe 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.  (12) 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.  (45:13) 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.  (14) 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.
(45:15) 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. (45:16) There is no need for me to set forth the matter more
clearly or in more detail.

Prop. [XLVI] 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.- (46:1) All emotions of hatred are bad ([xlv] Coroll. i.);
therefore he who lives under the guidance of reason will endeavour,
as far as possible, to avoid being assailed by, such emotions ([xix] );
consequently, he will also endeavour to prevent others being so aspect
([xxxvii] ).  (46:2) But hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and
can be quenched by love (III:[xliii] ), so that hatred may pass into
love (III:[xliv] ); therefore he who lives under the guidance of
reason will endeavour to repay hatred with love, that is, with kindness.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (46:3) He who chooses to avenge wrongs with hatred is assuredly,
wretched.  (4) 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.  (5) 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.

Prop. [XLVII] Emotions of hope and fear
              cannot be in themselves good.

Proof.- (47:1) Emotions of hope and fear cannot exist without pain.
(2) For fear is pain (III:[D.xiii] ), and hope (III:[De.xii] and
III:[De.xiii] ) cannot exist without fear; therefore ([xli] ) these
emotions cannot be good in themselves, but only in so far as they can
restrain excessive pleasure ([xliii] ).  Q.E.D.

Note.- (47:3) 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.
(4) For although confidence and joy are pleasurable emotions,
they, nevertheless imply a preceding, pain, namely, hope and 
(47:5) 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.

Prop. [XLVIII] The emotions of over-esteem and
               disparagement are always bad.

Proof.- (48:1) These emotions (see III:[De.xxi] , III:[De.xxii] ) are
repugnant to reason; and are therefore ([xxvi] , [xxvii] ) bad. Q.E.D.

Prop. [XLIX] Over-esteem is apt to render its object proud.

Proof.- (49:1) If we see that any one rates us too highly, for love's
sake, we are apt to become elated (III:[xli] ), or to be pleasurably
affected (III:[De.xxx] ); the good which we hear of ourselves we readily
believe (III:[xxv] ); and therefore, for love's sake, rate ourselves too
highly; in other words, we are apt to become proud.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [L] Pity, in a man who lives under the guidance
          of reason, is in itself bad and useless.

Proof.- (50:1) Pity (III:[De.xviii] ) is a pain, and therefore ([xli] )
is in itself bad.  (2) 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 ([xxxvii] ); only at
the dictation of reason are we able to perform any action, which we know
for certain to be good ([xxvii] ); thus, in a man who lives under the
guidance of reason, pity in itself is useless and bad.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (50:3) 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.  (4) 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.  (5) I am in this place expressly speaking of a man living
under the guidance of reason. (50:6) He who is moved to help others
neither by reason nor by compassion, is rightly styled inhuman, for
(III:[xxvii] ) he seems unlike a man.

Prop. [LI] Approval is not repugnant to reason, but
           can agree therewith and arise therefrom.

Proof.- (51:1) Approval is love towards one who has done good to another
(III:[De.xix] ); therefore it may be referred to the mind, in so far as
the latter is active (III:[lix] ), that is (III:[iii] ), in so far as it
- understands; therefore, it is in agreement with reason, &c.  Q.E.D.

Another Proof.- (51:2) He, who lives under the guidance of reason, desires
for others the good which he seeks for himself ([xxxvii] ); wherefore from
seeing someone doing good to his fellow his own endeavour to do good is
aided; in other words, he will feel pleasure (III:[xi] Note) accompanied
by the idea of the benefactor.  (3) Therefore he approves of him.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (51:4) Indignation as we defined it (III:[De.xx] ) is necessarily
evil ([xlv] ); 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.

Prop. [LII] Self-approval may arise from reason, and that
            which arises from reason is the highest possible.

Proof.- (52:1) Self-approval is pleasure arising from a man's
contemplation of himself and his own power of action (III:De.xxv] ).
(2) But a man's true power of action - or virtue is reason herself
(III:[iii] ), as the said man clearly and distinctly contemplates her
(II:[xl] , II:[xliii] ); therefore self-approval arises from reason.
(52:3) Again, when a man is contemplating himself, he only perceived
clearly and distinctly or adequately, such things as follow from his
power of action (III:[D.ii] ), that is (III:[iii] ), from his power of
understanding; therefore in such contemplation alone does the highest
possible self-approval arise.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (52:4) Self-approval is in reality the highest object for which
we can hope.  (5) For (as we showed in [xxv] ) 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 (III:[liii]
Coroll.), and on the contrary (III:[lv] Coroll.) is more and more
disturbed by blame, fame becomes the most powerful of incitements to
action, and life under disgrace is almost unendurable.

Prop. [LIII] Humility is not a virtue, or does not arise from reason.

Proof.- (53:1) Humility is pain arising from a man's contemplation of
his own infirmities (III:[De.xxvi] ).  (2) But, in so far as a man knows
himself by true reason, he is assumed to understand his essence, that
is, his power (III:[vii] ).  (3) Wherefore, if a man in self-contemplation
perceives any infirmity in himself, it is not by virtue of his
understanding himself, but (III:[lv] ) by virtue of his power of
activity being checked.  (4) 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 ([xxvi] ), because (Land reads: "Quod
ipsius agendi potentia juvatur"- which I have translated above. He -
suggests as alternative readings to `quod', 'quo' (= whereby) and
'quodque' (= and that).) his power of activity is aided.  (53:5) Wherefore
humility, or the pain which arises from a man's contemplation of his
own infirmity, does not arise from the contemplation or reason, and is
not a virtue but a passion.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [LIV] Repentance is not a virtue, or does not arise
            from reason ; but he who repents of an action
            is doubly wretched or infirm.

Proof.- (54:1) The first part of this proposition is proved like the
foregoing one.  (2) The second part is proved from the mere definition
of the emotion in question (III:[De.xxvii] ).  (3) For the man 
himself to be overcome, first, by evil desires; secondly, by pain.

Note.- (54:4) 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.  (5) For, if all men who are a 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?  (6) 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.  (54:7) Indeed
those who are a 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.

Prop. [LV] Extreme pride or dejection indicates
           extreme ignorance of self.

Proof.- (55:1) This is evident from III:[De.xxviii].and III:[De.xxix] .

Prop. [LVI] Extreme pride or dejection indicates
            extreme infirmity of spirit.

Proof.- (51:1) The first foundation of virtue is self-preservation
([xxii] Coroll.) under the guidance of reason ([xxiv] ).  (2) He,
therefore, who is ignorant of himself, is ignorant of the foundation
of all virtues, and consequently of all virtues.  (3) Again, to act
virtuously is merely to act under the guidance of reason ([xxiv] ):
now he, that acts under the guidance of reason, must necessarily know
that he so acts (III:[xliii] ).  (4) Therefore he who is in extreme
ignorance of himself, and consequently of all virtues, acts least in
obedience to virtue; in other words ([D.viii] ), is most infirm of
spirit.  (51:5) Thus extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme
infirmity of spirit. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (51:6) Hence it most clearly follows, that the proud and
the dejected specially fall a prey to the emotions.

Note.- (51:7) 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 ([xviii] ).

Prop. [LVII] The proud man delights in the company
             of flatterers and parasites, but hates
             the company of the high-minded.

Proof.- (57:1) Pride is pleasure arising from a man's over estimation of
himself (III:[De.xxviii] and III:[De.vi] ); this estimation the proud man
will endeavour to foster by all the means in his power (III:[xiii] Note);
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.- (57:2) It would be too long a task to enumerate here all the evil
results of pride, inasmuch as the proud are a, prey to all the emotions,
though to none of them less than to love and pity.  (3) 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.  (4) 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.  (57:5) Such being the ease, we can easily see that a proud man
is necessarily envious (III:[xli] Note), 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.

(57:6) Though dejection is the emotion contrary to pride, yet is the
dejected man very near akin to the proud man.  (7) 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."  (8) 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.  (9) 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.
(57:10) I have already said that I call these and similar emotions
bad, solely in respect to what is useful to man.  (11) The laws of
nature have regard to nature's general order, whereof man is but a part.
(57:12) 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.  (13) 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.  (14) 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.  (57:15) But I pass on to note those qualities in
the emotions, which bring advantage to man, or inflict injury upon him.

Prop. [LVIII] Honour (gloria) [Love of esteem] is not
              repugnant to reason, but may arise therefrom.

Proof.- (58:1) This is evident from III:[De.xxx] , and also from the
definition of an honourable man ([xxxvii] Note. i.).

Note.- (58:2) 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 ([lii] Note); consequently, he whose honour is rooted
in popular approval must, day by day, anxiously strive, act, and scheme
in order to retain his reputation.  (3) For the populace is variable and
inconstant, so that, if a reputation be not kept up, it quickly withers
away.  (4) Everyone wishes to catch popular applause for himself, and
readily represses the fame of others.  (5) 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.  (58:6) This sort of honour, then,
is really empty, being nothing.

(58:7) The points to note concerning shame (pudor) may easily be inferred
from what was said on the subject of mercy and repentance.  (8) 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.  (9) 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.

(58:10) 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.  (11) 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 [xliv] Note), and
would be useless, if men could easily, be induced to live by the guidance
of reason only, as I will now briefly, show.

Prop. [LIX] To all the actions, whereto we are determined
            by emotion wherein the mind is passive; we can
            be determined without emotion by reason.

Proof.- (59:1) To act rationally, is nothing else (III:[iii] and
III:[D.ii]) but to perform those actions, which follow from the
necessity, of our nature {to persist} considered in itself alone.
(2) But pain is bad, in so far as it diminishes or checks the power
of action ([xli] ); wherefore we cannot by pain be determined to any
action, which we should be unable to perform under the guidance of
reason.  (3) Again, pleasure is bad only in so far as it hinders a
man's capability for action ([xli] , [xliii] ); therefore to this
extent we could not be determined by, it to any action, which we could
not perform under the guidance of reason.  (59:4) 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 (III:[iii] & Note).

(59:5) 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.  (59:6) But all emotions are attributable to pleasure, to pain,
or to desire (III:[De.iv] explanation); and desire (III:[De.i] ) is
nothing else but the attempt to act; therefore, to all actions, &c.  Q.E.D.

Another Proof.- (59:7) A given action is called bad, in so far as it arises
from one being affected by hatred or any evil emotion.  (8) But no action,
considered in itself alone, is either good or bad (as we pointed out in
[PREFACE] ), 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 ([xix] ).  Q.E.D.

Note.- (59:9) An example will put this point in a clearer light.
(10) 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.  (11) 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 Pt.II.), 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.  (12) 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.  (59:13) Let us now see why
desire which arises from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, is called
by us blind.

Prop. [LX] 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.- (60:1) 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 ([vi] ).  (2) 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 (III:[vi] ) is absurd.  (3) The
said part, and, consequently, the mind also, will endeavour to preserve
its condition.  (4) Wherefore desire arising from a pleasure of the kind
aforesaid has no utility in reference to a man as a whole.  (60:5) 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.- (60:6) As pleasure is generally ([xliv] Note) attributed to one
part of the body, we generally desire to preserve our being with out
taking into consideration our health as a whole: to which it may be added,
that the desires which have most hold over us ([ix] ) take account of
the present and not of the future.

Prop. [LXI]. Desire which springs from reason cannot be excessive.

Proof.- (61:1) Desire (III:[De.i] ) 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.  (2) Hence
desire, which arises from reason, that is (III:[iii] ), 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 (III:[D.ii] ).
(61:3) 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.  (4) Therefore, such desire cannot
be excessive.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [LXII] 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.- (62:1) Whatsoever the mind conceives under the guidance of reason,
it conceives under the form of eternity or necessity (II:[xliv] Coroll. 
ii.), and is therefore affected with the same certitude (II:[xliii] & Note). 
(2) 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 (II:[xli] ); that is, it will always
possess the same properties of an adequate idea (II:[D.iv] ); 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.- (62:3) 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.  (4) However, we can
have but a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of things (II:[xxxi] )
and the periods of their existence (II:[xliv] Note) we can only determine
by imagination, which is not so powerfully affected by the future as by
the present.  (5) 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.
(62:6) 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. [xvi] )

Prop. [LXIII] He who is led by fear, and does good in order
              to escape evil, is not led by reason.

Proof.- (63:1) All the emotions which are attributable to the mind as
active, or in other words to reason, are emotions of pleasure and desire
(III:[lix] ); therefore, he who is led by fear, and does good in order
to escape evil, is not led by reason.

Note.- (63:2) 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.- (63:3) Under desire which springs from reason, we seek good
directly, and shun evil indirectly.

Proof.- (63:4) Desire which springs from reason can only spring from a
pleasurable emotion, wherein the mind is not passive (III:[lix] ), in
other words, from a pleasure which cannot be excessive ([lxi] ), and not
from pain; wherefore this desire springs from the knowledge of good,
not of evil ([viii] ); hence under the guidance of reason we seek good
directly and only by implication shun evil.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (63:5) This Corollary may be illustrated by the example of a sick
and a healthy man.  (6) 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.  (7) 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.

Prop. [LXIV] The knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge.

Proof.- (64:1) The knowledge of evil ([viii] ) is pain, in so far as we
are conscious thereof.  (2) Now pain is the transition to a lesser
perfection (III:[De.iii] ) and therefore cannot be understood through
man's nature (III:[vi] & II:[vii] ); therefore it is a passive state
(III.[D.ii] ) which (II[iii] ) depends on inadequate ideas; consequently
the knowledge thereof (II:[xxix] ), namely, the knowledge of evil, is
inadequate.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (64:3) Hence it follows that, if the human mind possessed
only adequate ideas, it would form no conception of evil.

Prop. [LXV] Under the guidance of reason we should pursue the
            greater of two goods and the lesser of two evils.

Proof.- (65:1) 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 [PREFACE] ); 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.- (65:1) 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.  (2) 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.

Prop. [LXVI] 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.
             "Maltim pr`sens minus pr` majori futuro." (Van Vloten).
             Bruder reads: "Malum pr`sens minus, quod causa est faturi
             alicujus mali." The last word of the latter is an obvious
             misprint, and is corrected by the Dutch translator into
             "majoris boni." (Pollock, p. 268, note.)

Proof.- (66:1) 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 ([lxii] ); 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 ([lxv] ) we may seek a greater good in the future in
preference to a lesser good in the present, &c.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (66:2) 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.  (3) This Corollary is related
to the foregoing Proposition as the Corollary to [lxv] is related to
the said [lxv] .

Note.- (66:4) If these statements be compared with what we 
pointed out concerning the strength of the emotions in this Part up
to Prop. [xviii], 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.  (66:5) The former, whether he 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.

Prop. [LXVII] A free man thinks of death least of all things; and
              his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life.

Proof.- (67:1) A free man is one who lives under the guidance of reason,
who is not led by fear ([lxiii] ), but who directly desires that which
is good ([lxiii] Coroll.), in other words ([xxiv] ), 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

Prop. [LXVIII] If men were born free, they would, so long
               as they remained free, form no conception
               of good and evil.

Proof.- (68:1) 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
([lxiv] Coroll.) he has no  conception of evil, or consequently (good and
evil being correlative) of good.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (68:2) It is evident, from [iv] , 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.

(68:3) This, and other matters which we have already proved, seem to have
been signified by Moses in the history of the first man.  (4) 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.
(68:5) 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 (III:[xxvii] ), 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 ([xxxii] ).

Prop. [LXIX] The virtue of a free man is seen to be as great,
             when it declines dangers, as when it overcomes them.

Proof.- (69:1) Emotion can only be checked or removed by an emotion
contrary to itself, and possessing more power in restraining emotion
([vii] ).  (2) But blind daring and fear are emotions, which can be
conceived as equally great ([v]. and [iii] ): hence, no less virtue
or firmness is required in checking daring than in checking fear
(III:[lix] Note); in other words (III:[De.xl] and III:[De.xli] ),
the free man shows as much virtue, when he declines dangers, as when
he strives to overcome them.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (69:3) 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.- (69:4) What courage (animositas) is, and what I mean thereby,
I explained in III:[lix] Note.  (5) By danger I mean everything,
which can give rise to any evil, such as pain, hatred, discord, &c.

Prop. [LXX] The free man, who lives among the ignorant, strives,
            as far as he can, to avoid receiving favours from them.

Proof.- (70:1) Everyone judges what is good according to his disposition
(III:[xxxix] Note); 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 (III:[xlii] ).
(70:2) But the free man only desires to join other men to him in
friendship ([xxxvii] ), 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.  (70:3) Therefore the free man, lest be 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.- (70:4) I say, as far as he can.  (5) 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.  (70:6) Thus, in
declining favours, we must look to the requirements of utility and courtesy.

Prop. [LXXI] Only free men are thoroughly grateful one to another.

Proof.- (71:1) Only free men are thoroughly useful one to another,
and associated among themselves by the closest necessity of friendship
([xxxv] & Coroll. i.), only such men endeavour, with mutual zeal of
love, to confer benefits on each other ([xxxvii] ), and, therefore,
only they are thoroughly grateful one to another.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (71:2) The goodwill, which men who are led by blind desire have
for one another, is generally a bargaining or enticement, rather than
pure goodwill.  (3) Moreover, ingratitude is not an emotion.  (4) Yet
it is base, inasmuch as it generally shows, that a man is affected by
excessive hatred, anger, pride, avarice, &c.  (5) 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.
(71:6) Contrariwise, such an one shows a constant mind, inasmuch as he
cannot by an gifts be corrupted, to his own or the general hurt.

Prop. [LXXII] The free man never acts fraudulently,
              but always in good faith.

Proof.- (72:1) 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?  (2) Would not his plan of self-preservation completely persuade
him to deceive?  (3) 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.

Prop. [LXXIII] 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.- (73:1) The man, who is guided by reason, does not obey through
fear ([lxiii] ): but, in so far as he endeavours to preserve his being
according to the dictates of reason, that is ([lxvi] Note), in so far
as he endeavours to live in freedom, he desires to order his life
according to the general good ([xxxvii] ), and, consequently (as we
showed in [xxxvii] Note. ii.), to live according to the laws of his
country.  (73:2) Therefore the free man, in order to enjoy greater
freedom, desires to possess the general rights of citizenship.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (73:3) 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 (III:[lix] Note).  (4) 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.  (5) These propositions, and all that
relate to the true way of life and religion, are easily proved from
[xxxvii]  and [xlvi] ; namely, that hatred should be overcome with
love, and that every man should desire for others the good which he
seeks for himself.  (6) We may also repeat what we drew attention to
in the note to [I] , 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.
(73:7) 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.  (8) Thus he endeavours, as we said
before, as far as in him lies, to do good, and to go on his way
rejoicing.  (9) 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

[APPENDIX]
What I 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.

[Ap.I] (Ap1:1) 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.

[Ap.II] (Ap2:1) 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.

[Ap.III] (Ap3:1) Our actions, that is, those desires which are defined by
         man's power or reason, are always good. The rest maybe either
         good or bad.

[Ap.IV] (Ap4:1) 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.  (Ap4:2) 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.

[Ap.V] (Ap5:1) 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.  (2) Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's
       perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational
       life, are alone called evil.

[Ap.VI] (Ap6:1) 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.

[Ap.VII] (Ap7:1) 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.

[Ap.VIII] (Ap8:1) 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.  (Ap8:2) Everyone without exception may, by
          sovereign right of nature, do whatsoever he thinks will advance
          his own interest.

[Ap.IX] (Ap9:1) Nothing can be in more harmony with the nature of any given
        thing than other individuals of the same species; therefore (cf.
        [vii] ) 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.  (Ap9:2) 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.

[Ap.X] (Ap10:1) 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.
 
[Ap.XI] (Ap11:1) Yet minds are not conquered by force, but by love and
        high-mindedness.

[Ap.XII] (Ap12:1) 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.

[Ap.XIII] (Ap13:1) But for this there is need of skill and watchfulness.
          (2) 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.  (3) 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.
          (Ap13:4) 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.  (5) 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.

[Ap.XIV] (1) Therefore, although men are generally governed in everything
         by their own lusts, yet their association in common brings many
         more advantages than drawbacks.  (2) 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.

[Ap.XV] (Ap15:1) Those things, which beget harmony, are such as are
        attributable to justice, equity, and honourable living.  (2) 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.  (Ap15:3) For winning love those
        qualities are especially necessary which have regard to
        religion and piety (cf. [xxxvii] Notes. i., & [ii] ; [xlvi]
        Note; and [lxxiii] Note).

[Ap.XVI] (Ap16:1) Further, harmony is often the result of fear: but such
         harmony is insecure.  (2) 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.

[Ap.XVII] (Ap17:1) Men are also gained over by liberality, especially such
          as have not the means to buy what is necessary to sustain life.
          (2) However, to give aid to every poor man is far beyond the
          power and the advantage of any private person.  (3) For the
          riches of any private person are wholly inadequate to meet such
          a call.  (4) Again, an individual man's resources of character
          are too limited for him to be able to make all men his friends.
          (Ap17:5) Hence providing for the poor is a duty, which falls on
          the State as a whole, and has regard only to the general
          advantage.

[Ap.XVIII] (1) In accepting favours, and in returning gratitude our duty
           must be wholly different (cf. [lxx] Note; [lxxi] Note). 

[Ap.XIX] ((Ap19:1) 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. III:[xxxi] Coroll.).

[Ap.XX] (Ap20:1) 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.

[Ap.XXI] (Ap21:1) Furthermore, flattery begets harmony; but only by means of
         the vile offence of slavishness or treachery.  (2) None are
         more readily taken with flattery than the proud, who wish
         to be first, but are not.

[Ap.XXII] (Ap22:1) There is in abasement a spurious appearance of piety an
          religion. (2) Although abasement is the opposite to pride,
          yet is he that abases himself most akin to the proud
          ([lvii] Note).

[Ap.XXIII] (Ap23:1) Shame also brings about harmony, but only in such 
           as cannot be hid.  (2) Further, as shame is a species of
           pain, it does not concern the exercise of reason.

[Ap.XXIV] (Ap24:1) 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.

[Ap.XXV] (Ap25:1) Correctness of conduct (modestia), that is, the desire
         of pleasing men which is determined by reason, is attributable
         to piety (as we said in [xxxvii] Note. i.).  (2) 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.  (Ap25:3) 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.
         (Ap25:4) 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.  (5) 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.

[Ap.XXVI] (1) 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.

[Ap.XXVII] ((Ap27:1) 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.  (Ap27:2) 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
           ([xxxviii] , [xxxix] ).  (3) 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.  (Ap27:4) 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.

[Ap.XXVIII] (1) Now for providing these nourishments the strength of
            each individual would hardly suffice, if men did not lend
            one another mutual aid.  (2) 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.

[Ap.XXIX] ((Ap29:1) 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.  (2) 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.  (Ap29:3) 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.

[Ap.XXX] (Ap30:1) 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.
         (Ap30:2) 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.  (Ap30:3) 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. ([xliv] Note, and [lx] Note.)

[Ap.XXXI] (Ap31:1) Superstition, on the other hand, seems to account as
          good all that brings pain, and as bad all that brings pleasure.
          (2) However, as we said above ([xlv] Note), none but the
          envious take delight in my infirmity and trouble.  (3) 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.
          (Ap31:4) But contrariwise he, who is led by fear and does good
          only to avoid evil, is not guided by reason.

[Ap.XXXII] (1) 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.  (2) 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.  (Ap32:3) 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.  (Ap32:4) 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.
____________________________________________________________________________

                      End of "The Ethics - Part IV"

                "Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>
                            August 25, 1997

  
                           The Ethics - Part V
                    Of the Power of the Understanding,
                           or of Human Freedom

                              Circulated - 1673
                       Posthumously Published - 1677

                               Baruch Spinoza
                                1632 - 1677

____________________________________________________________________________

JBY Notes:
1.  Text was scanned from Benedict de Spinoza's
    "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics" and
    "Correspondence" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20250-X.
2.  The text is that of the translation of "The Ethics" by 
    R. H. M. Elwes.   This text is "an unabridged and unaltered
    republication of the Bohn Library edition originally published
    by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3.  JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4.  Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).
       yy = Proposition Number when given.
       xx = Sentence Number.

5.  Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:
       a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,
          indicates Part Number.  If a different Part, bring
          up that Part and then search.
       b. Include square brackets in search string.
       c. Do not include Part Number in search string.
       d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6.  Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
    or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7.  HTML version:
       Part V - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/e5elwes.htm

____________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
[PREFACE]
[AXIOMS]
Propositions:
[I] .   [XI] .   [XXI] .   [XXXI] .   [XLI] .
[II] .  [XII] .  [XXII] .  [XXXII] .  [XLII] .
[III] . [XIII] . [XXIII] . [XXXIII] . [XLIII] .
[IV] .  [XIV] .  [XXIV] .  [XXXIV] .
[V] .   [XV] .   [XXV] .   [XXXV] .
[VI] .  [XVI] .  [XXVI] .  [XXXVI] .
[VII] . [XVII] . [XXVII] . [XXXVII] .
[VIII] .[XVIII] .[XXVIII] .[XXXVIII] .
[IX] .  [XIX] .  [XXIX] .  [XXXIX] .
[X] .   [XX] .   [XXX] .   [XL] .

____________________________________________________________________________

[PREFACE]

(Prf:1) At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics, which
is concerned with the way leading to freedom.  (2) I shall therefore
treat therein of the power of the reason, showing how far the reason
can control the emotions, and what is the nature of Mental Freedom or
Blessedness; we shall then be able to see, how much more powerful the
wise man is than the ignorant.  (3) It is no part of my design to point
out the method and means whereby the understanding may be perfected, nor
to show the skill whereby the body may be so tended, as to be capable
of the due performance of its functions.  (4) The latter question lies
in the province of Medicine, the former in the province of Logic.
(Prf:5) Here, therefore, I repeat, I shall treat only of the power
of the mind, or of reason; and I shall mainly show the extent and nature
of its dominion over the emotions, for their control and moderation.
(Prf:6) That we do not possess absolute dominion over them, I have already
shown.  (7) Yet the Stoics have thought, that the emotions depended
absolutely on our will, and that we could absolutely govern them.
(Prf:8) But these philosophers were compelled, by the protest of
experience, not from their own principles, to confess, that no slight
practice and zeal is needed to control and moderate them: and this
someone endeavoured to illustrate by the example (if I remember rightly)
of two dogs, the one a house-dog and the other a hunting-dog.  (9) For
by long training it could be brought about, that the house-dog should
become accustomed to hunt, and the hunting-dog to cease from running
after hares.  (10) To this opinion Descartes not a little inclines.
(Prf:11) For he maintained, that the soul or mind is specially united
to a particular part of the brain, namely, to that part called the
pineal gland, by the aid of which the mind is enabled to feel all the
movements which are set going in the body, and also external objects,
and which the mind by a simple act of volition can put in motion in
various ways.  (Prf:12) He asserted, that this gland is so suspended
in the midst of the brain, that it could be moved by the slightest
motion of the animal spirits: further, that this gland is suspended
in the midst of the brain in as many different manners, as the animal
spirits can impinge thereon; and, again, that as many different marks
are impressed on the said gland, as there are different external objects
which impel the animal spirits towards it; whence it follows, that if
the will of the soul suspends the gland in a position, wherein it has
already been suspended once before by the animal spirits driven in one
way or another, the gland in its turn reacts on the said spirits, driving
and determining them to the condition wherein they were, when repulsed
before by a similar position of the gland.  (Prf:13) He further asserted,
that every act of mental volition is united in nature to a certain given
motion of the gland.  (14) For instance, whenever anyone desires to look
at a remote object, the act of volition causes the pupil of the eye to
dilate, whereas, if the person in question had only thought of the
dilatation of the pupil, the mere wish to dilate it would not have brought
about the result, inasmuch as the motion of the gland, which serves to
impel the animal spirits towards the optic nerve in a way which would
dilate or contract the pupil, is not associated in nature with the wish
to dilate or contract the pupil, but with the wish to look at remote or
very near objects.  (15) Lastly, he maintained that, although every motion
of the aforesaid gland seems to have been united by nature to one
particular thought out of the whole number of our thoughts from the
very beginning of our life, yet it can nevertheless become through
habituation associated with other thoughts; this he endeavours to prove
in the Passions de l'âme, I. 50.  (Prf:16) He thence concludes, that there
is no soul so weak, that it cannot, under proper direction, acquire
absolute power over its passions.  (17) For passions as defined by him are
"perceptions, or feelings, or disturbances of the soul, which are referred
to the soul as species, and which (mark the expression) are produced,
preserved, and strengthened through some movement of the spirits."
(Passion del l'âme,I.27.)  (18) But, seeing that we can join any motion
of the gland, or consequently of the spirits, to any volition, the
determination of the will depends entirely on our own powers; if,
therefore, we determine our will with sure and firm decisions in the
direction to which we wish our actions to tend, and associate the motions
of the passions which we wish to acquire with the said decisions, we
shall acquire an absolute dominion over our passions.  (19) Such is the
doctrine of this illustrious philosopher (in so far as I gather it from
his own words); it is one which, had it been less ingenious, I could
hardly believe to have proceeded from so great a man. (20) Indeed, I am
lost in wonder, that a philosopher, who had stoutly asserted, that he
would draw no conclusions which do not follow from self-evident premisses,
and would affirm nothing which he did not clearly and distinctly perceive,
and who had so often taken to task the scholastics for wishing to explain
obscurities through occult qualities, could maintain a hypothesis, beside
which occult qualities are commonplace.  (Prf:21) What does he understand,
I ask, by the union of the mind and the body?  (22) What clear and
distinct conception has he got of thought in most intimate union with
a certain particle of extended matter? (23) Truly I should like him to
explain this union through its proximate cause.  (24) What clear and
distinct conception has he got of thought in most intimate union with a
certain particle of extended matter?  (25) What clear and distinct
conception has he got of thought in most intimate union with a certain
particle of extended matter?  (26) But he had so distinct a conception
of mind being distinct from body, that he could not assign any particular
cause of the union between the two, or of the mind itself, but was obliged
to have recourse to the cause of the whole universe, that is to God.
(Prf:27) Further, I should much like to know, what degree of motion the
mind can impart to this pineal gland, and with what force can it hold it
suspended?  (28) For I am in ignorance, whether this gland can be agitated
more slowly or more quickly by the mind than by the animal spirits, and
whether the motions of the passions, which we have closely united with
firm decisions, cannot be again disjoined therefrom by physical causes;
in which case it would follow that, although the mind firmly intended to
face a given danger, and had united to this decision the motions of
boldness, yet at the sight of the danger the gland might become suspended
in a way, which would preclude the mind thinking of anything except
running away.  (29) In truth, as there is no common standard of volition
and motion, so is there no comparison possible between the powers of the
mind and the power or strength of the body; consequently the strength of
one cannot in any wise be determined by the strength of the other.
(Prf:30) We may also add, that there is no gland discoverable in the midst
of the brain, so placed that it can thus easily be set in motion in so
many ways, and also that all the nerves are not prolonged so far as the
cavities of the brain.  (Prf:31) Lastly, I omit all the assertions which
he makes concerning the will and its freedom, inasmuch as I have abundantly
proved that his premisses are false.  (32) Therefore, since the power of
the mind, as I have shown above, is defined by the understanding only, we
shall determine solely by the knowledge of the mind the remedies against
the emotions, which I believe all have had experience of, but do not
accurately observe or distinctly see, and from the same basis we shall
deduce all those conclusions, which have regard to the mind's blessedness.

____________________________________________________________________________

[AXIOMS]
[A.I] If two contrary actions be started in the same subject,
      a change must necessarily take place, either in both,
      or in one of the two, and continue until they cease to
      be contrary.
[A.II] The power of an effect is defined by the power of its
       cause, in so far as its essence is explained or defined
       by the essence of its cause. (This axiom is evident
       from III:[vii] )
____________________________________________________________________________

PROPOSITIONS.

Prop. [I] Even as thoughts and the ideas of things are arranged
          and associated in the mind, so are the modifications
          of body or the images of things precisely in the same
          way arranged and associated in the body.

Proof.- (1:1) The order and connection of ideas is the same (II[vii] )
as the order and connection of things, and vice versâ the order and
connection of things is the same (II:[vi] Coroll. and II:[vii] ) as
the order and connection of ideas.  (2) Wherefore, even as the order
and connection of ideas in the mind takes place according to the order
and association of modifications of the body (II:[xviii] ), so vice versa
(III:[ii] ) the order and connection of modifications of the body takes
place in accordance with the manner, in which thoughts and the ideas of
things are arranged and associated in the mind.  Q.E.D.

PROP. [II] If we remove a disturbance of the spirit,
           or emotion, from the thought of an external
           cause, and unite it to other thoughts
           then will the love or hatred towards that
           external cause, and also the vacillations
           of spirit which arise from these emotions,
           be destroyed.

Proof.- (2:1) That, which constitutes the reality of love or hatred,
is pleasure or pain, accompanied by the idea of an external cause
(III:[De.vi]  III:[De.vii] ); wherefore, when this cause is removed,
the reality of love or hatred is removed with it; therefore these
emotions and those which arise therefrom are destroyed.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [III] An emotion, which is a passion, ceases
            to be a passion, as soon as we form a
            clear and distinct idea thereof.

Proof.- (3:1) An emotion, which is a passion, is a confused idea
(by III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS]).  (2) If, therefore, we
form a clear and distinct idea of a given emotion, that idea will
only be distinguished from the emotion, in so far as it is referred
to the mind only, by reason (II:[xxi] & Note); therefore
(III:[iii] ), the emotion will cease to be a passion. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (3:3) An emotion therefore becomes more under our control,
and the mind is less passive in respect to it, in proportion as it is
more known to us.

Prop. [IV] There is no modification of the body,
           whereof we cannot form some clear and
           distinct conception.

Proof.- (4:1) Properties which are common to all things can only be
conceived adequately (II:[xxxviii] ); therefore (II:[xii] and II:[L.ii] .)
there is no modification of the body, whereof we cannot form some clear
and distinct conception.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (4:2) Hence it follows that there is no emotion, whereof we
cannot form some clear and distinct conception.  (4:3) For an emotion
is the idea of a modification of the body (by
III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS]), and must therefore (by [iii] )
involve some clear and distinct conception.

Note.- (4:4) Seeing that there is nothing which is not followed by an
effect (I:[xxxvi] ), and that we clearly and distinctly understand
whatever follows from an idea, which in us is adequate (II:[xl] ), it
follows that everyone has the power of clearly and distinctly
understanding himself and his emotions, if not absolutely, at any
rate in part, and consequently of bringing it about, that he should
become less subject to them.  (4:5) To attain this result, therefore, we
must chiefly direct our efforts to acquiring, as far as possible, a clear
and distinct knowledge of every emotion, in order that the mind may thus,
through emotion, be determined to think of those things which it clearly
and distinctly perceives, and wherein it fully acquiesces: and thus that
the emotion itself may be separated from the thought of an external cause,
and may be associated with true thoughts; whence it will come to pass,
not only that love, hatred, &c. will be destroyed ([ii] ), but also that
the appetites or desires, which are wont to arise from such emotion, will
become incapable of being excessive (IV:[lxi] ).  (6) For it must be
especially remarked, that the appetite through which a man is said to be
active, and that through which he is said to be passive is one and the
same.  (4:7) For instance, we have shown that human nature is so
constituted, that everyone desires his fellow-men to live after his own
fashion (III:[xxxi] Note); in a man, who is not guided by reason, this
appetite is a passion which is called ambition, and does not greatly
differ from pride; whereas in a man, who lives by the dictates of reason,
it is an activity or virtue which is called piety (IV:[xxxvii] Note. i.
and second proof).  (8) In like manner all appetites or desires are only
passions, in so far as they spring from inadequate ideas; the same results
are accredited to virtue, when they are aroused or generated by adequate
ideas.  (4:9) For all desires, whereby we are determined to any given
action, may arise as much from adequate as from inadequate ideas
(IV:[lix] ).  (10) Than this remedy for the emotions (to return to the
point from which I started), which consists in a true knowledge thereof,
nothing more excellent, being within our power, can be devised.  (4:11) For
the mind has no other power save that of thinking and of forming, adequate
ideas, as we have shown above (III:[iii] ).

Prop. [V] An emotion towards a thing, which we
          conceive simply, and not as necessary,
          or as contingent, or as possible, is,
          other conditions being equal, greater
          than any other emotion.

Proof.- (5:1) An emotion towards a thing, which we conceive to be free,
is greater than one towards what we conceive to be necessary (III:[xlix] ),
and, consequently, still greater than one towards what we conceive as
possible, or contingent (IV:[xi] ).  (2) But to conceive a thing as free
can be nothing else than to conceive it simply, while we are in ignorance
of the causes whereby it has been determined to action (II:[xxxv] Note);
therefore, an emotion towards a thing which we conceive simply is, other
conditions being equal, greater than one, which we feel towards what is
necessary, possible, or contingent, and, consequently, it is the greatest
of all.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [VI] The mind has greater power over the emotions
           and is less subject thereto, in so far as it
           understands all things as necessary.

Proof.- (6:1) The mind understands all things to be necessary (I:[xxix] )
and to be determined to existence and operation by an infinite chain of
causes; therefore (by the foregoing Proposition), it thus far brings it
about, that it is less subject to the emotions arising therefrom, and
(III:[xlviii] ) feels less emotion towards the things themselves.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (6:2) The more this knowledge, that things are necessary, is
applied to particular things, which we conceive more distinctly and
vividly, the greater is the power of the mind over the emotions, as
experience also testifies.  (3) For we see, that the pain arising from
the loss of any good is mitigated, as soon as the man who has lost it
perceives, that it could not by any means have been preserved.  (4) So
also we see that no one pities an infant, because it cannot speak,
walk, or reason, or lastly, because it passes so many years, as it were,
in unconsciousness.  (6:5) Whereas, if most people were born full-grown
and only one here and there as an infant, everyone would pity the
infants; because infancy would not then be looked on as a state natural
and necessary, but as a fault or delinquency in Nature; and we may note
several other instances of the same sort.

Prop. [VII] Emotions which are aroused or spring from reason,
            if we take account of time, are stronger than
            those, which are attributable to particular objects
            that we regard as absent.

Proof.- (7:1) We do not regard a thing as absent, by reason of the emotion
wherewith we conceive it, but by reason of the body, being affected by
another emotion excluding the existence of the said thing (II:[xvii] ).
(2) Wherefore, the emotion, which is referred to the thing which we regard
as absent, is not of a nature to overcome the rest of a man's activities
and power (IV:[vi] ), but is, on the contrary, of a nature to be in some
sort controlled by the emotions, which exclude the existence of its
external cause (IV:[ix] ).  (3) But an emotion which springs from reason
is necessarily referred to the common properties of things (see the def.
of reason in II:[xl] Note. ii.), which we always regard as present (for
there can be nothing to exclude their present existence), and which we
always conceive in the same manner (II:[xxxviii] ).  (7:4) Wherefore an
emotion of this kind always remains the same; and consequently ([A.i] )
emotions, which are contrary thereto and are not kept going by their
external causes, will be obliged to adapt themselves to it more and more,
until they are no longer contrary to it; to this extent the emotion which
springs from reason is more powerful.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [VIII] An emotion is stronger in proportion to
             the number of simultaneous concurrent
             causes whereby it is aroused.

Proof.- (8:1) Many simultaneous causes are more powerful than a few
(III:[vii] ): therefore (IV:[v] ), in proportion to the increased
number of simultaneous causes whereby it is aroused, an emotion
becomes stronger. Q.E.D.

Note.- (8:2) This proposition is also evident from [A.ii.]

Prop. [IX] An emotion, which is attributable to many
           and diverse causes which the mind regards
           as simultaneous with the emotion itself,
           is less hurtful, and we are less subject
           thereto and less affected towards each of
           its causes, than if it were a different and
           equally powerful emotion attributable to
           fewer causes or to a single cause.

Proof-. (9:1) An emotion is only bad or hurtful, in so far as it hinders
the mind from being able to think (IV:[xxvi] , IV:[xxvii] ); therefore,
an emotion, whereby the mind is determined to the contemplation of several
things at once, is less hurtful than another equally powerful emotion,
which so engrosses the mind in the single contemplation of a few objects
or of one, that it is unable to think of anything else; this was our first
point.  (2) Again, as the mind's essence, in other words, its power
(III:[vii] ), consists solely in thought (II:[xi] ), the mind is less
passive in respect to an emotion, which causes it to think of several
things at once, than in regard to an equally strong emotion, which keeps
it engrossed in the contemplation of a few or of a single object: this
was our second point.  (3) Lastly, this emotion (III:[xlviii] ), in so
far as it is attributable to several causes, is less powerful in regard
to each of them.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [X] So long as we are not assailed by emotions
          contrary to our nature, we have the power of
          arranging and associating the modifications
          of our body according to the intellectual order.

Proof.- (10:1) The emotions, which are contrary to our nature, that is
(IV:[xxx] ), which are bad, are bad in so far as they impede the mind
from understanding (IV:[xxvii] ).  (2) So long, therefore, as we are not
assailed by emotions contrary to our nature, the mind's power, whereby
it endeavours to understand things (IV:[xxvi] ), is not impeded, and
therefore it is able to form clear and distinct ideas and to deduce them
one from another (II:[xl] Note. ii. and II:[xlvii] Note); consequently
we have in such cases the power of arranging and associating the 
modifications of the body according to the intellectual order.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (10:3) By this power of rightly arranging and associating the
bodily modifications we can guard ourselves from being easily affected
by evil emotions.  (4) For (V:[vii] ) a greater force is needed for
controlling the emotions, when they are arranged and associated according
to the intellectual order, than when they, are uncertain and unsettled.
(10:5) The best we can do, therefore, so long as we do not possess a
perfect knowledge of our emotions, is to frame a system of right conduct,
or fixed practical precepts, to commit it to memory, and to apply it
forthwith to the particular circumstances which now and again meet us in 
life, so that our imagination may become fully imbued therewith, and that
it may be always ready to our hand.  (10:6) For instance, we have laid
down among the rules of life (IV:[xlvi] , &Note), that hatred should be
overcome with love or high-mindedness, and not required with hatred in
return.  (7) Now, that this precept of reason may be always ready to our
hand in time of need, we should often think over and reflect upon the
wrongs generally committed by men, and in what manner and way they may be
best warded off by high-mindedness: we shall thus associate the idea of
wrong with the idea of this precept, which accordingly will always be ready 
for use when a wrong is done to us (II:[xviii] ).  (8) If we keep also in
readiness the notion of our true advantage, and of the good which follows
from mutual friendships, and common fellowships; further, if we remember
that complete acquiescence is the result of the right way of life (IV:lii.),
and that men, no less than everything else, act by the necessity of their
nature: in such case I say the wrong, or the hatred, which commonly arises
therefrom, will engross a very small part of our imagination and will be
easily overcome; or, if the anger which springs from a grievous wrong be
not overcome easily, it will nevertheless be overcome, though not without
a spiritual conflict, far sooner than if we had not thus reflected on the
subject beforehand.  (9) As is indeed evident from [vi] [vii] [viii] .
(10:10) We should, in the same way, reflect on courage as a means of
overcoming fear; the ordinary dangers of life should frequently be brought
to mind and imagined, together with the means whereby through readiness
of resource and strength of mind we can avoid and overcome them.  (11) But
we must note, that in arranging our thoughts and conceptions we should
always bear in mind that which is good in every individual thing (IV:[lxiii]
Coroll. and III:[lix] ), in order that we may always be determined to
action by an emotion of pleasure.  (12) For instance, if a man sees that
he is too keen in the pursuit of honour, let him think over its right use,
the end for which it should be pursued, and the means whereby he may
attain it.  (10:13) Let him not think of its misuse, and its emptiness,
and the fickleness of mankind, and the like, whereof no man thinks except
through a morbidness of disposition; with thoughts like these do the most
ambitious most torment themselves, when they despair of gaining the
distinctions they hanker after, and in thus giving vent to their anger
would fain appear wise.  (14) Wherefore it is certain that those, who
cry out the loudest against the misuse of honour and the vanity of the
world, are those who most greedily covet it.  (15) This is not peculiar
to the ambitious, but is common to all who are ill-used by fortune, and
who are infirm in spirit.  (10:16) For a poor man also, who is miserly,
will talk incessantly of the misuse of wealth and of the vices of the
rich; whereby he merely torments himself, and shows the world that he is
intolerant, not only of his own poverty, but also of other people's
riches.  (17) So, again, those who have been ill received by a woman they
love think of nothing but the inconstancy, treachery, and other stock
faults of the fair sex; all of which they consign to oblivion, directly
they are again taken into favour by their sweetheart.  (18) Thus he who
would govern his emotions and appetite solely by the love of freedom
strives, as far as he can, to gain a knowledge of the virtues and their
causes, and to fill his spirit with the joy which arises from the true
knowledge of them: he will in no wise desire to dwell on men's faults,
or to carp at his fellows, or to revel in a false show of freedom.
(10:19) Whosoever will diligently observe and practise these precepts
(which indeed are not difficult) will verily, in a short space of time,
be able, for the most part, to direct his actions according to the 
commandments of reason.

Prop. [XI] In proportion as a mental image is referred
           to more objects, so is it more frequent, or
           more often vivid, and occupies the mind more.

Proof.- (11:1) In proportion as a mental image or an emotion is referred
to more objects, so are there more causes whereby it can be aroused and
fostered, all of which (by hypothesis) the mind contemplates simultaneously
in association with the given emotion; therefore the emotion is more
frequent, or is more often in full vigour, and ([viii] ) occupies the mind
more.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XII] The mental images of things are more
            easily associated with the referred
            to things which we clearly and
            distinctly understand, than with others.

Proof.- (12:1) Things, which we clearly and distinctly understand, are
either the common properties of things or deductions therefrom (see
definition of Reason, II:[xl] Note ii.), and are consequently (by [xi] )
more often aroused in us.  (2) Wherefore it may more readily happen, that
we should contemplate other things in conjunction with these than in
conjunction with something else, and consequently (II:[xviii] ) that the
images of the said things should be more often associated with the images
of these than with the images of something else.   Q.E.D.

Prop. [XIII] A mental image is more often vivid,
             in proportion as it is associated
             with a greater number of other images.

Proof.- (13:1) In proportion as an image is associated with a greater
number of other images, so (II:[xviii] ) are there more causes whereby
it can be aroused.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XIV] The mind can bring it about, that all
            bodily modifications or images of things
            may be referred to the idea of God.

Proof.- (14:1) There is no modification of the body, whereof the mind
may not form some clear and distinct conception ([iv] ); wherefore it
can bring it about, that they should all be referred to the idea of God
(I:[xv] ).  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XV] He who clearly and distinctly understands
           himself and his emotions loves God, and so
           much the more in proportion as he 
           understands himself and his emotions.

Proof.- (15:1) He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his
emotions feels pleasure (III:[liii] ), and this pleasure is (by [xiv] )
accompanied by the idea of God; therefore (III:[De.vi] ) such an one
loves God, and (for the same reason) so much the more in proportion as
he more understands himself and his emotions.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XVI] This love towards God must hold
            the chief place in the mind.

Proof.- (16:1) For this love is associated with all the modifications
of the body ([xiv] ) and is fostered by them all ([v] ); therefore
([xi] ), it must hold the chief place in the mind.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XVII] God is without passions, neither is he 
             affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Proof.- (17:1) All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God,
are true (II:[xxxii] ), that is (II:[D.iv] ) adequate; and therefore
(by III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS] ) God is without passions.
(2) Again, God cannot pass either to a greater or to a lesser perfection
(I:[xx] Coroll. ii.); therefore (by III:[De.ii] & III:[De.iii] ) he is
not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Corollary. (17:3) Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone.
(4) For God (by [xvi] ) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or
pain, consequently (III:[De.vi] & III:[De.vii] ) he does not love or
hate anyone.

Prop. [XVIII] No one can hate God.

Proof.- (18:1) The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect
(II:[xlvi] , II:[xlvii] ); wherefore, in so far as we contemplate God,
we are active (III:[iii] ) ; consequently (III:[lix] ) there can be no
pain accompanied by the idea of God, in other words (III:[De.vii] ),
no one can hate God. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (18:2) Love towards God cannot be turned into hate.

Note.- (18:3) It may be objected that, as we understand God as the cause
of all things, we by that very fact regard God as the cause of pain.
(4) But I make answer, that, in so far as we understand the causes of
pain, it to that extent ([iii] ) ceases to be a passion, that is, it
ceases to be pain (III:[lix] ); therefore, in so far as we understand
God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.

Prop. [XIX] He, who loves God, cannot endeavour
            that God should love him in return.

Proof.- (19:1) For, if a man should so endeavour, he would desire ([xvii]
Coroll.) that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently he
would desire to feel pain (III:[xix] ); which is absurd (III:[xxviii] )
(2) Therefore, he who loves God, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XX] This love towards God cannot be stained
           by the emotion of envy or jealousy:
           contrariwise, it is the more fostered,
           in proportion as we conceive a greater
           number of men to be joined to God by the
           same bond of love.

Proof.- (20:1) This love towards God is the highest good which we can
seek for under the guidance of reason (IV:[xxviii] ), it is common to
all men (IV:[xxxvi] ),and we desire that all  should rejoice therein
(IV:[xxxvii] ); therefore (III:[De:xxiii] ), it cannot be stained by
the emotion envy nor by, the emotion of jealousy, ([xviii]  see
definition of Jealousy, (III:[xxxv] Note); but, contrariwise, it must
needs be the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater
number of men to rejoice therein.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (20:2) We can in the same way, show, that there is no emotion
directly contrary to this love, whereby this love can be destroyed;
therefore we may conclude, that this love towards God is the most
constant of all the emotions, and that, in so far as it is referred to
the body, it cannot be destroyed, unless the body be destroyed also.
(20:3) As to its nature, in so far as it is referred to the mind only,
we shall presently inquire.

(20:4) I have through all the remedies against the emotions, or all that
the mind, considered in itself alone, can do against them.  (5) Whence
it appears that the mind's power over the emotions consists:-

  I.   (20:6) In the actual knowledge of the emotions ([iv] Note).
  II.  (20:7) In the fact that it separates the emotions from the
       thought of an external cause, which we conceive confusedly
       ([ii] and [iv] Note).
  III. (20:8) In the fact, that, in respect to time, the emotions
       referred to things, which we distinctly understand, surpass
       those referred to what we conceive in a confused and
       fragmentary manner ([vii] ).
  IV.  (20:9) In the number of causes whereby those modifications
       (Affectiones. Camerer reads affectus - emotions), are
       fostered, which have regard to the common properties of
       things or to God ([ix] , [xi] ).
  V.   (20:10) Lastly, in the order wherein the mind can arrange
       and associate, one with another, its own emotions ([x] Note
       and [xii] , [xiii] , [xiv] ).

(20:11) But, in order that this power of the mind over the emotions may
be better understood, it should be specially observed that the emotions
are called by us strong, when we compare the emotion of one man with the
emotion of another, and see that one man is more troubled than another
by the same emotion; or when we are comparing the various emotions of
the same man one with another, and find that he is more affected or
stirred by one emotion than by another.  (12) For the strength of every
emotion is defined by a comparison of our own power with the power of an
external cause.  (13) Now the power of the mind is defined by knowledge
only, and its infirmity or passion is defined by the privation of
knowledge only: it therefore follows, that that mind is most passive,
whose greatest part is made up of inadequate ideas, so that it may be
characterized more readily by its passive states than by its activities:
on the other hand, that mind is most active, whose greatest part is made
up of adequate ideas, so that, although it may contain as many inadequate
ideas as the former mind, it may yet be more easily characterized by ideas
attributable to human virtue, than by ideas which tell of human infirmity.
(20:14) Again, it must be observed, that spiritual unhealthiness; and
misfortunes can generally be traced to excessive love for something which
is subject to many variations, and which we can never become masters of.
(15) For no one is solicitous or anxious about anything, unless he loves
it; neither do wrongs, suspicions, enmities, &c. arise, except in regard
to things whereof no one can be really master.

(20:16) We may thus readily conceive the power which clear and distinct
knowledge, and especially that third kind of knowledge (II:[xlvii] Note),
founded on the actual knowledge of God, possesses over the emotions: if
it does not absolutely destroy them, in so far as they are passions
([iii] and [iv] Note); at any rate, it causes them to occupy a very small
part of the mind ([xiv] ).  (17) Further, it begets a love towards a
thing immutable and eternal ([xv] ), whereof we may really enter into
possession (II:[xlv] ); neither can it be defiled with those faults
which are inherent in ordinary love; but it may grow from strength to
strength, and may engross the greater part of the mind, and deeply
penetrate it.  (20:18) And now I have finished with all that concerns this
present life: for, as I said in the beginning of this note, I have briefly
described all the remedies against the emotions.

(20:19) And this everyone may readily have seen for himself, if he has
attended to what is advanced in the present note, and also to the
definitions of the mind and its emotions, and, lastly, to Propositions
III:[i] and III:[iii] .  (20) It is now, therefore, time to pass on to
those matters, which appertain to the duration of the mind, without
relation to the body.

Prop. [XXI] The mind can only imagine anything,
            or remember what is past, while the
            body endures.

Proof.- (21:1) The mind does not express the actual existence of its
body, nor does it imagine the modifications of the body as actual,
except while the body endures (II:[viii] Coroll.); and, consequently
(II:[xxvi] ), it does not imagine any body as actually existing,
except while its own body endures.  (2) Thus it cannot imagine anything
(for definition of Imagination, see II:[xvii] Note), or remember things
past, except while the body endures (see definition of Memory,
II:[xviii] Note).  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXII] Nevertheless in God there is necessarily
             an idea, which expresses the essence of
             this or that human body under the form of
             eternity.

Proof.- (22:1) God is the cause, not only of the existence of this or
that human body, but also of its essence (I:[xxv] ).  (2) This essence,
therefore, must necessarily be conceived through the very essence of
God (I:[A.iv] ), and be thus conceived by a certain eternal necessity
(I:[xvi] ); and this conception. must necessarily exist in God (II:[iii] ).
Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXIII] The human mind cannot be absolutely
              destroyed with the body, but there
              remains of it something which is eternal.

Proof.- (23:1) There is necessarily in God a concept or idea, which
expresses the essence of the human body ([xxii] ), which, therefore,
is necessarily something appertaining to the essence of the human mind
(II:[xiii] ).  (2) But we have not assigned to the human mind any,
duration, definable by time, except in so far as it expresses the actual
existence of the body, which is explained through duration, and may be
defined by time - that is (II:[viii] Coroll.), we do not assign to it
duration, except while the body endures.  (23:3) Yet, as there is something,
notwithstanding, which is conceived by a certain eternal necessity through
the very essence of God ([xxii] ); this something, which appertains to
the essence of the mind, will necessarily be eternal.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (23:4) This idea, which expresses the essence of the body under
the form of eternity, is, as we have said, a certain mode of thinking,
which belongs to the essence of the mind, and is necessarily eternal.
(5) Yet it is not possible that we should remember that we existed
before our body, for our body can bear no trace of such existence,
neither can eternity be defined in terms of time, or have any relation
to time.  (6) But, notwithstanding, we feel and know that we are eternal.
(23:7) For the mind feels those things that it conceives by understanding,
no less than those things that it remembers.  (8) For the eyes of the
mind, whereby it sees and observes things, are none other than proofs.
(9) Thus, although we do not remember that we existed before the body,
yet we feel that our mind, in so far as it involves the essence of the
body, under the form of eternity, is eternal, and that thus its existence
cannot be defined in terms of time, or explained through duration.
(23:10) Thus our mind can only be said to endure, and its existence can
only be defined by a fixed time, in so far as it involves the actual
existence of the body.  (23:11) Thus far only has it the power of 
determining the existence of things by time, and conceiving them under
the category of duration.

Prop. [XXIV] The more we understand particular
             things, the more do we understand God.

Proof.- (24:1) This is evident from I:[xxv] Coroll.

Prop. [XXV] The highest endeavour of the mind,
            and the highest virtue is to
            understand things by the third
            kind of knowledge.

Proof.- (25:1) The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate
idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the
essence of things (see its definition III:[xl] Note ii.); and, in
proportion as we understand things more in this way, we better
understand God (by [xxiv] ); therefore (IV:[xxviii] ) the highest
virtue of the mind, that is (IV:[D.viii] ) the power, or nature, or
(III:[vii] ) highest endeavour of the mind, is to understand things
by the third kind of knowledge.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVI] In proportion as the mind is more
             capable of understanding things by
             the third kind of knowledge, it
             desires more to understand things
             by that kind.

Proof.- (26:1) This is evident.  (2) For, in so far as we conceive
the mind to be capable of conceiving things by this kind of knowledge,
we, to that extent, conceive it as determined thus to conceive things;
and consequently (III:[De.i] ), the mind desires so to do, in
proportion as it is more capable thereof.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVII] From this third kind of knowledge arises
              the highest possible mental acquiescence.

Proof.- (27:1) The highest virtue of the mind is to know God (IV:[xxviii] ), 
or to understand things by the third kind of knowledge ([xxv] ), and this
virtue is greater in proportion as the mind knows things more by the said
kind of knowledge ([xxiv] ): consequently, he who knows things by this
kind of knowledge passes to the summit of human perfection, and is
therefore (III:[De.ii] ) affected by the highest pleasure, such pleasure
being accompanied by the idea of himself and his own virtue; thus
(III:[De.xxv] ), from this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible
acquiescence.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXVIII] The endeavour or desire to know things
               by the third kind of knowledge cannot
               arise from the first, but from the
               second kind of knowledge.

Proof.- (28:1) This proposition is self-evident.  (2) For whatsoever we
understand clearly and distinct we understand either through itself, or
through that which is conceived through itself; that is, ideas which are
clear and distinct in us, or which are referred to the third kind of
knowledge (II:[xl] Note ii.) cannot follow from ideas that are fragmentary,
and confused, and are referred to knowledge of the first kind, but must
follow from adequate ideas, or ideas of the second and third kind of
knowledge; therefore (III:[De.i] ), the desire of knowing things by the
third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the first, but from the second
kind.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXIX] Whatsoever the mind understands under
             the form of eternity, it does not
             understand by virtue of conceiving the
             present actual existence of the body,
             but by virtue of conceiving the essence
             of the body under the form of eternity.

Proof.- (29:1) In so far as the mind conceives the present existence of
its body, it to that extent conceives duration which can be determined
by time, and to that extent only, has it the power of conceiving things
in relation to time ([xxi] , II:[xxvi] ).  (2) But eternity cannot be
explained in terms of duration (I:[D.viii] and explanation).
(29:3) Therefore to this extent the mind has not the power of
conceiving things under the form of eternity, but it possesses such
power, because it is of the nature of reason to conceive things under
the form of eternity (II:[xliv] Coroll. ii.), and also because it is
of the nature of the mind to conceive the essence of the body under
the form of eternity ([xxiii] ), for besides these two there is nothing
which belongs to the essence of mind (II:[xiii] ).  (29:4) Therefore this
power of conceiving things under the form of eternity only belongs to
the mind in virtue of the mind's conceiving the essence of the body
under the form of eternity.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (29:5) Things are conceived by us as actual in two ways; either
as existing in relation to a given time and place, or as contained in
God and following from the necessity of the divine nature.  (6) Whatsoever
we conceive in this second way as true or real, we conceive under the
form of eternity, and their ideas involve the eternal and infinite essence
of God, as we showed in II:[xlv] & Note, which see.

Prop. [XXX] Our mind, in so far as it knows itself
            and the body under the form of eternity,
            has to that extent necessarily a knowledge
            of God, and knows that it is in God, and
            is conceived through God.

Proof.- (30:1) Eternity is the very essence of God, in so far as this
involves necessary existence (I:[D.viii] ). (2)Therefore to conceive
things under the form of eternity, is to conceive things in so far as
they are conceived through thp essence of God as real entities, or in
so far as they involve existence through the essence of God; wherefore
our mind, in so far as it conceives itself and the body under the form
of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and
knows, &c.  Q.E.D.

Prop. [XXXI] The third kind of knowledge depends on the mind,
             as its formal cause, in so far as the mind itself
             is eternal.

Proof.- (31:1) The mind does not conceive anything under the form of
eternity, except in so far as it conceives its own body under the form
of eternity ([xxix] ); that is, except in so far as it is eternal
([xxi] , [xxiii] ); therefore (by [xxx] ), in so far as it is eternal,
it possesses the knowledge of God, which knowledge is necessarily
adequate (II:[xlvi] ); hence the mind, in so far as it is eternal, is
capable of knowing everything which can follow from this given knowledge
of God (II:[xl] ), in other words, of knowing things by the third kind
of knowledge (see Def. in II:[xl] Note.ii.), whereof accordingly the mind
(III:[D.i] ), in so far as it is eternal, is the adequate or formal cause
of such knowledge. Q.E.D.

Note.- (31:2) In proportion, therefore, as a man is more potent in this
kind of knowledge, he will be more completely conscious of himself and
of God; in other words, he will be more perfect and blessed, as will
appear more clearly in the sequel.  (3) But we must here observe that,
although we are already certain that the mind is eternal, in so far as
it conceives things under the form of eternity, yet, in order that what
we wish to show may be more readily explained and better understood,
we will consider the mind itself, as though it had just begun to exist
and to understand things under the form of eternity, as indeed we have
done hitherto; this we may do without any danger of error, so long as
we are careful not to draw any conclusion, unless our premisses are
plain.

Prop. [XXXII] Whatsoever we understand by the
              is accompanied by the idea of
              God as cause.

Proof.- (32:1) From this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible
mental acquiescence, that is (III:[De.xxv] ), pleasure, and this
acquiescence is accompanied by the idea of the mind itself ([xxvii] ),
and consequently ([xxx] ) the idea also of God as cause.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (32:2) From the third kind of knowledge necessarily arises
the intellectual love of God.  (3) From this kind of knowledge arises
pleasure accompanied by the idea of God as cause, that is (III:[De.vi] ),
the love of God; not in so far as we imagine him as present ([xxix] ),
but in so far as we understand him to be eternal; this is what I call
the intellectual love of God.

Prop. [XXXIII] The intellectual love of God,
               which arises from the third
               kind of knowledge, is eternal.

Proof.- (33:1) The third kind of knowledge is eternal ([xxxi] , I:[A.iii] );
therefore (by the same Axiom) the love which arises therefrom is also
necessarily eternal.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (33:2) Although this love towards God has (by [xxxii] ) no
beginning, it yet possesses all the perfections of love, just as
though it had arisen as we feigned in the Coroll. of [xxxii] .  (3) Nor
is there here any difference, except that the mind possesses as eternal
those same perfections which we feigned to accrue to it, and they are
accompanied by the idea of God as eternal cause.  (33:4) If pleasure
consists in the transition to a greater perfection, assuredly blessedness
must consist in the mind being endowed with perfection itself.

Prop. [XXXIV] The mind is, only while the
              body endures, subject to those
              emotions which are attributable
              to passions.

Proof. (34:1) Imagination is the idea wherewith the mind contemplates
a thing as present (II:[xvii] Note); yet this idea indicates rather
the present disposition of the human body than the nature of the
external thing (II:[xvi] Coroll. ii.).  (2) Therefore emotion (see
III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS] ) is imagination, in so far as it
indicates the present disposition of the body; therefore ([xxi] ) the
mind is, only while the body endures, subject to emotions which are
attributable to passions.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (34:3) Hence it follows that no love save intellectual
love is eternal.

Note.- (34:4) If we look to men's general opinion, we shall see that
they are indeed conscious of the eternity of their mind, but that they
confuse eternity with duration, and ascribe it to the imagination or
the memory which they believe to remain after death.

Prop. [XXXV] God loves himself with an infinite intellectual love.

Proof.- (35:1) God is absolutely infinite (I:[D.vi] ), that is
(II:[D.vi] ), the nature of God rejoices in infinite perfection;
and such rejoicing is (II:[iii] ) accompanied by the idea of himself,
that is (I:[xi] and I:[D.i] ), the idea of his own cause: now this
is what we have (in [xxxii] Coroll.) described as intellectual love.

Prop. [XXXVI] The intellectual love of the mind towards God
              is that very love of God whereby God loves
              himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but
              in so far as he can be explained through the
              essence of the human mind regarded under the
              form of eternity; in other words, the
              intellectual love of the mind towards God is
              part of the infinite love wherewith God loves
              himself.

Proof.- (36:1) This love of the mind must be referred to the activities
of the mind ([xxxii] Coroll. and III:[iii] ); it is itself, indeed, an
activity whereby the mind regards itself accompanied by the idea of God
as cause ([xxxii] & Coroll.); that is (I:[xv] Coroll. and II:[xi] Coroll.),
an activity whereby God, in so far as he can be explained through the
human mind, regards himself accompanied by the idea of himself; therefore
(by [xxxv] ), this love of the mind is part of the infinite love wherewith
God loves himself.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (36:2) Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves
himself, loves man, and, consequently, that the love of God towards
men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are identical.

Note.- (36:3) From what has been said we clearly understand, wherein
our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom, consists: namely, in the
constant and eternal love towards God, or in God's love towards men.
(36:4) This love or blessedness is, in the Bible, called Glory and
not undeservedly.  (5) For whether this love be referred to God or to
the mind, it may rightly be called acquiescence of spirit, which
III:[De.xxv] , and III:[De.xxx] ) is not really distinguished from
glory.  (36:6) In so far as it is referred to God, it is ([xxxv] )
pleasure, if we may still use that term, accompanied by the idea of
itself, and, in so far as it is referred to the mind, it is the same
([xxvii] ).

(36:7) Again, since the essence of our mind consists solely in knowledge,
whereof the beginning and the foundation is God (I:[xv] & II:[xlvii] Note),
it becomes clear to us, in what manner and way our mind, as to its essence
and existence, follows from the divine nature and constantly depends on
God.  (8) I have thought it worth while here to call attention to this,
in order to show by this example how the knowledge of particular things,
which I have called intuitive or of the third kind (II:[xl] Note. ii.),
is potent, and more powerful than the universal knowledge, which I have
styled knowledge of the second kind.  (36:9) For, although in Part I
showed in general terms, that all things (and consequently, also, the
human mind) depend as to their essence and existence on God, yet that
demonstration, though legitimate and placed beyond the chances of doubt,
does not affect our mind so much, as when the same conclusion is derived
from the actual essence of some particular thing, which we say depends on
God.

Prop. [XXXVII] There is nothing in nature, which is
               contrary to this intellectual love,
               or which can take it away.

Proof.- (37:1) This intellectual love follows necessarily from the
nature of the mind, in so far as the latter is regarded through the
nature of God as an eternal truth ([xxxiii]  and [xxix] ).  (2) If,
therefore, there should be anything which would be contrary to this
love, that thing would be contrary to that which is true; consequently,
that, which should be able to take away this love, would cause that
which is true to be false; an obvious absurdity.  (3) Therefore there
is nothing in nature which, &c.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (37:4) The IV:[AXIOM] has reference to particular things, in
so far as they are regarded in relation to a given time and place:
of this, I think, no one can doubt.

Prop. [XXXVIII] In proportion as the mind understands
                more things by the second and third kind
                of knowledge, it is less subject to
                those emotions which are evil, and stands
                in less fear of death.

Proof.- (38:1) The mind's essence consists in knowledge (II:[xi] );
therefore, in proportion as the mind understands more things by the
second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater will be the part of
it that endures ([xxix] and [xxiii] ), and, consequently (by  [XXXVII] ),
the greater will be the part that is not touched by the emotions, which
are contrary to our nature, or in other words, evil (IV:[xxx] ).
(38:2) Thus, in proportion as the mind understands more things by the
second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater will be the part of
it, that remains unimpaired, and, consequently, less subject to emotions,
&c.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (38:3) Hence we understand that point which I touched on in
IV:[xxxix] Note, and which I promised to explain in this Part; namely,
that death becomes less hurtful, in proportion as the mind's clear
and distinct knowledge is greater, and, consequently, in proportion as
the mind loves God more.  (4) Again, since from the third kind of
knowledge arises the highest possible acquiescence ([xxvii] ), it
follows that the human mind can attain to being of such a nature, that
the part thereof which we have shown to perish with the body ([xxi] )
should be of little importance when compared with the part which endures.
(38:5) But I will soon treat of the subject at greater length.

Prop. [XXXIX] He, who possesses a body capable of the
              greatest number of activities, possesses
              a mind whereof the greatest part is eternal.

Proof.- (39:1) He, who possesses a body capable of the greatest number
of activities, is least agitated by those emotions which are evil
(IV:[xxxviii] ) that is (IV:[xxx] ), by those emotions which are
contrary to our nature; therefore ([x] ), he possesses the power of
arranging and associating the modifications of the body according to
the intellectual order, and, consequently, of bringing it about, that
all the modifications of the body should be referred to the idea of God;
whence it will come to pass that ([xv] ) he will be affected with love
towards God, which ([xvi] ) must occupy or constitute the chief part of
the mind; therefore ([xxxiii] ), such a man will possess a mind whereof
the chief part is eternal.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (39:2) Since human bodies are capable of the greatest number of
activities, there is no doubt but that they may be of such a nature,
that they may be referred to minds possessing a great knowledge of
themselves and of God, and whereof the greatest or chief part is eternal,
and, therefore, that they should scarcely fear death.  (3) But, in order
that this may be understood more clearly, we must here call to mind, that
we live in a state of perpetual variation, and, according as we are
changed for the better or the worse, we are called happy or unhappy.

(39:4) For he, who, from being an infant or a child, becomes a corpse,
is called unhappy; whereas it is set down to happiness, if we have been
able to live through the whole period of life with a sound mind in a
sound body.  (5) And, in reality, he, who, as in the case of an infant
or a child, has a body capable of very few activities, and depending,
for the most part, on external causes, has a mind which, considered in
itself alone, is scarcely conscious of itself, or of God, or of things;
whereas, he, who has a body capable of very many activities, has a mind
which, considered in itself alone, is highly conscious of itself, of God,
and of things. In this life, therefore, we primarily endeavour to bring
it about, that the body of a child, in so far as its nature allows and
conduces thereto, may be changed into something else capable of very
many activities, and referable to a mind which is highly conscious of
itself, of God, and of things; and we desire so to change it, that what
is referred to its imagination and memory may become insignificant, in
comparison with its intellect, as I have already said in the note to
[xxxviii] .

Prop. [XL] In proportion as each thing possesses
           more of perfection, so is it more active,
           and less passive; and, vice versa, in
           proportion as it is more active, so is
           it more perfect.

Proof.- (40:1) In proportion as each thing is more perfect, it possesses
more of reality (II:[D.vi] ), and, consequently (III:[iii] and Note),
it is to that extent more active and less passive.  (2) This demonstration
may be reversed, and thus prove that, in proportion as a thing is more
active, so is it more perfect.  Q.E.D.

Corollary.- (40:3) Hence it follows that the part of the mind which
endures, be it great or small, is more perfect than the rest.  (4) For
the eternal part of the mind ([xiii] . and [xxix] ) the understanding,
through which alone we are said to act (III:[iii] ); the part which we have
shown to perish is the imagination ([xxi] ), through which only we are said
to be passive (III:[iii] and III:[GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE EMOTIONS] );
therefore, the former, be it great or small, is more perfect than the
latter.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (40:5) Such are the doctrines which I had purposed to set forth
concerning the mind, in so far as it is regarded without relation to
the body; whence, as also from I:[xxi] and other places, it is plain
that our mind, in so far as it understands, is an eternal mode of
thinking, which is determined by another eternal mode of thinking,
and this other by a third, and so on to infinity; so that all taken
together at once constitute the eternal and infinite intellect of God.

Prop. [XLI] Even if we did not know that our mind
            is  eternal, we should still consider
            as of primary importance piety and
            religion, and generally all things which,
            in Part IV., we showed to be attributable
            to courage and high-mindedness.

Proof.- (41:1) The first and only, foundation of virtue, or the rule of
right living is (IV:[xxii] Coroll. and IV:[xxiv] ) seeking one's own
true interest.  (2) Now, while we determined what reason prescribes
as useful, we took no account of the mind's eternity, which has only
become known to us in this Fifth Part.  (3) Although we were ignorant
at that time that the mind is eternal, we nevertheless stated that the
qualities attributable to courage and high-mindedness are of primary
importance.  (4) Therefore, even if we were still ignorant of this
doctrine, we should yet put the aforesaid precepts of reason in the
first place.  Q.E.D.

Note.- (41:5) The general belief of the multitude seems to be different.
(6) Most people seem to believe that they are free, in so far as they may
obey their lusts, and that they cede their rights, in so far as they are
bound to live according to the commandments of the divine law.  (7) They
therefore believe that piety, religion, and, generally, all things
attributable to firmness of mind, are burdens, which, after death,
they hope to lay aside, and to receive the reward for their bondage,
that is, for their piety, and religion; it is not only by this hope,
but also, and chiefly, by the fear of being horribly punished after
death, that they are induced to live according to the divine commandments,
so far as their feeble and infirm spirit will carry them.

(41:8) If men had not this hope and this fear, but believed that the
mind perishes with the body, and that no hope of prolonged life remains
for the wretches who are broken down with the burden of piety, they
would return to their own inclinations, controlling everything in
accordance with their lusts, and desiring to obey fortune rather than
themselves.  (41:9) Such a course appears to me not less absurd than if
a man, because he does not believe that he can by wholesome food
sustain his body for ever, should wish to cram himself with poisons
and deadly fare; or if, because he sees that the mind is not eternal
or immortal, he should prefer to be out of his mind altogether, and
to live without the use of reason; these ideas are so absurd as to be
scarcely worth refuting.

Prop. [XLII] Blessedness is not the reward of virtue,
             but virtue itself ; neither do we rejoice
             therein, because we control our lusts,
             but, contrariwise, because we rejoice
             therein, we are able to control our lusts.

Proof.- (42:1) Blessedness consists in love towards God ([xxxvi] and
Note), which love springs from the third kind of knowledge ([xxxii]
Coroll.); therefore this love (III:[iii] and III:[lix] ) must be
referred to the mind, in so far as the latter is active; therefore
(IV:[D.viii] ) it is virtue itself.  (42:2) This was our first point.
(42:3) Again, in proportion as the mind rejoices more in this divine
love or blessedness, so does it the more understand ([xxxii] ); that
is ([iii] Coroll.), so much the more power has it over the emotions,
and ([xxxviii] ) so much the less is it subject to those emotions
which are evil; therefore, in proportion as the mind rejoices in
this divine love or blessedness, so has it the power of controlling
lusts.  (42:4) And, since human power in controlling the emotions consists
solely in the understanding, it follows that no one rejoices in
blessedness, because he has controlled his lusts, but, contrariwise,
his power of controlling his lusts arises from this blessedness itself.
Q.E.D.

Note.- (42:5) I have thus completed all I wished to set forth touching
the mind's power over the emotions and the mind's freedom.  (6) Whence
it appears, how potent is the wise man, and how much he surpasses the
ignorant man, who is driven only by his lusts.  (7) For the ignorant
man is not only distracted in various ways by external causes without
ever gaining, the true acquiescence of his spirit, but moreover lives,
as it were unwitting of himself, and of God, and of things, and as
soon as he ceases to suffer, ceases also to be.

(42:8) Whereas the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as such, is
scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being conscious of himself,
and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never ceases
to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit.

(42:9) If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result
seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered.  (10) Needs
must it be hard, since it is so seldom found.   (42:11) How would it be
possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great
labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected?  (12) But
all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.

____________________________________________________________________________

                    End of "The Ethics - Part V of V"

                "Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>
                            August 25, 1997


Colophon

This file was acquired from Unknown. (Ask Eric.), and it is in the public domain. It is re-distributed here as a part of the Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts (http://infomotions.com/alex/) by Eric Lease Morgan (Infomotions, Inc.) for the purpose of freely sharing, distributing, and making available works of great literature. Its Infomotions unique identifier is spinoza-ethics-742, and it should be available from the following URL:

http://infomotions.com/etexts/id/spinoza-ethics-742



Infomotions, Inc.

Infomotions Man says, "Give back to the 'Net."