A serious proposal to the Ladies, for the advancement of their true and greatest interest (In Two Parts)Astell, Mary
Religion
A serious proposal to the Ladies, for the advancement of their true and greatest interest (In Two Parts)
Astell, Mary
Feminism -- Great Britain -- History -- 18th century -- Sources; Women's rights -- Great Britain -- History -- 18th century -- Sources
In this enumeration of the several ways of Knowing. I have not
reckon’d the Senses, in regard that we’re more properly said to be
_Conscious_ of than to _Know_ such things as we perceive by Sensation.
And also because that Light which we suppose to be let into our Ideas
by our Senses is indeed very dim and fallacious, and not to be relied
on till it has past the Test of Reason; neither do I think there’s any
Mode of Knowlege which mayn’t be reduc’d to those already mentioned.
Now tho there’s a great difference between Opinion and Science, true
Science being immutable but Opinion variable and uncertain, yet there
is not such a difference between Faith and Science as is usually
suppos’d. The difference consists not in the Certainty but in the
way of Proof; the Objects of Faith are as Rationally and as Firmly
Prov’d as the Objects of Science, tho by another way. As Science
Demonstrates things that are _Seen_, so Faith is the Evidence of such
as are _Not Seen_. And he who rejects the Evidence of Faith in such
things as belong to its Cognizance, is as unreasonable as he who denies
Propositions in Geometry that are prov’d with Mathematical exactness.
There’s nothing true which is not in it self demonstrable, or which
we should not pronounce to be true had we a Clear and Intuitive View
of it. But as was said above we see very few things by Intuition,
neither are we furnish’d with Mediums to make the Process our selves
in Demonstrating all Truths, and therefore there are some Truths which
we must either be totally ignorant of, or else receive them on the
Testimony of another Person, to whose Understanding they are clear and
manifest tho not to ours. And if this Person be one who can neither be
Deceiv’d nor Deceive, we’re as certain of those Conclusions which we
prove by his Authority, as we’re of those we demonstrate by our own
Reason; nay more Certain, by how much his Reason is more Comprehensive
and Infallible than our own.
Science is the following the Process our Selves upon Clear and Evident
Principles; Faith is a Dependance on the Credit of another, in such
matters as are out of our View. And when we have very good Reason to
submit to the Testimony of the Person we Believe, Faith is as Firm, and
those Truths it discovers to us as truly Intelligible, and as strongly
Prov’d in their kind as Science.
In a word, as every Sense so every Capacity of the Understanding has
its proper Object. The Objects of Science are things within our View,
of which we may have Clear and Distinct Ideas, and nothing shou’d be
determin’d here without Clearness and Evidence. To be able to repeat
any Persons _Dogma_ without forming a Distinct Idea of it our selves,
is not to Know but to Remember; and to have a Confuse Indeterminate
Idea is to Conjecture not to Understand.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account