Éthique — partie 4
- Langue:
- anglais
- État:
- Œuvre complète
- Paternité:
- Écrite par l'auteur
- État du texte:
- Texte propre
- Étendue:
- ~22 500 mots · 107 passages
Citer cette œuvre
- APABaruch Spinoza. (n.d.). Éthique — partie 4. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4
- MLABaruch Spinoza. "Éthique — partie 4." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
- ChicagoBaruch Spinoza. Éthique — partie 4. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
De quoi il s'agit
Un système complet — Dieu, l'esprit, les affects, la liberté — démontré comme de la géométrie : définitions, axiomes et propositions culminant dans l'idée que la liberté, c'est comprendre la nécessité.
Contexte et histoire
Spinoza acheva l'Éthique vers 1675 et renonça à la publier de son vivant : le scandale de son 'Deus sive Natura' — Dieu et la Nature ne faisant qu'un — l'aurait enseveli. Elle parut en 1677, quelques mois après sa mort, dans les Opera Posthuma, et fut interdite presque aussitôt. Son auteur avait vécu à La Haye en polissant des lentilles, excommunié de la communauté juive d'Amsterdam à vingt-trois ans par un anathème d'une dureté jamais révoquée. Pendant un siècle, « spinoziste » fut une insulte ; ensuite, pour l'idéalisme allemand et bien d'autres, la montagne à laquelle toute philosophie doit se mesurer.
Contexte éditorial, non une source citable : contrairement aux passages de l'œuvre, ces données ne peuvent pas être vérifiées dans le corpus.
PART IV: Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions PREFACE 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. Why this is so, and what is good or evil in the emotions, I propose to show in this part of my treatise. But, before I begin, it would be well to make a few prefatory observations on perfection and imperfection, good and evil. When a man has purposed to make a given thing, and has brought it to perfection, his work will be pronounced perfect, not only by himself, but by everyone who rightly knows, or thinks that he knows, the intention and aim of its author. For instance, suppose anyone sees a work (which I assume to be not yet completed), and knows that the aim of the author of that work is to build a house, he will call the work imperfect; he will, on the other hand, call it perfect, as soon as he sees that it is carried through to the end, which its author had purposed for it. But if a man sees a work, the like whereof he has never seen before, and if he knows not the intention of the artificer, he plainly cannot know, whether that work be perfect or imperfect. Such seems to be the primary meaning of these terms. But, after men began to form general ideas, to think out types of houses, buildings, towers, &c., and to prefer certain types to others, it came about, that each man called perfect that which he saw agree with the general idea he had formed of the thing in question, and called imperfect that which he saw agree less with his own preconceived type, even though it had evidently been completed in accordance with the idea of its artificer.…