/ P、 NIHIL OB町AT Y 1506949 TERENCE P. McLAUGHLIN C.S.B. I盯 RIMATUR 中 JAMES CARDINAL McGUIGAN Being Arckieþ. TOTfmtinω March 4, 1949. and Some Philosophers ETIENNE GILSON SECOND EDmON CORRECfED AND ENLARGED 3、.-, PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES T oronto, Canada 1952 他 f50S94 9 COPYRIGHT, 1949, BY THE , MEDIAEVAL STUDIES OF TORONTO INC. AU rights rtserved. No þart 01 tkis book may be n户oduced in any 101m w:μkout the þerm缸sion 01 tlte p剧， 咿:cal Inst阳t， of Me4.缸etal Sludt'es. τ'he田lection appe缸ing on pages vü.世丑， from So阳 Problems01 Philo呀，。，ph巳y by William Ja皿es (Lo唔田an鸟 Green阻.d Co. New York., 19n). h国 been reprinted by permission of Paul R. Reynolds and S。缸，NewYork CONTENTS PAGE vn Preface Cþapter 1. ON BEING AND THE ONE 1 II. BEING AND SUBSTANCE 41 III. 74 ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE T Second printing 1961 IV. EXISTENCE VERSUS BEING 108 V. BEING AND EXISTENCE • . 154 VI. KNOWLEDGE AND ExISTENf:E 190 Append让一ON SOME DIFFICULTIES OF INTERPRETATION • 216 , Ind x . 233 EUROPE PRINTING. THE HAGUE. HOLLAND %:5. Meppelweg ç' PREFACE τHE work. of William Jam田 has largely been a 航nse of tOOt type of philosophy which now goes by the n皿ne of "pragmatism." It is of the e田ence of pra在matism not to waste any time in de创ng abstract philosophical notions and, least oí all, the notion oí philosophy in gcneml. Yet, in his well-known e回ay on Philosophy and Its Criti口， ， James has íel也 it nece田ary at least once "to tarry a moment over the matter oí definition." To this happy scruple we are indebted for a highly suggestive page, which 1 beg to reproduce in full, because its deepes也 signifìcance lies perhaps less in what he says than in his peculiar way oí saying it: Limited by the omission oí the special scienc四， the name of Philosophy has come more and more to denote ideas oí ur让versal scope e飞clusively. The principles oí explanation th创underlieall things without exception, the elements common to gods and men and animals and stones, the first whence and the last四hitheroí the whole cosmic procession, the conditions oí all knowing, and the m曲t general rules oí human action-these íurnish the problems commonly deemed philosophic par excellence, and the philosopher is a man who finds the most to say about them. Philosophy is defined in the usual Scholastic textbooks as 'the knowledge oí things in general by their ultimate causes, so íar as natural reason can attain to such knowledge.' This means that explan ation oí the universe at large, not description of its details, is what philosophy must aim at; and 80 it OOppens that a view 01 anything is termed philosophic just in proportion 国 it is broad and connected with other views, and 回 it 田es principles not pro'对mate， or intcrmediate, but ultimate and all-embracin罩， to justify itselí. Any very sweeping view oí the world is a philosophy in this sense, even though it may be a vague one. It is a Weltansckauung and intellectualized attitude towards liíe. ProfffiSOt Dewey well describes the constitution of all the philosophies that actually exist, when he says that ph自由ophy 四P陀阳s a certain attitude, purpose, and temper oí conjoined vii BEING AND SOME PHILOSOPHERS PR!l.FACE intellect and will, rather than a discipline whose boundaries right, then it is a sure thing that he is wrong, because it is of the can be really marked off.1 very essence of philosophical knowledge merely to expre田、certain attitude, purpose .and te皿per of conjoined intellect and w乱" τ'hese remarkable lines are more than a mere statement of The皿anwhose will uses every effort to let his own intellect see thi且gs J目n目， own views concerning the defi卫ition of philosophy in just as they are, is then bound to appear as a self-satisfied fellow, general. They actually re-enact the whole historγoftha也definition a living insult to those who don't happen to see reality as he does. from the time of the Greeks up to our own day: At the very He is a man to steer clear of; in short, he is a fanatic. beginning, James sti11 seems to maintain the classical notion of It is, alas, only too true that dogmatic philosophers 缸e liable metaphysics conceived as a wisdom, that is, as a knowledge to become fanatics, but they have at least an excuse, which is that of things in general by their ultimate causes. But it ,im mediately they do believe in the truth of what they teach. Yet their excuse appe回s that the cau国8 he has in mind are neithe things nor also accuses them. Precisely because they believe in philosophical beings. As James conceives them, such causes are more or less truth, they don't know it. Hence their 80metimes blind opposition ultin咀，te accordingωthey 町e more or less Hgeneral," 80 that to what they hold to be false, as if fundamental philosophical philosophy becomes to hi皿 what has been termed by 阻other oppositions necessarily happened between truth and error, instead philosopher as "the specialty of generalities." Thus transformed of being between partial truths and the whole truth. One can from the science of what is first in things into the science of what disagree with both Spinoza and Hegel, but understanding is a is most universal in thought, metaphysics presently undergoes prerequisite to more th皿 verbal disagreei吨， and, once they are a second metamorphosis, in that the intrinsic generality of its understood, they stand in no need of being refuted. For indeed principles becomes itself broadness in 8cope. N ow broadness it is one and the 阻皿e thing to understand them in their fullness is not quite the same as generality. The principles may be equally and to know them in their intrinsic limitations. The only will general without being equally valid, but if "a view of anything is that should be found at the origin of philosophy should be the termed philosophic just in propo此ion as it is broad," any broad w丑1 to know, and this is why nothing is more important for a view of things is 剧 philosophic as any other equally broad one. philosopher th&n the choice he makes of his own philosophical In other words, generality was still related to things, whereas principles. The principle of principles is that a philosopher broadness is an attribute of the mind. But we must finally resort should always put first in his mind what is actually fir8t in reality. to it, be it only to account for the well-known fact that views of What is first in realitý need not be what is the m由teasily accessible reality can be, though equally "sweeping," yet mutually con to human understanding; it is that whose pre8ence or absence ßicting ones. The generality of cognitions ultimately hangs on entails the presence or absence of ..1 1 the rest in reality. the aptne回 of a parlicular knowledge to be generalized, but the The present book is not an atternpt ω8how what comes first broadness in outlook is a mere attitude of the knowing subject in reality, for all philosophers know it inasmuch as they 田'e， towards reality. It is a rnatter of both intellect and will. In not philosophers, but men. Our only problem will be to know how sho此， quot capita, tot S<nSUS: there are 础皿皿y philosophies 回 lt is that what 皿en 80 infallibly know qωmen， they 80 often there are philosopbers. overlook qωphilosophers. In order to solve such a problem, a This situation has already prevailed for 80 long a time that it good deal of historical material8hall have to be taken into account. nowappe町S 国 a perfectly normal 缸ld satisfactory one. There Yet this is not a book in the historγof philosophy; it is a philoso are countries where no profe圈。r of any science could hold his job phical b∞k， and a dogmatically philosophical one at that. The for a month if he starled teaching that he does not know what is the8is it maintains is both 80 impersonal and 80 unpopular that true about the ve巧r science he is 8UppOSed to teach, but where a its author cannot be suspected of fighting a personal battle. He man finds it hard to be appointed as a professor of philosophy simply wish回 to state the truth which he himselfs feels duty if he professes ωbelieve in the truth of the philosophy he teaches_ bound to accept. Yet, he wish四川 le阳也 to state it, and to 8tatQ The only dogmatic tenet 8till held as valid in such philosophical it as true. circles is that, if a philosopher feels reasonably 8ure of being This is why, as a history, this book would be entirely wrong. • William James, Some Problems 01 Pbüosoþhy (New York, 19口l. pp. 4冶 The choice of the philo四phers8ingled out for 8pecial consideration, 世ii 1% BEING AND SOME PIIILOSOPHERS PREFA.CE the selection of the theses to be discussed within their own particular undertaking is always fraught with considerable risk. It w回皿Y philosophies, the intentional dis陀garding of all unnecessary good fortune to find in the Rev. Gerald B. Phelan, then I吁国ident display of historical erudition, everything in it is bound to appear of the Institute, a friend always ready to discuss and to clarify as historical arbitrariness; and this is just what it is, since each the ultimate implications of Thomas Aquinas' metaphysics òf 皿.d every line of this book is philosophic, if not in its form, at being. If that par也 of the work is not better than i也 is， the fault le也stin its purpo田. Its author may well have committed historical is mine, not his. Furthermore, there are皿皿y other things which mistakes; he has not committed the d四dly one of mistaking 1 would have 田id in this book were it not for the fact that the philosophy for history. For the only task of history is to imder President of the. Pontifical Institute, Professor Anton C. Pegis, stand and to make understood, whereas philosophy must choose; had said them hi皿self quite adequately, and especially in his and applying to history for reasons to make a choice is no longer essay, The Dilemma 01 Being and Unity.' 1 also f，四1 indebted histoηr， it is philosophy. Exactly, it is that kind of philosophy to him for many an enlighteuing conversation. No more than which consists neither in thinking about thought nor in directly Father Phelan should Professor Pegis be held r目ponsible for my knowing reality, but in knowing the relation of thought to reality. own metaphysical ventures, but 1 am afraid he could not weiI It asks hist刀ry what that'relation has been in order to ascertain decline all responsibility for their publication. He h国 kindly what it should be. Wholly free 时th respect to time, it is no more assumed the thankless task of removing from my manuscript interested in the past as such than it is in the future. Unless such ble皿ishes which, perhaps excusable in a teacher who does not a philosophy be gréatly mistaken, which is by no means impossible, use his own mother tongue, cannot be tolerated in print. Here i恼 object has neither past nor future, for it is, that is, it is being, again, if this remains a book written in English by a and the truth about it cannot be proved, it can only be seen一or the ~ault is mine, not his; but good will is my excuse, and 1 hope overlooked. Such a dogmatism is singularly devoid of all meta. it will be kindly received by my English-speaking frie physical fanaticism either in fact or in intention only. It is and it can be nothing else than an invitation to look and see. And 1 EττENNE GILSON frankly confess that it is an awkward and clumsy one, full of Toronto, twists and turns, with nothing of that triumphant easine回 which December 15, 1948. a should ch町acterize direct statement of truth. Supposing iι .wdoaeys, iat nadt halelr,e t haits lbeoaostk ictsa na uacthhoierv feu liltys eangd陀 eosnlwy iitnh ab ortohun飞;dVailbloiuamt Chri.s't~ia. nC _~T _hoPuegghi~~..' _'U_T ihne &Dsialeyrsnm切a Tofl wBmeiisngm a(Nnde wU Yniotyrk. , ASh ePeldat o&n ic\V Ianrcdi,d e1n94t 2i)n, especially James and .John Dewey-not indee.d that there is such a thing pp. 巧H句. pp. 叮9-.83. , as a personal truth but that any approach to truth is bound to be a personal one. A dogmatic book may also be something of a \ personal confession, and this book is one. Bearing in mind possible brethren in metaphysical mi四ry， it is the public confession of what bas actually been a wandering quest of truth. The matter of the pre配nt book has been taught during四veral years, under different titl，回， in Paris, at the Coll~ge de France. αrcumstances alone 3re responsible for the fact that it has found i ts final f OI四 in a series of lectures given in 1946 at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (1'oronto). Its composition h回 mainly been a work of ascetic elimination. All that was, because merely historical, irrelevant or unnece盹ary to the philosophical purpose of the book, has been completelyeliminated. 1 have often had to state what have been the ultimate intentions of some philosophers rather than their very words, and 1 know tha也 8uch x E Chapter 1 On Being the One αnd A FTER defining metaphysics as "a science which investigates Z立 heing国beingand the attribut回whichbelong to this in材rtue of its own nature," Aristotle had been c哑eful to add, in order to preclude a11 possible confusion between metaphysics and the other branch田 of human learning: "Now this is not the s皿ne as any of the so-called special sciences; for none of these others deals generally with being as being. They cut off a part of being hh and investigate the attributes of this part.叫 Thus， for instance, vU themath回naticalsciences deal with quantity, the physical sciences H - with motion, and the biological sciences with Iife, that is to say, 叶- 叫 飞iVith certain definite ways of being, none of which is being as h being, but only being田 life，国 mot.ion， or阻 quantity. h By making these very simple remarks, Aristotle was doing 阳 r nothing less than granting metaphysics its charter as a distinct 忡 science specificd by a distinct object. And his determination Jd of it was so perfect that it contained，切geth回 with the definition h川 bf what metaphysics had to do in order to Iive, a clear inti皿ation 川IJ 。f what it should not ùo if it did not 飞I{ant to die. To cut ofI a - part of being and to investigate the attributes of this part is a - -- perfectly legitimate unùertaking. In fact, it is to cultivate one of i ph the so-called positive sciences. But to inv回t any conceivable part of being with the attributes of being itself, and to investigat冶 川 川 the attributes of the wholc from the point of view of 田lY one of 11 its parts, is to undertakc a task whose verγnotion involves a contradiction. Anybody who attempts it is bound ultimately to 川川 fail. When he fails, hc himself or his succe回ors WiII probably 川 blame his failurc on metaphysics itself; and they thelÍ will conclude l! that metaphysic. is a pseudo-science, which busies itself with problems impervious to the Iight of human reason. For this well-known form of metaphysical ùespair, skepticism is but another name. Skepticism is a philosophical disease which either moralism J Arist。他， Mtlaþhysics, r, t, t∞'3 a 21-25 in Aristotl, SJedio时，ed.b,. W. D. R。目(NewYork, Scribn凹，1927)，p. 53. 1 BEING AND SOME PHlLOSOPHERS ON BEING AND THE ONE > or pseudo-皿ysticÏ!m can ease, b的 for which there is no other presen也 participle of the verb "to be." As a verb, it no longer cure than to come back to the science of being 回 being， n皿nely， signifies something that is, nor even existence in general, but metaphysics. rather the very act whereby any given reality actually is, or If this 00 true, it should no也00wrong to su皿up the nature and 皿ists. Let us call this nc也 a ulo be," in contradistinction to unity of philosophical阻periencein the two following propositions: wha也 is com皿only called "α being." It appears at once that, first, that since bei吨 is the first principle of human knowledge, 时 least to the mind, the relation of "10 be" to "being" is not a it is a fortiori the firs也 principle of metaphysics; next, that all the reciprocalone. "ßeing" is conceivable, "10 be" is not. We cannot p阳也 failures of 皿etaphysics should be blamed, not on. meta possibly conceive an U口" exccpt as belonging to some thing physics itself, but rather on repeated mistakes made by 皿eta­ that is, or exists. But the reverse is not true. Being is quite physicians conceming the first principle of human knowledge, conceivable apart from actual existence;四皿uch so that the very which is being.' If 1 now beg leave to use these conclusions as a first and the most universal of all the distinctions in the real皿 of starting point for a new journey to the land of meta.physics, the being is that which divides it into two cl描ses， that of the real reason is not that 1 no longer hold them to be true; it rather is that and that of tha possible. Now what is it to conceive a being 1 have always considered them as being, although true, yet almost as merely possible, if not to conceive it apart from actual existcnce? 11llht fantastically paradoxical. For indeed, if being is the first principle A HpO回ible" is a being which h描 not yet received, or which of human knowledge, it must be the veηr firs也 objectto be grasped h国 already lost, its own to be. Since being is thinkable apart by the human mind; now, if it is, how are we to account for the from actual existence, wherells actual e对stence is not thinkable fact that so many philosophers have been unable to gr田p it? apart from being, philosophers will simply yield to one of the N or is this all. That which comes firs也 in the order of knowledge fundamental facilities of the human 叫nd by positing being minus must of necessity accompany all our representations; now, if actual existence as thc first principle of metaphysics. 41 it does, how can being both 00 constantly present to the mos也 Let us go farther still. It is no也 enough to say that being is 川 common mind, yet prove 80 elusive that so many veηr great philoso conceivable apart from existence; in a certain sense it mu皿 00 内hw phers have failed to see it? If the ultimate lesson of philosophical said that be切g is always conceived by us apart from existence, for l experience is that the human mind is blind to the very light in the very simplc reason that existence itself cannot possibly 00 w which i也 is supposed to see both itself and all the rest, what it conceived. The nature of this paradoxical fact has OOen admirably 旷咔 teaches us is worse than a paradox, it is an absurdity. descriOOd by Kant in thc ffimous pas盹ge of his Critique of Pur. 盹 The only way for us to avoid this depressing conclusion is Reason which deals with the 协called. ontological proof of the to suppose that the fault does not necessarily lie with the nature existence of God: fjBcing," Ku.nt says, "is evidently not a real of the human mind, and that being itsclf might 00 partly respons predicate, or n. con四川 of something that can be lldded to the ible for the diflìculty. There may well be something in its very concept of" thing.'" In this text, in which being obviously 皿eans nature which invites philosophers to behave as though the fear to be, Kant wants us to understand that there is no ditIerence of being were the beginning of wisdom. What else could account what沼oever betwecn the conceptual content of our notion of a for the curious eagemess of metaphysicians to ascribe the primacy thing conceived as e必sting and the conceptual content of our and the universality of being to practically any one of its parts, notion of identically thc same thing, not conccived as e对sting. ratherthanωaccept being as the first principle of their philosophy? N ow, if the "to be" of a thing could be conceived apart from As soon 皿 we ask ourselves this question, the fundamental that which exists, it should be represented in our mind by some 皿nbiguity of the notion of being OOgins to appear... In a first note distinct from the concept of the thing itself. Added to our acceptation, the word being is a. noun. As such, it signifies either concept of any one thing, such " note would make it rcpresent a being (that is, the substance, nature, and essen四 ofanything that thing plus cxistence, whcreas, subtracted from it, this note existent), or OOing itself, a property common to all that which can would make .our roncept rcprcscnt the 由me thing, minllS exist- rightly 00 said to 00. In a second a.cceptation, the s皿neword is the 'E. Gilson, The Unily 01 Philorophical &ptrÏl阳e (New -York, Scribner. Ch. 33 ,I msemcta.n u4.e li nK Kanatn,t 'Cs rSitciq[ellcct io(11ns P, uerdc. Rbcya sTohne,o 1d)oarnes cMeendye町ntaGlr eDeinaclccCtNice,w D Yk.o r1k1,, 1937), pp. 313, 316. Scribner 1929), p. 268. 2 3 rJ , L 13EING AND SOllE pmLOSOPHERS 。N BEING AND TlIE ONE ence. 1n point of fact, i也 is not so. There is nothing we csn add Let us now imagine some philosopher, quite willing to posit to .. concept in order to make it repr四ent its object 副 e对stingj being as the first principle of his own doctrine, but still hesitating what happens if we add anything to it is that it represents some 由tothe exact meaning of this notion. Unless he has lost common thing else. Such is the meaning of Kant's assertion, that the sense, our man will be keenly aware of the fundamental import. '{' concept of the real does not contain more than the coneept of the ance of existence as such. If he himself did not exist, he would possible. If we mentally add a cent to the concep也 of a hundred not be there to ask questions about the nature of reality, and dollars, we will turn it into the concept of another sum of money, if there were no actually existing things, he would have nothing to n皿nely， a hundred dollars and one cent; on the contrary, )et us ask qu四tions about. On the other hand, this fundamental fact, analyze the concept of a hundred possible dollars and a hundred which we call existence, soon proves a rather barren topic for real dollars: they ""e identically the same, n旧时ly， the concep也 philosophical speculation. It belongs in the class of those "it of a hundred dollars. 1n Ksnt's own words: "By whatever and by goes.without.saying" statements which, precisely because they however many predicatcs 1 may think a thing (even in com. ' are ultimate in their own order, have to be made once bu也 do not pletely det回mining it) nothing is really added to it, if 1 add that need to be rep咀，ted，because they are not susceptible of any further the thing exists.叫 1n short, actual existence cannot be represented elucidation. Such being the case, what is 0田 philosopher going by nor in, a concept. to do? His natural inclination will probably be to discount exist J Let us call this remarkable character of conceptual knowledge ence from his own notion of being. Leaving aside the actual to "existential neutrality." The fact that our concepts are exist. be of that which is, he will focus his attention on the nature of entially neutral has exercised a deep and continuous influence existence in general as well as on the attributes of all that which on the devclopment of the history of philosophy, and the very enjoys the remarkable privilege of being. If he does so, it will b commonn回s of the example used by Kant can help us in under. remain true to say that metaphysics is the science of being 嗣 stsnding why. Speculatively sp咀king， my concept of a hundrcd being, but of being as a noun, not as a verb. Now, to leave a real dollars does n的 contain onc cent more than my concept of a certain fact out because it cannot be represented by a concept is hundred possible dollars, but existentially speaki'ng, there sre 8 certainly not an a priori absurdity. It certainly looks like a waste lot of cents in a hundred real dollllJ'S, whereas to own a million ? of time to speculate about an object which is clearly recognized possible dollars is still to be 8 pennile田 man. It did not take 8 as inconceivable. Again, there is at least a chance that what is great philosopher to realize this, as Kant himself has been kind mentally inconceivable may be, at the 回me time, ontologically enough to grant: "1n my 1inancial p值ition， no doubt there exists steriIe. Now if "to be" means nothing more than "to be there," more by one hundred dollars thsn by their concept only,'" but philosophers are wholly justified in taking e对stence for granted this absolutely pri皿itive fac也 is pregnant with an infinity of con. 8t the very beginning of their inquiries, 8nd in never 皿entioning PIlli-- se吨uences which even Kant's genius hss not been able to embrace it ag8in in the course of their investigations. Yet, this is taking lIll--J1 iiwnnh otichuher i ric to tnoisct aemlpitatsyd,. e i tuF iprmo 皿omfe dtchioaent cefelaypcttfs o,tl hlpoahwti lso estxhoispathta,in ctcaoel tsihsp een cfouutll lai tneiocxlntue dnitatsb etlloef ,f) 四8en citishatalenlnycc een, mcfuo8rtyr, a alb.fe t e1arn n8 1ao1ct,h tbieverei n wfgoo rirctdsese ,l8 fni 也md ii8sgnhq tue hfiftaeicp ippeonetsn s cinb8oluets ett oho afb teo 8beCsxetUirsvat..l is existentially neutrnl. It will therefore remain identically the able effects in those things of which we say that they are. If such same whether its objects actually exist or not. The relation of a were the c阻e， 811 philosophies based upon an e对stenceless notion thus understood philosophy to reality will be practically the same of being would be courting disaster, 8nd eventually meet it. It 忖 as that of the mento.l multiplication by ten of our bank 8ccount J would not tske more than two or three disastrous cxperiments to the amount o[ cash which we can actually dr8W from the bsnk. 1n short, a thus understood philosophy may perhaps be 8ble to of that kind to convince philosophers that it d。因 not pay to posit tell us everything about that which reality is, but nothing 8t all being as the first principle of metsphysical knowledge. Hence concerning this not unimportant detai!: the actual existence, or their repe8ted 8ttempts to repl8ce it by any one of its msny non.existence, of what we call r""lity. possible surrog8tes, 8t the risk of皿ultiplyinl:philosophic8l failures, • lbiJ., p. 269. 叮.bid. so to sp回，1'， ad infinitum. 4 5 11" 、 BEING AND SOllE PHILOSQPHERS ON BEING AND THE ONE We have now, 1 think, succeeded in identifying the new task one of its ultimate Iimits; but, at the 阻皿e ti皿e， he entangled which Iiès ahead of llS. lt will be to experiment on the following himself in what still is for us one of the worst metaphysical di伍cul­ theme: what happens to the notion of being when actual existence ties-bhad been possible for PMEneRides'predecessors to identify is removed from its comprehension? 1 say to "experiment," nature with water，自由 or air, ~ withou也 going to the trouble of because, widely accepted as it is, the conviction that sensible defining the meaning of thøse terms. If 1 say that eve!ything is phenomena alone are resistant enough to be experimented upon water, everybody mll understand what I mem, but if I say that is norietheless an illusion. Abstract ideas hav'e a resistance and, every1,hing ;s beï"ng, 1 can safely exp时 to be asked: what is b巾g? so to speak, a soIidity of their own. The slightest alteration in For 'indeed we all' know many beings, but what being itself is, or their comprehension never fails to bring about a corresponding what it is to be, is an extremely obscure and intricate question. alteration in the wholc series of their con回quences. Now, in Parmenides could hardly avoid telling us what sort of reaIity virtue of its very nature, the notion of being is one of those funda being itsclf is. 1n point -of fact, he was bold enough to raise_ ~h.e mental data which philosophers have envisaged from all con problem and clear:sighted enough to give it an answer which ccivable points of view and scrutinized from all possible angles. still deserves to hold our attention. Here, as everywhere else, the Greeks have come first, and one of Such as we find it described in the first pmt of Parmenid田' the vcry first things they ha ve done has precisely been to carry philosophical poem, being appears as enc:lowed .wi~.h .all. th~ ,:t up to its absolutely ultimate con四quences an existentially nelltral iribute~ akin 100 th~ notion õr identity. First of all, it is of the conception of being. . very essence of being tha也 all that which shares in it is, whereas Wheu the early Greek thinkers initiated philosophical specu气 tha"t which does not 'share in it, is not. Now if all that which 阻， lation, the very first question they asked thcmselves was: 飞N"hat is being, being is both unique and universal. For the same re，国on， stuff is reality made of? Taken in itself, this question was strikingly a caus;' of its-exÎstcnce Îs inconceivable. In order to ca.use it, its , indicative of the 皿ost fundamental need of the human mind. To cause would have first to be, which means that, since bcing is the JIl!ili-- understand something is for llS to conceive i也 as identical in oniy conceivable cause of being, it has no cause. Consc'Iuently, nature with somcthing else that we already know. To know the being h剧 no beginning. 1:ioreover, since any conc~ivable_ cau~e nature of reaIity at large is the陀fore for us to understand that of its destruction would also have to be before destroying 扰， each and every one of the innumerable things which make up the being can have no end. 1n other words, it is eternal. One canDO也 universe is, at bottom, identical in nature with each and every say of it that it once was, or that it will later be, _bllt on!:.: that other thing. Prompted by this unshakable conviction, unshakable it ;s. Thus estabIished in a perpetual present, being has no history becallse rooted in the very es四nce of human understandi吨， the becallse it is essentially foreign to change. Any modification mini: its eariy G陀ek thinkers succe斟ively attempt尼d to reduce nature in structure would imply that something which wa_s not is 1:'eco ng, general to water, thcn to air, then to fire, until one of them at or beginning to be; ";'hich is an impossibility. Besides, bein哩: has last hit upon the right answer to thc question, by saying that the no strllctllre. 1t is not subject to division, since there is no place, , primary stuff wruch reality is made of is being 而thin being -itself, where it could possibly not exist. Let 田 The answer was obviously eGrrect, for it is not at once evident therefore conceive it 阻 absolutely fllll, and, if we find i也 easier to that, in the iast analysis, air and fire are nothing else than water, imagine its nature, let us pictllre it to Ollr fancy like "the ma咀 or that, conversely, water itself is nothing else than either air or of a rounded sphere, equally distant from the centre a~ ever:,: fire; but i也 cannot be doubted that, whatever else they may be, point," whereiñ being is everywhere contiguous to, and equal water, air and fire have in common at least this property, that with, being, immovable, necess咀厅， eternally Iying in the s皿ne theyare. Each of them is a being, and, since the回，me can be said condition and abiding in the same place. Such is the t~ue nature of everything el白， we cannot avoid the conclusion that being of that which is; for being alone is, and there is no other alternative, is the only property certainly shared in common byall that w hich for any conceivable reality, than either to be that which being itself is. Being, then, is the fundamental and ultimate element of rcality. actually is, or else' not to be at all.' 飞N"hen he made this discovery, Parmenides of Elca at once ._ For an English translation of Parmenides' pþil?sopþica.~_~II!: s~_e Milt~n carried metaphysical I"peculation to 、vhat was always to rcmain c. Naiun, Selectiõnsfrom Early Greck Philosoþhy, 2ñd ed. (New York, Crofts, 1941), pp. II3-1I7. 6 7 (' BEING AND 50ME PHILOSOPHER8 ON BEING AND THE ONE Today it is hard for田 to read this philosophica.l poem, written consid四 that to he a being is to e对此阻d tha.t, conversely, to betw配n'500 and 450 B.C., oth.rwise than 困 a curious specimen ex王的 is to be a. being. Yet, if we grant Parmenid田 this seemingly of menta.l archeology, and, in fact, this is exactly wha.t its pl嗣tic nec回sary p08ition, he will ruthlessly drag U8 through a seri目。f imagery is. But let u8 go beyond the poctic fiction of this rounded such devasta.ting consequenc田 tha.t very little will remain of sphere of being, "p四fectedon every side," and "in the hold of great wha.t we u8ua.lly call rea.lity. cha.ins, without beginning or end;" let us try to reach, beyond If to be a being and to exist are one and the 盹皿e thing, it these images, the rationa.1四igencies of which the poet philosopher become8 imperative for u8 to exclude from actua.l阻i8tence whaι was trying to give us a concrete feeling, and old Par皿enid四 ever do回 not exhibit the genuine chara.cters of being. N ow being will app目r to us as he once appeared to Plato: "a man to be is one. bu也 the world of se田e we are living in a.ppears to us 础 r回pected 阻d.at the same time feared.'" There is in his thought many. There is in it a variety of elements, each of which is identical something of the adamantine quality of his own notion of being. with. itself. but not identical with the others. Moreover, these As early as the 缸th century, B.C., Parmenides carried meta. elements are not only different; some of them are opp田ite: light physics, that is, our human science of the nature of being, upω and darkness, for instance; yet they s四m to co-exist in the sa皿e one of its ulti皿ate 1皿its， and we will see that Plato himself world, so that, if we 田cribe being to the world of sense, we shall has never been able to get out of this metaphysical dead end str回t have to say that. being is neither one, nor homogeneous, nor If we a.llow ourselves to be tricked into his own position on the simple, which we know to be impo田ible. Again, p町ticul町 thing汩 . problem of being, it is 丑。 longer Parmenides himself we 町e up are cea配lessly appearing and disappearing; we see _them beginning against, but rather an unshaka.ble law of the human mind. to be, then progre回ively changing, decaying and coming to 皿 What lies at the bottom of Parmenides' doctrine is this funda. end: plurlllity, diversity, mutability, caducity-so many char mental truth, that, however we look at reality, we fail to discover acteristics that cannot be reconciled with our previous description in it anything more important than its very exÍstence. Hence of bcing. N ow, if only that which deserves the title of being is, his often-repeated statement that "being is," whereas "it is impos or exist.., the world of sense as a whole must be said not to be. sible that non-being be;" in other words, "either being exists or A strange yet unavoidable consequence with which, even today, it does not exist," which 皿eans that, for reality, no intermediate each and eveηT metaphysician still finds himself confronted. .1f condition is conceivable between existence and non-existence. realityis that_whi<>h .. Ís, thenc甘leru电且othing..reaLbuLb国ng旦国y:， 咱 1n Parmenides' own words, "it is ncces回ry that being either is and. since we have no experience of anything which we may ‘ absolutely or is not," and, since nobody WOuld ever dream of consider as absolutely one, ingenerable and indestructible, wholly maintaining that being is not, there is but one single path ler也 open homogeneous, conthluoU8 and free from change, it follows of to philosophica.l speculation, "namely, that being is.'" necessity that truι.realit立~pu!"lLobjecLoUÞ立_mind. Actua.l 80 far, so good. The rea.l dif!iCulty begins when we try to inter reality thus becomes the exclusive privilege of that object of pret this very formula: being is. What makes Parmenides' position thought to which alone our underst皿ding can ascribe the at a permanently conclusive experiment in metaphysics is that it tribut目。f being. All the rest, namely, this infinitely varied shows us what happens to rea.lity when the proposition, being is, world of change,-including ourselves who are living in it, cannot is held as a tautologica.l one. For indeed it is evident that only be said tobe: it is but an appearance, a merçJlIusion. that which is, is, or exÍsts, but it is not at once evident that only Thus，回 early as the fifth century before Christ，缸ld without that which 副回wers P皿τnenides' description of being is, or e对sts. being in the least conscious of it, Parmenides w国notonly creating Because Parmenides h回based his whole doctrine upon the evident the sciei:lCe of being 皿 being， but rea.ching at once one of those 皿sumption that being is, he still remains for u8 what he a.lready few philosophical p回itions that can rightly be.ca.lled pure, in that W崎 for Plato, a man to be r回pected; hut because he has unre they mark the absolute limits which, a.long certain lines of thought, servedly equated existencc with being, he still inspir回u8 with a.re a.cceflsible to the human mind. If we ca.ll 口istence the definite as much fear 8s reTerence. At first sigbt, it looks quite natural to mode of being which belongs to the world of ch皿ge such 田 it is given in sensible expcrience-and it should not be forgotten that we '7 Plato, Thtattd旧， 183E. , • Nah血，Selecliom介0'111&rl Greek P;'ilosøþhy, pp. IIs-n6. have no experience of any other type of reality一it then becomes 8 9 • 11\