the six enneads-第6部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


ends　Being。　　　　　What；　then；　is　Philosophy？　　　　　Philosophy　is　the　supremely　precious。　　　　　Is　Dialectic；　then；　the　same　as　Philosophy？　　　　　It　is　the　precious　part　of　Philosophy。　We　must　not　think　of　it　as　the　mere　tool　of　the　metaphysician：　Dialectic　does　not　consist　of　bare　theories　and　rules：　it　deals　with　verities；　Existences　are；　as　it　were；　Matter　to　it；　or　at　least　it　proceeds　methodically　towards　Existences；　and　possesses　itself；　at　the　one　step；　of　the　notions　and　of　the　realities。　　　　　Untruth　and　sophism　it　knows；　not　directly；　not　of　its　own　nature；　but　merely　as　something　produced　outside　itself；　something　which　it　recognises　to　be　foreign　to　the　verities　laid　up　in　itself；　in　the　falsity　presented　to　it；　it　perceives　a　clash　with　its　own　canon　of　truth。　Dialectic；　that　is　to　say；　has　no　knowledge　of　propositions…　collections　of　words…　but　it　knows　the　truth；　and；　in　that　knowledge；　knows　what　the　schools　call　their　propositions：　it　knows　above　all；　the　operation　of　the　soul；　and；　by　virtue　of　this　knowing；　it　knows；　too；　what　is　affirmed　and　what　is　denied；　whether　the　denial　is　of　what　was　asserted　or　of　something　else；　and　whether　propositions　agree　or　differ；　all　that　is　submitted　to　it；　it　attacks　with　the　directness　of　sense…perception　and　it　leaves　petty　precisions　of　process　to　what　other　science　may　care　for　such　exercises。　　　　　6。　Philosophy　has　other　provinces；　but　Dialectic　is　its　precious　part：　in　its　study　of　the　laws　of　the　universe；　Philosophy　draws　on　Dialectic　much　as　other　studies　and　crafts　use　Arithmetic；　though；　of　course；　the　alliance　between　Philosophy　and　Dialectic　is　closer。　　　　　And　in　Morals；　too；　Philosophy　uses　Dialectic：　by　Dialectic　it　comes　to　contemplation；　though　it　originates　of　itself　the　moral　state　or　rather　the　discipline　from　which　the　moral　state　develops。　　　　　Our　reasoning　faculties　employ　the　data　of　Dialectic　almost　as　their　proper　possession　for　they　are　mainly　concerned　about　Matter　＇whose　place　and　worth　Dialectic　establishes＇。　　　　　And　while　the　other　virtues　bring　the　reason　to　bear　upon　particular　experiences　and　acts；　the　virtue　of　Wisdom　＇i。e。；　the　virtue　peculiarly　induced　by　Dialectic＇　is　a　certain　super…reasoning　much　closer　to　the　Universal；　for　it　deals　with　correspondence　and　sequence；　the　choice　of　time　for　action　and　inaction；　the　adoption　of　this　course；　the　rejection　of　that　other：　Wisdom　and　Dialectic　have　the　task　of　presenting　all　things　as　Universals　and　stripped　of　matter　for　treatment　by　the　Understanding。　　　　　But　can　these　inferior　kinds　of　virtue　exist　without　Dialectic　and　philosophy？　　　　　Yes…　but　imperfectly；　inadequately。　　　　　And　is　it　possible　to　be　a　Sage；　Master　in　Dialectic；　without　these　lower　virtues？　　　　　It　would　not　happen：　the　lower　will　spring　either　before　or　together　with　the　higher。　And　it　is　likely　that　everyone　normally　possesses　the　natural　virtues　from　which；　when　Wisdom　steps　in；　the　perfected　virtue　develops。　After　the　natural　virtues；　then；　Wisdom　and；　so　the　perfecting　of　the　moral　nature。　Once　the　natural　virtues　exist；　both　orders；　the　natural　and　the　higher；　ripen　side　by　side　to　their　final　excellence：　or　as　the　one　advances　it　carries　forward　the　other　towards　perfection。　　　　　But；　ever；　the　natural　virtue　is　imperfect　in　vision　and　in　strength…　and　to　both　orders　of　virtue　the　essential　matter　is　from　what　principles　we　derive　them。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　FOURTH　TRACTATE。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　TRUE　HAPPINESS。

　　　　1。　Are　we　to　make　True　Happiness　one　and　the　same　thing　with　Welfare　or　Prosperity　and　therefore　within　the　reach　of　the　other　living　beings　as　well　as　ourselves？　　　　　There　is　certainly　no　reason　to　deny　well…being　to　any　of　them　as　long　as　their　lot　allows　them　to　flourish　unhindered　after　their　kind。　　　　　Whether　we　make　Welfare　consist　in　pleasant　conditions　of　life；　or　in　the　accomplishment　of　some　appropriate　task；　by　either　account　it　may　fall　to　them　as　to　us。　For　certainly　they　may　at　once　be　pleasantly　placed　and　engaged　about　some　function　that　lies　in　their　nature：　take　for　an　instance　such　living　beings　as　have　the　gift　of　music；　finding　themselves　well…off　in　other　ways；　they　sing；　too；　as　their　nature　is；　and　so　their　day　is　pleasant　to　them。　　　　　And　if；　even；　we　set　Happiness　in　some　ultimate　Term　pursued　by　inborn　tendency；　then　on　this　head；　too；　we　must　allow　it　to　animals　from　the　moment　of　their　attaining　this　Ultimate：　the　nature　in　them　comes　to　a　halt；　having　fulfilled　its　vital　course　from　a　beginning　to　an　end。　　　　　It　may　be　a　distasteful　notion；　this　bringing…down　of　happiness　so　low　as　to　the　animal　world…　making　it　over；　as　then　we　must；　even　to　the　vilest　of　them　and　not　withholding　it　even　from　the　plants；　living　they　too　and　having　a　life　unfolding　to　a　Term。　　　　　But；　to　begin　with；　it　is　surely　unsound　to　deny　that　good　of　life　to　animals　only　because　they　do　not　appear　to　man　to　be　of　great　account。　And　as　for　plants；　we　need　not　necessarily　allow　to　them　what　we　accord　to　the　other　forms　of　life；　since　they　have　no　feeling。　It　is　true　people　might　be　found　to　declare　prosperity　possible　to　the　very　plants：　they　have　life；　and　life　may　bring　good　or　evil；　the　plants　may　thrive　or　wither；　bear　or　be　barren。　　　　　No：　if　Pleasure　be　the　Term；　if　here　be　the　good　of　life；　it　is　impossible　to　deny　the　good　of　life　to　any　order　of　living　things；　if　the　Term　be　inner…peace；　equally　impossible；　impossible；　too；　if　the　good　of　life　be　to　live　in　accordance　with　the　purpose　of　nature。　　　　　2。　Those　that　deny　the　happy　life　to　the　plants　on　the　ground　that　they　lack　sensation　are　really　denying　it　to　all　living　things。　　　　　By　sensation　can　be　meant　only　perception　of　state；　and　the　state　of　well…being　must　be　Good　in　itself　quite　apart　from　the　perception：　to　be　a　part　of　the　natural　plan　is　good　whether　knowingly　or　without　knowledge：　there　is　good　in　the　appropriate　state　even　though　there　be　no　recognition　of　its　fitness　or　desirable　quality…　for　it　must　be　in　itself　desirable。　　　　　This　Good　exists；　then；　is　present：　that　in　which　it　is　present　has　well…being　without　more　ado：　what　need　then　to　ask　for　sensation　into　the　bargain？　　　　　Perhaps；　however；　the　theory　is　that　the　good　of　any　state　consists　not　in　the　condition　itself　but　in　the　knowledge　and　perception　of　it。　　　　　But　at　this　rate　the　Good　is　nothing　but　the　mere　sensation；　the　bare　activity　of　the　sentient　life。　And　so　it　will　be　possessed　by　all　that　feel；　no　matter　what。　Perhaps　it　will　be　said　that　two　constituents　are　needed　to　make　up　the　Good；　that　there　must　be　both　feeling　and　a　given　state　felt：　but　how　can　it　be　maintained　that　the　bringing　together　of　two　neutrals　can　produce　the　Good？　　　　　They　will　explain；　possibly；　that　the　state　must　be　a　state　of　Good　and　that　such　a　condition　constitutes　well…being　on　the　discernment　of　that　present　good；　but　then　they　invite　the　question　whether　the　well…being　comes　by　discerning　the　presence　of　the　Good　that　is　there；　or　whether　there　must　further　be　the　double　recognition　that　the　state　is　agreeable　and　that　the　agreeable　state　constitutes　the　Good。　　　　　If　well…being　demands　this　recognition；　it　depends　no　longer　upon　sensation　but　upon　another；　a　higher　faculty；　and　well…being　is　vested　not　in　a　faculty　receptive　of　pleasure　but　in　one　competent　to　discern　that　pleasure　is　the　Good。　　　　　Then　the　cause　of　the　well…being　is　no　longer　pleasure　but　the　faculty　competent　to　pronounce　as　to　pleasure's　value。　Now　a　judging　entity　is　nobler　than　one　that　merely　accepts　a　state：　it　is　a　principle　of　Reason　or　of　Intellection：　pleasure　is　a　state：　the　reasonless　can　never　be　closer　to　the　Good　than　reason　is。　How　can　reason　abdicate　and　declare　nearer　to　good　than　itself　something　lying　in　a　contrary　order？　　　　　No：　those　denying　the　good　of　life　to　the　vegetable　world；　and　those　that　make　it　consist　in　some　precise　quality　of　sensation；　are　in　reality　seeking　a　loftier　well…being　than　they　are　aware　of；　and　setting　their　highest　in　a　more　luminous　phase　of　life。　　　　　Perhaps；　then；　those　are　in　the　right　who　found　happiness　not　on　the　bare　living　or　even　on　sensitive　life　but　on　the　life　of　Reason？　　　　　But　they　must　tell　us　it　should　be　thus　restricted　and　why　precisely　they　make　Reason　an　essential　to　the　happiness　in　a　living　being：　　　　　〃When　you　insist　on　Reason；　is　it　because　Reason　is　resourceful；　swift　to　discern　and　compass　the　primal　needs　of　nature；　or　would　you　demand　it；　even　though　it　were　powerless　in　that　domain？〃　　　　　If　you　call　it　in　as　a　provider；　then　the　reasonless；　equally　with　the　reasoning；　may　possess　happiness　after　their　kind；　as　long　as；　without　any　thought　of　theirs；　nature　supplies　their　wants：　Reason　becomes　a　servant；　there　is　no　longer　any　worth　in　it　for　itself　and　no　worth　in　that　consummation　of　reason　which；　we　hold；　is　virtue。　　　　　If　you　say　that　reason　is　to　be　cherished　for　its　own　sake　and　not　as　supplying　these　human　needs；　you　must　tell　us　what　other　services　it　renders；　what　is　its　proper　nature　and　what　makes　it　the　perfect　thing　it　is。　　　　　For；　on　this　admission；　its　perfection　cannot　reside　in　any　such　planning　and　providing：　its　perfection　will　be　something　quite　different；　something　of　quite　another　class：　Reason　cannot　be　itself　one　of　those　first　needs　of　nature；　it　cannot　even　be　a　cause　of　those　first　needs　of　nature　or　at　all　belong　to　that　order：　it　must　be　nobler　than　any　and　all　of　such　things：　otherwise　it　is　not　easy　to　see　how　we　can　be　asked　to　rate　it　so　highly。　　　　　Until　these　people　light　upon　some　nobler　principle　than　any　at　which　they　still　halt；　they　must　be　left　where　they　are　and　where　they　choose　to　be；　never　understanding　what　the　Good　of　Life　is　to　those　that　can　make　it　theirs；　never　knowing　to　what　kind　of　beings　it　is　accessible。　　　　　What　then　is　happiness？　Let　us　try　basing　it　upon　Life。　　　　　3。　Now　if　we　draw　no　distinction　as　to　kinds　of　life；　everything　that　lives　will　be　capable　of　happiness；　and　those　will　be　effectively　happy　who　possess　that　one　common　gift　of　which　every　living　thing　is　by　nature　receptive。　We　could　not　deny　it　to　the　irrational　whilst　allowing　it　to　the　rational。　If　happiness　were　inherent　in　the　bare　being…alive；　the　common　ground　in　which　the　cause　of　happiness　could　always　take　root　would　be