Essays, or discourses, vol. 4 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish — John Shaqi
Essays, or discourses, vol. 4 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the SpanishFeijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Philosophy
Essays, or discourses, vol. 4 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish
Feijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Spanish essays -- Translations into English
XXXVI. And to begin with the specific, who can deny that in this sense,
we know nothing of any one entity? I defy all the philosophers to tell me
what is the constituent or component physical substance, of any one of
the material entities that is to be found in the universe, and will give
them leave to chuse that which they have most examined. St. Basil has
some words (Epist. 168. _ad Eunomium_) that are admirably applicable to
this purpose, and which I shall here insert: _Itaque qui se existentium
scientiam assequutum esse gloriatur, exponat nobis quomodo, quod minimum
esse eorum, quæ in lucem prodierunt, natura habeat._ Let the presumptuous
philosopher, who boasts of his physical knowledge, explain to us the
nature of the least entity which God has created. Let him, adds the same
Father, who is ostentatiously vain of having penetrated into the secrets
of nature, tell us what is the nature of an ant: _Dicat formicarum nobis
naturam, qui eorum, quæ in natura sunt scientiam cum fastu se prædicat
assequutum._ But why should we waste time? There is not, nor ever was to
this day, any one, who by means of acquired science, could penetrate the
constituent or component physical substance of any living or inanimate
entity; the reach of our capacities not permitting us to go further, than
to distinguish by some very extrinsic accidents, one thing from another;
and this mode of distinguishing, is confined principally to those we call
naturalists, and rarely extends to those in the schools, who acquire the
appellation of philosophers, and who generally content themselves with
distinguishing some few, which they commonly do in the unhappy manner we
shall proceed to point out; but when school philosophers descend to treat
of specific conceptions, their philosophy is so miserable and confined,
that they only attempt to give the colour of a definition to a few
species of brutes, whose voice they describe by some particular name,
and then explain their conception of them, by some term derived from
that name; thus they call the lion a roaring animal; the dog a barking
one, and the horse a neighing one; but the fish, because they are very
numerous, and are for the most part mute, cannot well be comprehended
within this rule, and therefore are obliged to go without a definition.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account