This is a modern-English version of The System of Nature, or, the Laws of the Moral and Physical World. Volume 1, originally written by Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry, baron d'. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.









THE SYSTEM OF NATURE, VOLUME I (of II)

By Paul Henri Thiery (Baron d'Holbach)



Introduction by Robert D. Richardson, Jr.












INTRODUCTION

Paul Henri Thiery, Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789), was the center of the radical wing of the philosophes. He was friend, host, and patron to a wide circle that included Diderot, D'Alembert, Helvetius, and Hume. Holbach wrote, translated, edited, and issued a stream of books and pamphlets, often under other names, that has made him the despair of bibliographers but has connected his name, by innuendo, gossip, and association, with most of what was written in defense of atheistic materialism in late eighteenth-century France.

Paul Henri Thiery, Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789), was at the forefront of the radical faction of the philosophes. He was a friend, host, and supporter of a broad circle that included Diderot, D'Alembert, Helvetius, and Hume. Holbach wrote, translated, edited, and published a continuous stream of books and pamphlets, often under different names, which has made him a challenge for bibliographers but has linked his name, through innuendo, gossip, and association, with most of the writings that defended atheistic materialism in late eighteenth-century France.

Holbach is best known for The System of Nature (1770) and deservedly, since it is a clear and reasonably systematic exposition of his main ideas. His initial position determines all the rest of his argument. "There is not, there can be nothing out of that Nature which includes all beings." Conceiving of nature as strictly limited to matter and motion, both of which have always existed, he flatly denies that there is any such thing as spirit or a supernatural. Mythology began, Holbach claims, when men were still in a state of nature and at the point when wise, strong, and for the most part benign men were arising as leaders and lawgivers. These leaders "formed discourses by which they spoke to the imaginations of their willing auditors," using the medium of poetry, because it "seem{ed} best adapted to strike the mind." Through poetry, then, and by means of "its images, its fictions, its numbers, its rhyme, its harmony... the entire of nature, as well as all its parts, was personified, by its beautiful allegories." Thus mythology is given an essentially political origin. These early poets are literally legislators of mankind. "The first institutors of nations, and their immediate successors in authority, only spoke to the people by fables, allegories, enigmas, of which they reserved to themselves the right of giving an explanation." Holbach is rather condescending about the process, but since mythology is a representation of nature itself, he is far more tolerant of mythology than he is of the next step. "Natural philosophers and poets were transformed by leisure into metaphysicians and theologians," and at this point a fatal error was introduced: the theologians made a distinction between the power of nature and nature itself, separated the two, made the power of nature prior to nature, and called it God. Thus man was left with an abstract and chimerical being on one side and a despoiled inert nature, destitute of power, on the other. In Holbach's critique the point at which theology split off from mythology marks the moment of nature's alienation from itself and paves the way for man's alienation from nature.

Holbach is best known for The System of Nature (1770), and rightly so, as it clearly and systematically explains his main ideas. His starting point shapes the rest of his argument: "There is not, nor can there be, anything outside of that Nature which includes all beings." He views nature as strictly limited to matter and motion, both of which have always existed, and outright denies the existence of spirit or the supernatural. Holbach argues that mythology began when humans were still in a natural state, as wise, strong, and mostly good leaders emerged. These leaders "created narratives to engage the imaginations of their willing listeners," using poetry as it "seemed best suited to capture the mind." Through poetry, with "its images, its fictions, its numbers, its rhyme, its harmony... all of nature and its parts were personified through its beautiful allegories." Therefore, mythology is fundamentally political in origin. These early poets are literally the lawmakers of humanity. "The first founders of nations and their immediate successors spoke to the people only through fables, allegories, and enigmas, which they kept the right to explain." Holbach looks down on this process, but because mythology reflects nature itself, he is much more accepting of mythology than he is of what follows. "Natural philosophers and poets were turned by leisure into metaphysicians and theologians," and at this point, a critical mistake was made: the theologians created a distinction between the power of nature and nature itself, placing the power of nature above nature and labeling it God. Consequently, humanity is left with an abstract and illusory being on one side and a stripped-down, powerless nature on the other. In Holbach's critique, the moment theology separated from mythology marks the point where nature became alienated from itself, setting the stage for humanity's alienation from nature.

Holbach is thus significant for Romantic interest in myth in two ways. First, he provides a clear statement of what can be loosely called the antimythic position, that rationalist condescension and derogation of all myth and all religion that was never far from the surface during the Romantic era. Holbach was and is a reminder that the Romantic affirmation of myth was never easy, uncritical, or unopposed. Any new endorsement of myth had to be made in the teeth of Holbach and the other skeptics. The very vigor of the Holbachian critique of myth impelled the Romantics to think more deeply and defend more carefully any new claim for myth. Secondly, although Holbach's argument generally drove against myth and religion both, he did make an important, indeed a saving distinction between mythology and theology. Mythology is the more or less harmless personification of the power in and of nature; theology concerns itself with what for Holbach was the nonexistent power beyond or behind nature. By exploiting this distinction it would become possible for a Shelley, for example, to take a strong antitheological—even an anti-Christian—position without having to abandon myth.

Holbach is important for Romantic interest in myth in two ways. First, he clearly expresses what can be loosely called the antimythic stance, which is the rationalist disdain and belittling of all myth and religion that was always present during the Romantic era. Holbach serves as a reminder that the Romantic endorsement of myth was never simple, uncritical, or without opposition. Any new support for myth had to confront Holbach and the other skeptics. The strength of Holbach's critique of myth pushed the Romantics to think more critically and defend any new claims for myth more rigorously. Secondly, although Holbach's argument generally opposed both myth and religion, he did make a crucial, even rescue, distinction between mythology and theology. Mythology is the mostly harmless personification of the forces of nature, while theology deals with what Holbach considered to be a nonexistent power beyond or behind nature. By making this distinction, it became possible for someone like Shelley to take a strong antitheological—even an anti-Christian—position without having to give up on myth.

Holbach was one of William Godwin's major sources for his ideas about political justice, and Shelley, who discussed Holbach with Godwin, quotes extensively from The System of Nature in Queen Mab. Furthermore, Volney's Ruins, another important book for Shelley, is directly descended from The System of Nature. On the other side, Holbach was a standing challenge to such writers as Coleridge and Goethe and was reprinted and retranslated extensively in America, where his work was well known to the rationalist circle around Jefferson and Barlow.

Holbach was one of William Godwin's key influences for his ideas on political justice, and Shelley, who talked about Holbach with Godwin, quotes a lot from The System of Nature in Queen Mab. In addition, Volney's Ruins, another significant book for Shelley, directly stems from The System of Nature. On the flip side, Holbach posed a constant challenge to writers like Coleridge and Goethe, and his work was widely reprinted and retranslated in America, where it was well-known among the rationalist group around Jefferson and Barlow.

Issued in 1770 as though by Jean Baptiste de Mirabaud (a former perpetual secretary to the Académie française who had died ten years before), La Système de la nature was translated and reprinted frequently. The Samuel Wilkinson translation we have chosen to reprint was the most often reprinted or pirated version in English. A useful starting point for Holbach's work is Jerome Vercruysse, Bibliographie descriptive des écrits du baron d'Holbach (Paris, 1971). The difficult subject of the essentially clandestine evolution of biblical criticism as an anti-Christian and antimyth critique in the early part of the eighteenth century, before the well-documented era of the biblical critic Eichhorn in Germany, is illuminated in Ira Wade, The Clandestine Organization and Diffusion of Philosophic Ideas in France from 1700-1750 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1938).

Issued in 1770 as if by Jean Baptiste de Mirabaud (a former perpetual secretary to the Académie française who had passed away ten years earlier), La Système de la nature was translated and printed multiple times. The Samuel Wilkinson translation we’ve chosen to reprint was the most commonly reprinted or pirated version in English. A useful starting point for Holbach's work is Jerome Vercruysse, Bibliographie descriptive des écrits du baron d'Holbach (Paris, 1971). The challenging topic of the mostly underground development of biblical criticism as an anti-Christian and antimyth critique in the early part of the eighteenth century, before the well-documented era of the biblical critic Eichhorn in Germany, is explored in Ira Wade, The Clandestine Organization and Diffusion of Philosophic Ideas in France from 1700-1750 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1938).

Robert D. Richardson, Jr.

Robert D. Richardson Jr.

University of Denver

University of Denver

{Illustration: Parke sculp't M. DE MIRABAUD}

{Illustration: Parke sculp't M. DE MIRABAUD}










THE SYSTEM OF NATURE; OR, THE LAWS OF THE MORAL AND PHYSICAL WORLD.

TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL FRENCH OF M. DE MIRABAUD










VOL. I.










CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS














DETAILED CONTENTS

DETAILED CONTENTS

Preface
PART I—Laws of Nature.—Of man.—The faculties of the soul.
—Doctrine of immortality.—On happiness.
CHAP. I. Nature and her laws.
CHAP. II. Of motion and its origin.
CHAP. III. Of matter—of its various combinations—of its diversified
motion—or of the course of Nature.
CHAP. IV. Laws of motion common to every being of Nature—attraction and
repulsion—inert force-necessity.
CHAP. V. Order and confusion—intelligence—chance.
CHAP. VI. Moral and physical distinctions of man—his origin.
CHAP. VII. The soul and the spiritual system.
CHAP. VII. The soul and the spiritual system.
CHAP. VIII. The intellectual faculties derived from the faculty of
feeling.
CHAP. IX. The diversity of the intellectual faculties; they depend on
physical causes, as do their moral qualities.—The natural principles of
society—morals—politics.
CHAP. X. The soul does not derive its ideas from itself—it has no
innate ideas.
CHAP. XI. Of the system of man's free-agency.
CHAP. XII. An examination of the opinion which pretends that the system
of fatalism is dangerous.
CHAP. XIII. Of the immortality of the soul—of the doctrine of a future
state—of the fear of death.
CHAP. XIV. Education, morals, and the laws suffice to restrain man—of
the desire of immortality—of suicide.
CHAP. XV. Of man's true interest, or of the ideas he forms to himself of
happiness.—Man cannot be happy without virtue.
CHAP. XVI. The errors of man.—Upon what constitutes happiness.—The
true source of his evils.—Remedies that may be applied.
CHAP. XVII. Those ideas which are true, or founded upon Nature, are the
only remedies for the evil of man.—Recapitulation.—Conclusions of the
First Part.










PREFACE

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:—He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him. To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage—it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigour and impartiality the opinions he has adopted. He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choaked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colours; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

The source of human unhappiness is ignorance of Nature. The stubbornness with which people cling to misguided opinions learned in childhood, which become intertwined with their lives, creates biases that warp their thinking. This prevents their growth and makes them slaves to falsehoods, seemingly condemning them to constant mistakes. They are like a child lacking experience, filled with idealistic notions: a dangerous mix infiltrates all their knowledge; it’s obscure, unstable, and misleading. They adopt their ideas based on the authority of others, who may also be wrong or have a motive to deceive. To eliminate this overwhelming darkness, these obstacles to self-improvement; to free them from the confusion that surrounds them; to help them navigate this complex maze requires the guidance of Ariadne, with all the love she could offer Theseus. It demands more than ordinary effort; it takes a strong, fearless resolve—it can only be achieved through persistent determination to act, to think independently; to rigorously and fairly examine the beliefs they’ve accepted. They will discover that the most harmful weeds have grown alongside beautiful flowers, wrapping around their stems, overshadowing them with excessive foliage, choking the ground, weakening their growth, and diminishing their petals; that deceived by the apparent freshness of their greenery, by how quickly they seem to grow, they have nurtured these weeds, watered them, and cared for them when they should have pulled them out by the roots.

Man seeks to range out of his sphere: notwithstanding the reiterated checks his ambitious folly experiences, he still attempts the impossible; strives to carry his researches beyond the visible world; and hunts out misery in imaginary regions. He would be a metaphysician before he has become a practical philosopher. He quits the contemplation of realities to meditate on chimeras. He neglects experience to feed on conjecture, to indulge in hypothesis. He dares not cultivate his reason, because from his earliest days he has been taught to consider it criminal. He pretends to know his date in the indistinct abodes of another life, before he has considered of the means by which he is to render himself happy in the world he inhabits: in short, man disdains the study of Nature, except it be partially: he pursues phantoms that resemble an ignis-fatuus, which at once dazzle, bewilders, and affright: like the benighted traveller led astray by these deceptive exhalations of a swampy soil, he frequently quits the plain, the simple road of truth, by pursuing of which, he can alone ever reasonably hope to reach the goal of happiness.

People try to go beyond their limits: despite the repeated setbacks their ambitious foolishness faces, they continue to pursue the impossible; they strive to extend their inquiries beyond the visible world and seek out despair in imagined realms. They want to be deep thinkers before they’ve become practical ones. They abandon the consideration of what’s real to ponder illusions. They ignore experience to focus on guesses and indulge in theories. They hesitate to develop their reasoning because, from an early age, they've been taught to see it as wrong. They claim to know their fate in the vague realms of an afterlife before they’ve thought about how to find happiness in the world they live in: in short, people ignore the study of Nature, except in part; they chase after illusions that resemble a will-o'-the-wisp, which at once dazzles, confuses, and frightens: like a lost traveler misled by these deceptive vapors from a marshy ground, they often stray from the straightforward path of truth, which is the only way they can reasonably hope to reach the destination of happiness.

The most important of our duties, then, is to seek means by which we may destroy delusions that can never do more than mislead us. The remedies for these evils must be sought for in Nature herself; it is only in the abundance of her resources, that we can rationally expect to find antidotes to the mischiefs brought upon us by an ill directed, by an overpowering enthusiasm. It is time these remedies were sought; it is time to look the evil boldly in the face, to examine its foundations, to scrutinize its superstructure: reason, with its faithful guide experience, must attack in their entrenchments those prejudices, to which the human race has but too long been the victim. For this purpose reason must be restored to its proper rank,—it must be rescued from the evil company with which it is associated. It has been too long degraded—too long neglected—cowardice has rendered it subservient to delirium, the slave to falsehood. It must no longer be held down by the massive claims of ignorant prejudice.

The most important thing we need to do is find ways to eliminate illusions that only mislead us. We must look to Nature itself for solutions to these problems; it's only in the wealth of her resources that we can realistically expect to discover antidotes to the damage caused by misguided, overwhelming enthusiasm. It's time to seek these remedies; it's time to confront the issue head-on, to investigate its foundations, to analyze its structure: reason, guided faithfully by experience, must challenge the entrenched prejudices that humanity has suffered under for too long. For this, reason must be restored to its rightful place—it needs to be freed from the bad influences surrounding it. It has been degraded for too long—neglected for far too long—fear has made it a servant to madness, a slave to falsehood. It must not be suppressed any longer by the heavy burdens of ignorant prejudice.

Truth is invariable—it is requisite to man—it can never harm him—his very necessities, sooner or later, make him sensible of this; oblige him to acknowledge it. Let us then discover it to mortals—let us exhibit its charms—let us shed it effulgence over the darkened road; it is the only mode by which man can become disgusted with that disgraceful superstition which leads him into error, and which but too often usurps his homage by treacherously covering itself with the mask of truth—its lustre can wound none but those enemies to the human race whose power is bottomed solely on the ignorance, on the darkness in which they have in almost every claimed contrived to involve the mind of man.

Truth is unchanging—it’s essential for humanity—it can never harm us—our very needs, eventually, make us aware of this; they force us to acknowledge it. So let’s reveal it to people—let’s showcase its beauty—let’s shine its light on the dark path; it’s the only way for us to become fed up with the shameful superstition that misguides us and too often takes our respect by deceitfully disguising itself as truth—its brilliance can only hurt those who are enemies of humanity, whose power relies entirely on the ignorance and the darkness they have, time and again, managed to trap the human mind in.

Truth speaks not to those perverse beings:—her voice can only be heard by generous souls accustomed to reflection, whose sensibilities make them lament the numberless calamities showered on the earth by political and religious tyranny—whose enlightened minds contemplate with horror the immensity, the ponderosity of that series of misfortunes which error has in all ages overwhelmed mankind.

Truth doesn't speak to those twisted individuals: her voice can only be heard by kind souls who are used to thinking deeply, whose feelings make them mourn the countless disasters inflicted upon the world by political and religious oppression—whose enlightened minds reflect with dread on the vastness and heaviness of the chain of misfortunes that mistakes have burdened humanity with throughout history.

To error must be attributed those insupportable chains which tyrants, which priests have forged for most nations. To error must be equally attributed that abject slavery into which the people of almost every country have fallen. Nature designed they should pursue their happiness by the most perfect freedom.—To error must be attributed those religious terrors which, in almost every climate, have either petrified man with fear, or caused him to destroy himself for coarse or fanciful beings. To error must be attributed those inveterate hatreds, those barbarous persecutions, those numerous massacres, those dreadful tragedies, of which, under pretext of serving the interests of heaven, the earth has been but too frequently made the theatre. It is error consecrated by religious enthusiasm, which produces that ignorance, that uncertainty in which man ever finds himself with regard to his most evident duties, his clearest rights, the most demonstrable truths. In short, man is almost everywhere a poor degraded captive, devoid of greatness of soul, of reason, or of virtue, whom his inhuman gaolers have never permitted to see the light of day.

Errors are responsible for the unbearable chains that tyrants and priests have created for many nations. Errors also account for the miserable slavery that nearly every country’s people have fallen into. Nature intended for them to seek happiness through complete freedom. Errors cause the religious fears that have paralyzed people with terror or driven them to harm themselves for trivial or imaginary beings. Errors lead to deep-seated hatreds, brutal persecutions, countless massacres, and horrific tragedies that have often turned our world into a stage for what is claimed to serve divine interests. It is the errors sanctified by religious fervor that create the ignorance and uncertainty in which people perpetually find themselves regarding their most evident duties, clearest rights, and most undeniable truths. In short, people everywhere are often poor, degraded captives, lacking greatness of spirit, reason, or virtue, and their inhumane jailers have never allowed them to see the light of day.

Let us then endeavour to disperse those clouds of ignorance, those mists of darkness, which impede man on his journey, which obscure his progress, which prevent his marching through life with a firm, with a steady grip. Let us try to inspire him with courage—with respect for his reason—with an inextinguishable love for truth—with a remembrance of Gallileo—to the end that he may learn to know himself—to know his legitimate rights—that he may learn to consult his experience, and no longer be the dupe of an imagination led astray by authority—that he may renounce the prejudices of his childhood—that he may learn to found his morals on his nature, on his wants, on the real advantage of society—that he may dare to love himself—that he may learn to pursue his true happiness by promoting that of others—in short, that he may no longer occupy himself with reveries either useless or dangerous—that he may become a virtuous, a rational being, in which case he cannot fail to become happy.

Let’s work to clear away the clouds of ignorance and the mists of darkness that hold people back on their journey, that hinder their progress, and that stop them from moving through life with confidence and a steady grip. Let’s inspire them with courage, respect for their reason, an unending love for truth, and a remembrance of Galileo. This way, they can learn to know themselves and their legitimate rights, consult their own experiences, and stop being misled by an imagination distorted by authority. They can let go of childhood prejudices, base their morals on their nature, their needs, and the genuine benefits to society. They can dare to love themselves and learn to seek their true happiness by helping others. In short, they should stop getting lost in useless or dangerous daydreams, and instead become virtuous, rational beings, which will lead them to happiness.

If he must have his chimeras, let him at least learn to permit others to form theirs after their own fashion; since nothing can be more immaterial than the manner of men's thinking on subjects not accessible to reason, provided those thoughts be not suffered to embody themselves into actions injurious to others: above all, let him be fully persuaded that it is of the utmost importance to the inhabitants of this world to be JUST, KIND, and PEACEABLE.

If he needs to have his fantasies, he should at least allow others to create theirs in their own way; since nothing is less significant than how people think about things that can’t be explained by reason, as long as those thoughts don’t turn into actions that harm others. Above all, he should be completely convinced that it’s incredibly important for everyone in this world to be FAIR, KIND, and PEACEFUL.

Far from injuring the cause of virtue, an impartial examination of the principles of this work will shew that its object is to restore truth to its proper temple, to build up an altar whose foundations shall be consolidated by morality, reason, and justice: from this sacred pane, virtue guarded by truth, clothed with experience, shall shed forth her radiance on delighted mortals; whose homage flowing consecutively shall open to the world a new aera, by rendering general the belief that happiness, the true end of man's existence, can never be attained but BY PROMOTING THAT OF HIS FELLOW CREATURE.

Far from harming the cause of goodness, an unbiased look at the principles of this work will show that its goal is to bring truth back to where it belongs, to create an altar whose foundation is strengthened by morality, reason, and justice: from this sacred place, virtue protected by truth and enriched by experience will shine its light on grateful humans; whose continuous support will usher in a new era by spreading the belief that happiness, the true purpose of human life, can only be achieved by promoting the happiness of others.

In short, man should learn to know, that happiness is simply an emanative quality formed by reflection; that each individual ought to be the sun of his own system, continually shedding around him his genial rays; that these, re-acting, will keep his own existence constantly supplied with the requisite heat to enable him to put forth kindly fruit.

In short, people need to understand that happiness is just a quality that comes from within; each person should be the center of their own world, continually spreading warmth and positivity; these will, in turn, ensure that their own life is always filled with the necessary energy to produce good things.










MIRABAUD'S SYSTEM OF NATURE

By Paul Henri Thiery (Baron D'Holbach)

Translated From The Original, by Samuel Wilkinson










PART I.

LAWS OF NATURE—OF MAN—THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL—DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY—ON HAPPINESS.










CHAP. I.

Nature and her Laws.

Man has always deceived himself when he abandoned experience to follow imaginary systems.—He is the work of nature.—He exists in Nature.—He is submitted to the laws of Nature.—He cannot deliver himself from them:—cannot step beyond them even in thought. It is in vain his mind would spring forward beyond the visible world: direful and imperious necessity ever compels his return—being formed by Nature, he is circumscribed by her laws; there exists nothing beyond the great whole of which he forms a part, of which he experiences the influence. The beings his fancy pictures as above nature, or distinguished from her, are always chimeras formed after that which he has already seen, but of which it is utterly impossible he should ever form any finished idea, either as to the place they occupy, or their manner of acting—for him there is not, there can be nothing out of that Nature which includes all beings.

Humans have always fooled themselves when they disregarded real experience to chase after imaginary ideas. They are a product of nature. They exist within nature. They are subject to the laws of nature. They can't escape them or even think beyond them. It's pointless for their minds to try to leap past the visible world: harsh and unavoidable necessity always forces them back—shaped by nature, they are limited by her laws; there is nothing beyond the entire universe of which they are a part and from which they feel the effects. The beings their imagination creates as being above nature or separate from it are just illusions based on what they've already seen, but they can never truly conceive of them, either in where they are or how they function—there is no, and can never be anything outside of that nature which encompasses all beings.

Therefore, instead of seeking out of the world he inhabits for beings who can procure him a happiness denied to him by Nature, let him study this Nature, learn her laws, contemplate her energies, observe the immutable rules by which she acts.—Let him apply these discoveries to his own felicity, and submit in silence to her precepts, which nothing can alter.—Let him cheerfully consent to be ignorant of causes hid from him under the most impenetrable veil.—Let him yield to the decrees of a universal power, which can never be brought within his comprehension, nor ever emancipate him from those laws imposed on him by his essence.

So instead of looking outside for things that can bring him happiness that Nature has denied him, he should study Nature, learn her laws, contemplate her forces, and observe the unchanging rules by which she operates. He should apply these insights to his own happiness and quietly accept her teachings, which cannot be changed. He should willingly accept that there are causes hidden from him behind the most impenetrable veil. He should submit to the decisions of a universal power that he can never fully understand, nor escape the laws that are part of his very nature.

The distinction which has been so often made between the physical and the moral being, is evidently an abuse of terms. Man is a being purely physical: the moral man is nothing more than this physical being considered under a certain point of view; that is to say, with relation to some of his modes of action, arising out of his individual organization. But is not this organization itself the work of Nature? The motion or impulse to action, of which he is susceptible, is that not physical? His visible actions, as well as the invisible motion interiorly excited by his will or his thoughts, are equally the natural effects, the necessary consequences, of his peculiar construction, and the impulse he receives from those beings by whom he is always surrounded. All that the human mind has successively invented, with a view to change or perfect his being, to render himself happy, was never more than the necessary consequence of man's peculiar essence, and that of the beings who act upon him. The object of all his institutions, all his reflections, all his knowledge, is only to procure that happiness toward which he is continually impelled by the peculiarity of his nature. All that he does, all that he thinks, all that he is, all that he will be, is nothing more than what Universal Nature has made him. His ideas, his actions, his will, are the necessary effects of those properties infused into him by Nature, and of those circumstances in which she has placed him. In short, art is nothing but Nature acting with the tools she has furnished.

The distinction that’s often made between the physical and the moral being is clearly a misuse of terms. Humans are purely physical beings; the moral aspect is just a way of looking at this physical being from a certain perspective—specifically, regarding some of their behaviors that come from their individual makeup. But isn’t that makeup itself created by Nature? The drive or urge to act, which they feel, isn’t that physical? Their visible actions, along with the invisible impulses triggered by their will or thoughts, are both natural effects and necessary outcomes of their unique structure and the influences of those around them. Everything the human mind has invented to change or improve their existence, to achieve happiness, is merely the inevitable result of human nature and the influences exerted on them. The purpose of all their institutions, thoughts, and knowledge is simply to attain the happiness that their nature consistently drives them toward. Everything they do, think, are, or will become is just a manifestation of what Universal Nature has made them. Their ideas, actions, and will are necessary effects of the characteristics granted to them by Nature and the circumstances she has placed them in. In short, art is just Nature working with the tools she’s provided.

Nature sends man naked and destitute into this world which is to be his abode: he quickly learns to cover his nakedness—to shelter himself from the inclemencies of the weather, first with artlessly constructed huts, and the skins of the beasts of the forest; by degrees he mends their appearance, renders them more convenient: he establishes manufactories to supply his immediate wants; he digs clay, gold, and other fossils from the bowels of the earth; converts them into bricks for his house, into vessels for his use, gradually improves their shape, and augments their beauty. To a being exalted above our terrestrial globe, man would not appear less subjected to the laws of Nature when naked in the forest painfully seeking his sustenance, than when living in civilized society surrounded with ease, or enriched with greater experience, plunged in luxury, where he every day invents a thousand new wants and discovers a thousand new modes of supplying them. All the steps taken by man to regulate his existence, ought only to be considered as a long succession of causes and effects, which are nothing more than the development of the first impulse given him by nature.

Nature sends people into this world naked and without resources: they quickly learn to cover themselves and protect from the weather, first with simple huts and animal skins; gradually, they improve their appearance, making them more comfortable. They create factories to meet their immediate needs, digging clay, gold, and other materials from the earth; they transform these into bricks for their homes and vessels for their use, gradually enhancing their shapes and increasing their beauty. To a being above our planet, humans would not seem any less subjected to the laws of nature when naked in the forest, struggling for food, than when living in a civilized society filled with comfort, enriched by experience, and indulging in luxury, where they constantly invent new wants and find new ways to satisfy them. All the actions taken by humans to control their lives should just be seen as a long chain of causes and effects, which are simply the unfolding of the initial push given to them by nature.

The same animal, by virtue of his organization, passes successively from the most simple to the most complicated wants; it is nevertheless the consequence of his nature. The butterfly whose beauty we admire, whose colours are so rich, whose appearance is so brilliant, commences as an inanimate unattractive egg; from this, heat produces a worm, this becomes a chrysalis, then changes into that beautiful insect adorned with the most vivid tints: arrived at this stage he reproduces, he generates; at last despoiled of his ornaments, he is obliged to disappear, having fulfilled the task imposed on him by Nature, having performed the circle of transformation marked out for beings of his order.

The same animal, because of its structure, goes from having the simplest needs to the most complex. This is a natural progression. The butterfly we admire for its beauty and rich colors starts off as a plain, unattractive egg; from this, heat creates a caterpillar, which then becomes a chrysalis, and finally transforms into that stunning insect, adorned with brilliant colors. Once it reaches this stage, it reproduces and creates new life; eventually, stripped of its beauty, it must fade away, having completed its natural role and gone through the cycle of transformation that’s typical for its species.

The same course, the same change takes place in the vegetable world. It is by a series of combinations originally interwoven with the energies of the aloe, that this plant is insensibly regulated, gradually expanded, and at the end of a number of years produces those flowers which announce its dissolution.

The same process and change happen in the plant world. It's through a series of combinations originally connected to the energy of the aloe that this plant is subtly managed, slowly grows, and after many years produces the flowers that signal its end.

It is equally so with man, who in all his motion, all the changes he undergoes, never acts but according to the laws peculiar to his organization, and to the matter of which he is composed.

It’s the same with humans, who, in all their movements and changes, only act according to the specific laws of their nature and the substances they are made of.

The physical man, is he who acts by the causes our faculties make us understand.

The physical man is the one who acts based on the reasons our abilities allow us to understand.

The moral man, is he who acts by physical causes, with which our prejudices preclude us from becoming perfectly acquainted.

The moral man is someone who acts based on physical causes, which our biases prevent us from fully understanding.

The wild man is a child destitute of experience, incapable of proceeding in his happiness, because he has not learnt how to oppose resistance to the impulses he receives from those beings by whom he is surrounded.

The wild man is a child lacking experience, unable to pursue his happiness because he hasn't learned how to resist the urges he gets from those around him.

The civilized man, is he whom experience and sociality have enabled to draw from nature the means of his own happiness, because he has learned to oppose resistance to those impulses he receives from exterior beings, when experience has taught him they would be destructive to his welfare.

The civilized man is someone who, through experience and social interaction, has learned to use nature to create his own happiness. He knows how to resist impulses from others when he realizes that those impulses could harm his well-being.

The enlightened man is man in his maturity, in his perfection; who is capable of advancing his own felicity, because he has learned to examine, to think for himself, and not to take that for truth upon the authority of others, which experience has taught him a critical disquisition will frequently prove erroneous.

The enlightened man is someone who has reached maturity and perfection; he is able to pursue his own happiness because he knows how to analyze, think for himself, and not accept what others claim to be true without questioning it, especially since experience has shown him that deeper examination often reveals flaws in their arguments.

The happy man is he who knows how to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon him by nature: in other words, he who thinks for himself; who is thankful for the good he possesses; who does not envy the welfare of others, nor sigh after imaginary benefits always beyond his grasp.

The happy man is the one who knows how to enjoy the gifts given to him by nature: in other words, he thinks for himself; he is grateful for what he has; he doesn’t envy others’ good fortune, nor yearn for unattainable benefits.

The unhappy man is he who is incapacitated to enjoy the benefits of nature; that is, he who suffers others to think for him; who neglects the absolute good he possesses, in a fruitless search after ideal benefits; who vainly sighs after that which ever eludes his pursuit.

The unhappy man is someone who can't enjoy the gifts of nature; in other words, he lets others think for him; he overlooks the real good he already has while endlessly searching for something better; he hopelessly yearns for what always slips away from him.

It necessarily results, that man in his enquiry ought always to contemplate experience, and natural philosophy: These are what he should consult in his religion,—in his morals,—in his legislation,—in his political government,—in the arts,—in the sciences,—in his pleasures,—above all, in his misfortunes. Experience teaches that Nature acts by simple, regular, and invariable laws. It is by his senses, man is bound to this universal Nature; it is by his perception he must penetrate her secrets; it is from his senses he must draw experience of her laws. Therefore, whenever he neglects to acquire experience or quits its path, he stumbles into an abyss; his imagination leads him astray.

It follows that when exploring the world, a person should always consider experience and natural philosophy. These should guide him in his religion, morals, legislation, political governance, arts, sciences, and even in his pleasures and especially in his hardships. Experience shows that nature operates according to simple, consistent, and unchanging laws. Through his senses, a person is connected to this universal nature; it’s through perception that he must uncover its secrets; he must rely on his senses to gain insights into its laws. Therefore, whenever he fails to seek experience or strays from this path, he falls into confusion; his imagination leads him off course.

All the errors of man are physical: he never deceives himself but when he neglects to return back to nature, to consult her laws, to call practical knowledge to his aid. It is for want of practical knowledge he forms such imperfect ideas of matter, of its properties, of its combinations, of its power, of its mode of action, and of the energies which spring from its essence. Wanting this experience, the whole universe, to him, is but one vast scene of error. The most ordinary results appear to him the most astonishing phenomena; he wonders at every thing, understands nothing, and yields the guidance of his actions to those interested in betraying his interests. He is ignorant of Nature, and he has mistaken her laws; he has not contemplated the necessary routine which she has marked out for every thing she holds. Mistaken the laws of Nature, did I say? He has mistaken himself: the consequence is, that all his systems, all his conjectures, all his reasonings, from which he has banished experience, are nothing more than a tissue of errors, a long chain of inconsistencies.

All of humanity's mistakes are physical: we only deceive ourselves when we fail to reconnect with nature, to follow her laws, and to rely on practical knowledge. Because we lack this practical knowledge, we develop flawed ideas about matter, its properties, its combinations, its power, how it works, and the energies that come from its essence. Without this experience, the entire universe seems like one huge landscape of mistakes. The simplest outcomes seem to him like the most amazing phenomena; he marvels at everything, understands nothing, and lets those who have a vested interest in misleading him dictate his actions. He’s unaware of Nature and has misunderstood her laws; he hasn’t recognized the essential processes she has set for everything she governs. Did I say he misunderstood the laws of Nature? He has misunderstood himself: as a result, all his theories, all his guesses, all his reasoning, which exclude experience, are nothing but a web of errors, a long series of inconsistencies.

Error is always prejudicial to man: it is by deceiving himself, the human race is plunged into misery. He neglected Nature; he did not comprehend her laws; he formed gods of the most preposterous and ridiculous kinds: these became the sole objects of his hope, and the creatures of his fear: he was unhappy, he trembled under these visionary deities; under the supposed influence of visionary beings created by himself; under the terror inspired by blocks of stone; by logs of wood; by flying fish; or the frowns of men, mortal as himself, whom his disturbed fancy had elevated above that Nature of which alone he is capable of forming any idea. His very posterity laughs at his folly, because experience has convinced them of the absurdity of his groundless fears—of his misplaced worship. Thus has passed away the ancient mythology, with all the trifling and nonsensical attributes attached to it by ignorance.

Mistakes are always harmful to humanity: by deceiving themselves, people have fallen into misery. They ignored Nature; they didn’t understand her laws; they created gods that were absurd and ridiculous: these became the only objects of their hope and the source of their fear: they were unhappy, trembling under these imagined deities; under the supposed influence of figments they created; under the terror inspired by stones, pieces of wood, flying fish, or the frowns of men, just as mortal as themselves, whom their troubled minds had elevated above the only Nature they could truly understand. Their own descendants laugh at their foolishness because experience has shown them how absurd their unfounded fears and misplaced worship were. Thus, ancient mythology has faded away, along with all the trivial and nonsensical traits added to it by ignorance.

Not understanding that Nature, equal in her distributions, entirely destitute of malice, follows only necessary and immutable laws, when she either produces beings or destroys them, when she causes those to suffer, whose construction creates sensibility; when she scatters among them good and evil; when she subjects them to incessant change—he did not perceive it was in the breast of Nature herself, that it was in her exuberance he ought to seek to satisfy his deficiencies; for remedies against his pains; for the means of rendering himself happy: he expected to derive these benefits from fantastic beings, whom he supposed to be above Nature; whom he mistakingly imagined to be the authors of his pleasures, and the cause of his misfortunes. From hence it appears that to his ignorance of Nature, man owes the creation of those illusive powers; under which he has so long trembled with fear; that superstitious worship, which has been the source of all his misery, and the evils entailed upon posterity.

Not realizing that Nature, which is fair in its distribution and completely free of malice, operates solely on necessary and unchanging laws—whether it's creating beings or destroying them, causing those who can feel to suffer, scattering good and evil among them, or subjecting them to constant change—he failed to see that it was in Nature herself, in her abundance, that he should look to satisfy his shortcomings, find remedies for his pain, and discover ways to make himself happy. Instead, he expected to gain these benefits from imaginary beings, whom he thought were superior to Nature; he mistakenly believed they were the source of his pleasures and the causes of his misfortunes. Thus, it's clear that man's ignorance of Nature has led to the creation of these deceptive powers, under which he has long lived in fear; that superstitious worship has been the root of all his suffering and the problems passed down to future generations.

For want of clearly comprehending his own peculiar nature, his proper course, his wants, and his rights, man has fallen in society, from FREEDOM into SLAVERY. He had forgotten the purpose of his existence, or else he believed himself obliged to suppress the natural desires of his heart, to sacrifice his welfare to the caprice of chiefs, either elected by himself, or submitted to without examination. He was ignorant of the true policy of association—of the object of government; he disdained to listen to the voice of Nature, which loudly proclaimed the price of all submission to be protection and happiness: the end of all government is the benefit of the governed, not the exclusive advantage of the governors. He gave himself up without enquiry to men like himself, whom his prejudices induced him to contemplate as beings of a superior order, as Gods upon earth, they profited by his ignorance, took advantage of his prejudices, corrupted him, rendered him vicious, enslaved him, and made him miserable. Thus man, intended by Nature for the full enjoyment of liberty, to patiently search out her laws, to investigate her secrets, to cling to his experience; has, from a neglect of her salutary admonitions, from an inexcusable ignorance of his own peculiar essence, fallen into servility: has been wickedly governed.

Due to a lack of understanding of his own unique nature, his true path, his needs, and his rights, man has shifted in society from FREEDOM to SLAVERY. He has forgotten the purpose of his existence, or he believes he must suppress his natural desires, sacrificing his well-being to the whims of leaders, whether chosen by himself or accepted without question. He was unaware of the true purpose of association and the goals of government; he ignored the voice of Nature, which clearly stated that the cost of all submission is protection and happiness: the goal of all government is to benefit the governed, not just the governors. He surrendered himself without inquiry to others like him, whom his biases led him to see as superior beings, like Gods on earth; they exploited his ignorance, took advantage of his biases, corrupted him, made him immoral, enslaved him, and left him miserable. Thus, man, who was meant by Nature to fully enjoy liberty, to patiently seek out her laws, to explore her mysteries, and to learn from his experiences, has, through ignoring her beneficial warnings and through a shameful lack of understanding of his own essence, fallen into servitude: he has been unjustly governed.

Having mistaken himself, he has remained ignorant of the indispensable affinity that subsists between him, and the beings of his own species: having mistaken his duty to himself, it consequently follows, he has mistaken his duty to others. He made a calculation in error of what his happiness required; he did not perceive, what he owed to himself, the excesses he ought to avoid, the desires he ought to resist, the impulses he ought to follow, in order to consolidate his felicity, to promote his comfort, and to further his advantage. In short, he was ignorant of his true interests; hence his irregularities, his excesses, his shameful extravagance, with that long train of vices, to which he has abandoned himself, at the expense of his preservation, at the hazard of his permanent prosperity.

Having misjudged himself, he has remained unaware of the crucial connection that exists between him and others of his kind. Since he has misunderstood his responsibilities to himself, it naturally follows that he has also misunderstood his responsibilities to others. He made an incorrect assessment of what his happiness required; he failed to recognize what he owed himself, the excesses he should avoid, the desires he should resist, and the impulses he should follow to secure his happiness, enhance his comfort, and advance his interests. In short, he was clueless about his true needs; hence his irregularities, his excesses, his shameful extravagance, along with the long list of vices he has surrendered to, jeopardizing his well-being and putting his long-term prosperity at risk.

It is, therefore, ignorance of himself that has hindered man from enlightening his morals. The corrupt authorities to which he had submitted, felt an interest in obstructing the practice of his duties, even when he knew them. Time, with the influence of ignorance, aided by his corruption, gave them a strength not to be resisted by his enfeebled voice. His duties continued unperformed, and he fell into contempt both with himself and with others.

It is, therefore, his ignorance about himself that has kept man from improving his morals. The corrupt authorities he submitted to had a vested interest in preventing him from fulfilling his responsibilities, even when he was aware of them. Over time, ignorance, combined with his corruption, gave them a power that his weakened voice couldn’t oppose. His duties remained unfulfilled, leading him to lose respect for himself and from others.

The ignorance of Man has endured so long, he has taken such slow, such irresolute steps to ameliorate his condition, only because he has neglected to study Nature, to scrutinize her laws, to search out her expedients, to discover her properties, that his sluggishness finds its account, in permitting himself to be guided by example, rather than to follow experience, which demands activity; to be led by routine, rather than by his reason, which enjoins reflection; to take that for truth upon the authority of others, which would require a diligent and patient investigation. From hence may be traced the hatred man betrays for every thing that deviates from those rules to which he has been accustomed; hence his stupid, his scrupulous respect for antiquity, for the most silly, the most absurd and ridiculous institutions of his fathers: hence those fears that seize him, when the most beneficial changes are proposed to him, or the most likely attempts are made to better his condition. He dreads to examine, because he has been taught to hold it irreverent of something immediately connected with his welfare; his credulity suffers him to believe the interested advice, and spurns at those who wish to show him the danger of the road he is travelling.

Human ignorance has persisted for so long, and we've taken such slow, uncertain steps to improve our situation, mainly because we've neglected to study Nature, to examine her laws, to explore her solutions, and to understand her properties. Our sluggishness leads us to follow what others do instead of relying on experience, which requires effort; to stick to routines rather than using our reason, which calls for reflection; and to accept what others say as truth without the thorough and careful investigation it deserves. This explains the disdain people show for anything that strays from the norms they're used to; it explains their blind, overly cautious respect for tradition, even for the most foolish, absurd, and ridiculous practices of their ancestors. It also reveals the fear that grips them when beneficial changes are suggested or when sensible attempts are made to improve their situation. They are afraid to question because they've been taught that it's disrespectful to challenge anything directly linked to their well-being; their gullibility allows them to believe self-serving advice, and they dismiss those who try to reveal the dangers of the path they're on.

This is the reason why nations linger on in the most shameful lethargy, suffering under abuses handed down from century to century, trembling at the very idea of that which alone can repair their calamities.

This is why nations remain trapped in the most disgraceful apathy, enduring the wrongs passed down through the ages, afraid of the very idea of what could actually fix their problems.

It is for want of energy, for want of consulting experience, that medicine, natural philosophy, agriculture, painting, in fact, all the useful sciences, have so long remained under the fetters of authority, have progressed so little: those who profess these sciences, prefer treading the beaten paths, however imperfect, rather than strike out new ones,—they prefer the phrensy of their imagination, their voluntary conjectures, to that laboured experience which alone can extract her secrets from Nature.

It's a lack of energy and a lack of practical experience that have kept fields like medicine, natural philosophy, agriculture, and painting—basically all useful sciences—held back by authority for so long and making so little progress. Those who practice these sciences tend to stick to the well-trodden paths, no matter how flawed, instead of exploring new ones. They lean more on the wildness of their imagination and their personal guesses rather than on the hard-earned experience that can truly uncover Nature's secrets.

Man, in short, whether from sloth or from terror, having abnegated the evidence of his senses, has been guided in all his actions, in all his enterprizes, by imagination, by enthusiasm, by habit, by preconceived opinions, but above all, by the influence of authority, which knew well how to deceive him, to turn his ignorance to esteem, his sloth to advantage. Thus imaginary, unsubstantial systems, have supplied the place of experience—of mature reflection—of reason. Man, petrified with his fears, intoxicated with the marvellous, stupified with sloth, surrendered his experience: guided by his credulity, he was unable to fall back upon it; he became consequently inexperienced; from thence he gave birth to the most ridiculous opinions, or else adopted all those vague chimeras, all those idle notions offered to him by men whose interest it was to continue him in that lamentable state of ignorance.

In short, whether out of laziness or fear, people have ignored what their senses tell them and have let imagination, enthusiasm, habit, and preconceived notions guide all their actions and endeavors. Above all, they’ve been swayed by authority, which has skillfully misled them, turning their ignorance into respect and their laziness into advantage. As a result, imaginary and insubstantial systems have taken the place of real experience, mature reflection, and reason. People, frozen by fear, dazzled by the extraordinary, and numbed by laziness, have surrendered their experiences. Mired in gullibility, they’ve been unable to rely on their experience, leading them to form the most absurd opinions or adopt vague fantasies and empty ideas presented to them by those whose interests depended on keeping them in a state of ignorance.

Thus the human race has continued so long in a state of infancy, because man has been inattentive to Nature; has neglected her ways, because he has disdained experience—because he has thrown by his reason—because he has been enraptured with the marvellous and the supernatural,—because he has unnecessarily TREMBLED. These are the reasons there is so much trouble in conducting him from this state of childhood to that of manhood. He has had nothing but the most trifling hypotheses, of which he has never dared to examine either the principles or the proofs, because he has been accustomed to hold them sacred, to consider them as the most perfect truths, and which he is not permitted to doubt, even for an instant. His ignorance made him credulous; his curiosity made him swallow the wonderful: time confirmed him in his opinions, and he passed his conjectures from race to race for realities; a tyrannical power maintained him in his notions, because by those alone could society be enslaved. It was in vain that some faint glimmerings of Nature occasionally attempted the recall of his reason—that slight corruscations of experience sometimes threw his darkness into light, the interest of the few was founded on his enthusiasm; their pre-eminence depended on his love of the marvellous; their very existence rested on the firmness of his ignorance; they consequently suffered no opportunity to escape, of smothering even the transient flame of intelligence. The many were thus first deceived into credulity, then forced into submission. At length the whole science of man became a confused mass of darkness, falsehood, and contradictions, with here and there a feeble ray of truth, furnished by that Nature, of which he can never entirely divest himself; because, without his perception, his necessities are continually bringing him back to her resources.

Thus, the human race has remained in a state of infancy for so long because people have ignored Nature and neglected her ways. They have disdained experience, thrown aside their reason, and have been captivated by the marvelous and the supernatural—unnecessarily trembling in fear. These are the reasons why it's so challenging to move humanity from this childish state to adulthood. They've only entertained trivial hypotheses, never daring to examine their principles or evidence, as they consider them sacred, viewing them as ultimate truths that they can’t doubt, even for a moment. Their ignorance made them gullible, while their curiosity led them to accept the wonderful without question; time only solidified their beliefs, and they passed their guesses from generation to generation as if they were realities. A tyrannical power kept these notions alive because they were the only means to keep society enslaved. Despite occasional glimpses of Nature trying to bring back reason and some sparks of experience shedding light on their darkness, the interests of a few relied on the people's enthusiasm; their superiority depended on the public's love for the extraordinary, and their very existence hinged on the strength of people's ignorance. Therefore, they never missed an opportunity to extinguish even the briefest spark of understanding. The masses were first deceived into gullibility and then forced into submission. Eventually, the entire science of humanity became a chaotic blend of darkness, falsehoods, and contradictions, with only the faintest rays of truth provided by that Nature from which people can never truly escape; for without their awareness, their needs continually draw them back to her resources.

Let us then, if possible, raise ourselves above these clouds of prepossession! Let us quit the heavy atmosphere in which we are enucleated; let us in a more unsullied medium—in a more elastic current, contemplate the opinions of men, and observe their various systems. Let us learn to distrust a disordered conception; let us take that faithful monitor, experience, for our guide; let us consult Nature, examine her laws, dive into her stores; let us draw from herself, our ideas of the beings she contains; let us recover our senses, which interested error has taught us to suspect; let us consult that reason, which, for the vilest purposes has been so infamously calumniated, so cruelly dishonoured; let us examine with attention the visible world; let us try, if it will not enable us to form a supportable judgment of the invisible territory of the intellectual world: perhaps it may be found there has been no sufficient reason for distinguishing them—that it is not without motives, well worthy our enquiry, that two empires have been separated, which are equally the inheritance of nature.

Let’s try to rise above these clouds of bias! Let’s leave behind the heavy atmosphere in which we’re trapped; let’s, in a clearer environment—in a more open flow, reflect on other people’s opinions and explore their different systems. Let’s learn to question a disordered way of thinking; let’s use experience as our reliable guide; let’s turn to Nature, study her laws, and dive into her treasures; let’s draw our ideas about the beings she holds from her own essence; let’s regain our senses, which misguided beliefs have led us to doubt; let’s refer to that reason, which has been so wrongly criticized and unfairly damaged for the worst purposes; let’s carefully examine the visible world; let’s see if it can help us form a solid understanding of the unseen world of intellect: perhaps we’ll discover there wasn’t enough reason to separate them—that there are worthy reasons for examining the two realms, which are both part of nature’s legacy.

The universe, that vast assemblage of every thing that exists, presents only matter and motion: the whole offers to our contemplation, nothing but an immense, an uninterrupted succession of causes and effects; some of these causes are known to us, because they either strike immediately on our senses, or have been brought under their cognizance, by the examination of long experience; others are unknown to us, because they act upon us by effects, frequently very remote from their primary cause. An immense variety of matter, combined under an infinity of forms, incessantly communicates, unceasingly receives a diversity of impulses. The different qualities of this matter, its innumerable combinations, its various methods of action, which are the necessary consequence of these associations, constitute for man what he calls the ESSENCE of beings: it is from these varied essences that spring the orders, the classes, or the systems, which these beings respectively possess, of which the sum total makes up that which is known by the term nature.

The universe, that vast collection of everything that exists, is made up of only matter and motion: what we see is just a huge, ongoing sequence of causes and effects. Some of these causes we understand because they directly impact our senses or have been recognized through long experience; others remain unknown to us because they influence us through effects that are often far removed from their original cause. There’s a huge variety of matter, combined in countless forms, constantly exchanging and receiving different kinds of impulses. The various qualities of this matter, its countless combinations, and its different ways of acting, which are the necessary results of these connections, create what humans refer to as the ESSENCE of beings: it is from these diverse essences that arise the orders, classes, or systems that these beings each have, and the total of these makes up what we call nature.

Nature, therefore, in its most significant meaning, is the great whole that results from the collection of matter, under its various combinations, with that contrariety of motion, which the universe presents to our view. Nature, in a less extended sense, or considered in each individual, is the whole that results from its essence; that is to say, the peculiar qualities, the combination, the impulse, and the various modes of action, by which it is discriminated from other beings. It is thus that MAN is, as a whole, or in his nature, the result of a certain combination of matter, endowed with peculiar properties, competent to give, capable of receiving, certain impulses, the arrangement of which is called organization; of which the essence is, to feel, to think, to act, to move, after a manner distinguished from other beings, with which he can be compared. Man, therefore, ranks in an order, in a system, in a class by himself, which differs from that of other animals, in whom we do not perceive those properties of which he is possessed. The different systems of beings, or if they will, their particular natures, depend on the general system of the great whole, or that Universal Nature, of which they form a part; to which every thing that exists is necessarily submitted and attached.

Nature, in its most important sense, is the entirety that comes from the collection of matter in its various combinations, along with the contrasting motions that the universe shows us. In a narrower sense, or when looking at each individual, nature is the whole that emerges from its essence; that is, the unique qualities, the combination, the drive, and the different ways of acting that differentiate it from other beings. In this way, MAN is, as a whole, or in his nature, the result of a specific combination of matter, equipped with unique properties that enable him to give and receive certain impulses, the arrangement of which is called organization; the essence of which is to feel, to think, to act, and to move in a way that distinguishes him from other beings with which he can be compared. Therefore, man holds a distinct position in an order, a system, a class of his own, which is different from that of other animals, in which we do not observe the properties he possesses. The various systems of beings, or what we might call their particular natures, depend on the overarching system of the great whole, or that Universal Nature, of which they are a part; to which everything that exists is inevitably connected and linked.

Having described the proper definition that should be applied to the word NATURE, I must advise the reader, once for all, that whenever in the course of this work the expression occurs, that "Nature produces such or such an effect," there is no intention of personifying that nature which is purely an abstract being; it merely indicates that the effect spoken of necessarily springs from the peculiar properties of those beings which compose the mighty macrocosm. When, therefore, it is said, Nature demands that man should pursue his own happiness, it is to prevent circumlocution—to avoid tautology; it is to be understood, that it is the property of a being that feels, that thinks, that acts, to labour to its own happiness; in short, that is called natural, which is conformable to the essence of things, or to the laws, which Nature prescribes to the beings she contains, in the different orders they occupy, under the various circumstances through which they are obliged to pass. Thus health is natural to man in a certain state; disease is natural to him under other circumstances; dissolution, or if they will, death, is a natural state for a body, deprived of some of those things, necessary to maintain the existence of the animal, &c. By ESSENCE is to be understood, that which constitutes a being, such as it is; the whole of the properties or qualities by which it acts as it does. Thus, when it is said, it is the essence of a stone to fall, it is the same as saying that its descent is the necessary effect of its gravity—of its density—of the cohesion of its parts—of the elements of which it is composed. In short, the essence of a being is its particular, its individual nature.

Having defined the proper meaning of the word NATURE, I want to clarify that whenever the phrase “Nature produces such or such an effect” appears in this work, it’s not meant to personify nature as a purely abstract concept; it simply means that the effect mentioned naturally arises from the unique properties of the beings that make up the vast universe. Therefore, when we say, Nature demands that man should pursue his own happiness, we use it to keep things straightforward and avoid redundancy; it means that it’s inherent for a being that feels, thinks, and acts to strive for its own happiness. In short, what is deemed natural aligns with the essence of things, or the laws that Nature sets for the beings within it, depending on the different orders and circumstances they encounter. For instance, health is natural for humans in certain conditions; disease is natural for them in other situations; and decay, or death, is a natural state for a body that is lacking essential elements necessary for survival. By ESSENCE, we refer to what constitutes a being as it is—the totality of the properties or qualities that shape its actions. So, when we say it is the essence of a stone to fall, it is equivalent to stating that its descent is an inevitable result of its gravity, density, the cohesion of its parts, and the elements it comprises. In summary, the essence of a being is its distinct, individual nature.










CHAP. II.

Of Motion, and its Origin.

Motion is an effect by which a body either changes, or has a tendency to change, its position: that is to say, by which it successively corresponds with different parts of space, or changes its relative distance to other bodies. It is motion alone that establishes the relation between our senses and exterior or interior beings: it is only by motion that these beings are impressed upon us—that we know their existence—that we judge of their properties—that we distinguish the one from the other—that we distribute them into classes.

Motion is a phenomenon where an object either changes or tends to change its position; in other words, it corresponds with different areas in space or alters its distance from other objects. Motion is what connects our senses to the external or internal world: it's through motion that we perceive these entities, that we recognize their existence, that we assess their characteristics, that we differentiate between them, and that we categorize them.

The beings, the substances, or the various bodies of which Nature is the assemblage, are themselves effects of certain combinations or causes which become causes in their turn. A CAUSE is a being which puts another in motion, or which produces some change in it. The EFFECT is the change produced in one body, by the motion or presence of another.

The beings, substances, or various forms that make up Nature are the results of specific combinations or causes that eventually become causes themselves. A CAUSE is something that sets another in motion or creates a change in it. An EFFECT is the change that occurs in one body due to the motion or presence of another.

Each being, by its essence, by its peculiar nature, has the faculty of producing, is capable of receiving, has the power of communicating, a variety of motion. Thus some beings are proper to strike our organs; these organs are competent to receiving the impression, are adequate to undergoing changes by their presence. Those which cannot act on any of our organs, either immediately and by themselves, or immediately by the intervention of other bodies, exist not for us; since they can neither move us, nor consequently furnish us with ideas: they can neither be known to us, nor of course be judged of by us. To know an object, is to have felt it; to feel it, it is requisite to have been moved by it. To see, is to have been moved, by something acting on the visual organs; to hear, is to have been struck, by something on our auditory nerves. In short, in whatever mode a body may act upon us, whatever impulse we may receive from it, we can have no other knowledge of it than by the change it produces in us.

Every being, by its nature and unique characteristics, has the ability to produce, can receive, and possesses the power to communicate various forms of motion. Some beings directly affect our senses; our senses are capable of receiving these impressions and can undergo changes because of their presence. Those that cannot impact any of our senses, either directly or through the mediation of other things, don't exist for us; since they cannot affect us, they can't provide us with ideas: we cannot know them, and therefore cannot judge them. To know an object is to have experienced it; to experience it, we need to have been affected by it. To see is to have been influenced by something acting on our visual senses; to hear is to have been impacted by something on our auditory nerves. In short, in whatever way a body may interact with us, and whatever influence we may receive from it, we can only understand it through the changes it creates within us.

Nature, as we have already said, is the assemblage of all the beings, consequently of all the motion of which we have a knowledge, as well as of many others of which we know nothing, because they have not yet become accessible to our senses. From the continual action and re-action of these beings, result a series of causes and effects; or a chain of motion guided by the constant and invariable laws peculiar to each being; which are necessary or inherent to its particular nature—which make it always act or move after a determinate manner. The different principles of this motion are unknown to us, because we are in many instances, if not in all, ignorant of what constitutes the essence of beings. The elements of bodies escape our senses; we know them only in the mass: we are neither acquainted with their intimate combination, nor the proportion of these combinations; from whence must necessarily result their mode of action, their impulse, or their different effects.

Nature, as we've mentioned before, is the collection of all beings and all the motion we know about, along with many others that remain unknown because they haven't yet come within our senses. From the constant actions and reactions of these beings come a series of causes and effects, or a chain of motion guided by the consistent and unchanging laws unique to each being. These laws are essential to their specific nature, which makes them always act or move in a particular way. We don't know the different principles behind this motion because, in many cases, if not all, we're unaware of what defines the essence of beings. The elements of bodies elude our senses; we only understand them as a whole: we don't know their intimate combinations or the ratios of these combinations, which necessarily influence their mode of action, their force, or their various effects.

Our senses bring us generally acquainted with two sorts of motion in the beings that surround us: the one is the motion of the mass, by which an entire body is transferred from one place to another. Of the motion of this genus we are perfectly sensible.—Thus, we see a stone fall, a ball roll, an arm move, or change its position. The other is an internal or concealed motion, which always depends on the peculiar energies of a body: that is to say, on its essence, or the combination, the action, and re-action of the minute—of the insensible particles of matter, of which that body is composed. This motion we do not see; we know it only by the alteration or change, which after some time we discover in these bodies or mixtures. Of this genus is that concealed motion which fermentation produces in the particles that compose flour, which, however scattered, however separated, unite, and form that mass which we call BREAD. Such also is the imperceptible motion by which we see a plant or animal enlarge, strengthen, undergo changes, and acquire new qualities, without our eyes being competent to follow its progression, or to perceive the causes which have produced these effects. Such also is the internal motion that takes place in man, which is called his INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES, his THOUGHTS, his PASSIONS, his will. Of these we have no other mode of judging, than by their action; that is, by those sensible effects which either accompany or follow them. Thus, when we see a man run away, we judge him to be interiorly actuated by the passion of fear.

Our senses help us recognize two kinds of motion in the beings around us: one is mass motion, where an entire object moves from one place to another. We're very aware of this type of motion. For example, we see a stone fall, a ball roll, or an arm move and change position. The other type is internal or hidden motion, which depends on the unique energies of an object; that is, its essence, or the interplay of the tiny, imperceptible particles that make up that object. We can't see this motion; we only know it through the changes we eventually observe in these objects or mixtures. This includes the hidden motion that occurs during fermentation in the particles of flour, which, despite being scattered and separated, come together to form what we call BREAD. It's also like the imperceptible motion we see in a plant or animal as it grows, strengthens, changes, and acquires new qualities, without us being able to see the progression or the causes of these effects. This also applies to the internal motion in humans, which we call our INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES, our THOUGHTS, our PASSIONS, and our will. We can only judge these through their actions, meaning the visible effects that either accompany or follow them. So, when we see a person running away, we infer that they are experiencing the internal motion of fear.

Motion, whether visible or concealed, is styled ACQUIRED, when it is impressed on one body by another; either by a cause to which we are a stranger, or by an exterior agent which our senses enable us to discover. Thus we call that acquired motion, which the wind gives to the sails of a ship. That motion which is excited in a body, that contains within itself the causes of those changes we see it undergo, is called SPONTANEOUS. Then it is said, this body acts or moves by its own peculiar energies. Of this kind is the motion of the man who walks, who talks, who thinks. Nevertheless, if we examine the matter a little closer, we shall be convinced, that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion in any of the various bodies of Nature; seeing they are perpetually acting one upon the other; that all their changes are to be attributed to the causes, either visible or concealed, by which they are moved. The will of man is secretly moved or determined by some exterior cause that produces a change in him: we believe he moves of himself, because we neither see the cause that determined him, the mode in which it acted, nor the organ that it put in motion.

Motion, whether visible or hidden, is called ACQUIRED when it's imparted to one object by another, either through a cause that we don't recognize or by an external influence that our senses can detect. For example, we refer to the acquired motion that the wind gives to a ship's sails. The motion that originates within a body, which holds the reasons for the changes we observe, is called SPONTANEOUS. In this case, we say that the body acts or moves through its own unique energies. This includes the movements of a person who walks, talks, or thinks. However, if we look a bit deeper, we'll realize that, strictly speaking, there is no true spontaneous motion in the different bodies of nature; they are constantly interacting with one another, and all their changes can be traced back to either visible or hidden causes that set them in motion. A person's will is subtly influenced or determined by some external factor that causes a change in them: we believe they move on their own because we don't see the cause that prompted them, the way it acted, or the part it set in motion.

That is called SIMPLE MOTION, which is excited in a body by a single cause. COMPOUND MOTION, that which is produced by two or more different causes; whether these causes are equal or unequal, conspiring differently, acting together or in succession, known or unknown.

That is called SIMPLE MOTION, which is created in a body by a single cause. COMPOUND MOTION is produced by two or more different causes; whether these causes are equal or unequal, working together or in succession, known or unknown.

Let the motion of beings be of whatsoever nature it may, it is always the necessary consequence of their essence, or of the properties which compose them, and of those causes of which they experience the action. Each being can only move and act after a particular manner; that is to say, conformably to those laws which result from its peculiar essence, its particular combination, its individual nature: in short, from its specific energies, and those of the bodies from which it receives an impulse. It is this that constitutes the invariable laws of motion: I say invariable, because they can never change, without producing confusion in the essence of things. It is thus that a heavy body must necessarily fall, if it meets with no obstacle sufficient to arrest its descent; that a sensible body must naturally seek pleasure, and avoid pain; that fire must necessarily burn, and diffuse light.

No matter what type of motion beings have, it always stems from their essence, the properties that make them up, and the causes that affect them. Each being can only move and act in a specific way, meaning they follow the laws that arise from their unique essence, specific combination, and individual nature: basically, from their specific energies and those of the objects that influence them. This establishes the unchanging laws of motion: I say unchanging, because they cannot change without causing chaos in the essence of things. For example, a heavy object will inevitably fall unless it encounters a barrier strong enough to stop its descent; a sentient being will naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain; and fire will inevitably burn and give off light.

Each being, then, has laws of motion, that are adapted to itself, and constantly acts or moves according to these laws; at least when no superior cause interrupts its action. Thus, fire ceases to burn combustible matter, as soon as sufficient water is thrown into it, to arrest its progress. Thus, a sensible being ceases to seek pleasure, as soon as he fears that pain will be the result.

Each being has its own laws of motion that are suited to itself and constantly acts or moves according to these laws, unless a greater force interrupts its actions. For example, fire stops burning flammable materials as soon as enough water is poured on it to halt its progress. Similarly, a conscious being stops seeking pleasure as soon as it fears that pain will follow.

The communication of motion, or the medium of action, from one body to another, also follows certain and necessary laws; one being can only communicate motion to another, by the affinity, by the resemblance, by the conformity, by the analogy, or by the point of contact, which it has with that other being. Fire can only propagate when it finds matter analogous to itself: it extinguishes when it encounters bodies which it cannot embrace; that is to say, that do not bear towards it a certain degree of relation or affinity.

The transfer of motion, or the process of action, from one body to another, also follows specific and essential laws; one being can only transfer motion to another through their similarities, resemblances, conformities, analogies, or points of contact. Fire can only spread when it finds matter similar to itself: it goes out when it meets substances it can't engage with; in other words, those that do not have a certain degree of relation or connection to it.

Every thing in the universe is in motion: the essence of matter is to act: if we consider its parts, attentively, we shall discover there is not a particle that enjoys absolute repose. Those which appear to us to be without motion, are, in fact, only in relative or apparent rest; they experience such an imperceptible motion, and expose it so little on their surfaces, that we cannot perceive the changes they undergo. All that appears to us to be at rest, does not, however, remain one instant in the same state. All beings are continually breeding, increasing, decreasing, or dispersing, with more or less dullness or rapidity. The insect called EPHEMERON, is produced and perishes in the same day; of consequence, it experiences the greatest changes of its being very rapidly, in our eyes. Those combinations which form the most solid bodies, which appear to enjoy the most perfect repose, are nevertheless decomposed, and dissolved in the course of time. The hardest stones, by degrees, give way to the contact of air. A mass of iron, which time, and the action of the atmosphere, has gnawed into rust, must have been in motion, from the moment of its formation, in the bowels of the earth, until the instant we behold it in this state of dissolution.

Everything in the universe is in motion: the essence of matter is to act. If we look closely at its parts, we will find that not a single particle is completely at rest. Those that seem to be motionless are actually just in a state of relative or apparent rest; they undergo such tiny movements and show them so little on their surfaces that we can’t see the changes they go through. Everything that seems to be still is not actually in the same state for even a moment. All beings are constantly growing, shrinking, changing, or spreading out, at various speeds. The insect known as EPHEMERON is born and dies in just one day; therefore, it goes through the most dramatic changes in its existence very quickly, in our view. The combinations that form the strongest bodies, which seem to be at complete rest, are still broken down and dissolved over time. The hardest stones gradually succumb to the air. A piece of iron, which has been corroded into rust by time and the atmosphere, must have been in motion continuously, from the moment it formed deep within the earth to the instant we see it in this state of decay.

Natural philosophers, for the most part, seem not to have sufficiently reflected on what they call the nisus; that is to say, the incessant efforts one body is making on another, but which, notwithstanding appear, to our superficial observation, to enjoy the most perfect repose. A stone of five hundred weight seems to rest quiet on the earth, nevertheless, it never ceases for an instant, to press with force upon the earth, which resists or repulses it in its turn. Will the assertion be ventured, that the stone and earth do not act? Do they wish to be undeceived? They have nothing to do but interpose their hand betwixt the earth and the stone; it will then be discovered, that notwithstanding its seeming repose, the stone has power adequate to bruise it; because the hand has not energies sufficient, within itself, to resist effectually both the stone and earth.—Action cannot exist in bodies without re-action. A body that experiences an impulse, an attraction, or a pressure of any kind, if it resists, clearly demonstrates by such resistance that it re-acts; from whence it follows, there is a concealed force, called by these philosophers vis inertia, that displays itself against another force; and this clearly demonstrates, that this inert force is capable of both acting and re-acting. In short, it will be found, on close investigation, that those powers which are called dead, and those which are termed live or moving, are powers of the same kind; which only display themselves after a different manner. Permit us to go a greater distance yet. May we not say, that in those bodies, or masses, of which their whole become evident from appearances to us to be at rest, there is notwithstanding, a continual action, and counter-action, constant efforts, uninterrupted or communicated force, and continued opposition? In short, a nisus, by which the constituting portions of these bodies press one upon another, mutually resisting each other, acting and re-acting incessantly? that this reciprocity of action, this simultaneous re-action, keeps them united, causes their particles to form a mass, a body, and a combination, which, viewed in its whole, has the appearance of complete rest, notwithstanding no one of its particles really ceases to be in motion for a single instant? These collective masses appear to be at rest, simply by the equality of the motion—by the responsory impulse of the powers acting in them.

Natural philosophers mostly don’t seem to have fully considered what they call the nisus; that is, the constant efforts one body exerts on another, which, despite their superficial appearance, seem to be perfectly still. A five-hundred-pound stone appears to rest quietly on the ground, yet it never stops pressing down on the earth, which, in turn, resists or pushes back against it. Can we really say that the stone and the earth don’t act? Do they want to find out? All they have to do is place their hand between the earth and the stone; then it will be clear that, despite its apparent stillness, the stone has enough power to crush the hand because the hand alone does not have enough strength to effectively resist both the stone and the earth. — Action can't exist in bodies without reaction. A body that experiences an impulse, attraction, or any kind of pressure clearly shows through its resistance that it is reacting; this indicates there is a hidden force, referred to by these philosophers as vis inertia, that pushes back against another force. This clearly shows that this inert force is capable of both acting and reacting. In conclusion, upon closer examination, we find that those forces labeled as dead and those described as live or moving are of the same kind; they just express themselves differently. Let's push this idea even further. Can we not assert that in those bodies, or masses, which appear to be at rest, there is nonetheless a continual action and counter-action, constant efforts, ongoing or transferred force, and relentless opposition? Essentially, a nisus in which the individual parts of these bodies press against each other, mutually resisting, and constantly acting and reacting? This reciprocity of action, this simultaneous reaction, keeps them together, causes their particles to form a mass, a body, and a combination that, when viewed as a whole, seems completely at rest, even though none of its particles truly stops moving for even a moment? These combined masses seem to be at rest simply due to the balance of motion—because of the responsive impulses of the forces at work within them.

Thus it appears that bodies enjoying perfect repose, really receive, whether upon their surface, or in their interior, a continual communicated force, from those bodies by which they are either surrounded or penetrated, dilated or contracted, rarified or condensed: in fact, from those which compose them; whereby their particles are incessantly acting and re-acting, or in continual motion, the effects of which are displayed by extraordinary changes. Thus heat rarifies and dilates metals, which is evidence deducible that a bar of iron, from the change of the atmosphere alone, must be in continual motion; that there is not a single particle in it that can be said to enjoy rest even for a single moment. In those hard bodies, indeed, the particles of which are in actual contact, and which are closely united, how is it possible to conceive, that air, cold, or heat, can act upon one of these particles, even exteriorly, without the motion being communicated to those which are most intimate and minute in their union? Without motion, how should we be able to comprehend the manner in which our sense of smelling is affected, by emanations escaping from the most solid bodies, of which all the particles appear to be at perfect rest? How could we, even by the assistance of a telescope, see the most distant stars, if there was not a progressive motion of light from these stars to the retina of our eye?

It seems that objects at complete rest are still constantly influenced, whether on their surface or inside, by a continuous force coming from the bodies around them or even passing through them, expanding or contracting, becoming less or more dense: in reality, from the particles that make them up. This causes their particles to be continuously interacting and in motion, which results in significant changes. For example, heat expands and thins metals, suggesting that a bar of iron must be in constant motion just due to changes in the atmosphere; not a single particle can be considered at rest even for a moment. In solid objects, where particles are in direct contact and closely bound together, how could air, cold, or heat affect one of these particles from the outside without causing motion in those that are closely connected and tiny? Without motion, how could we understand how our sense of smell is influenced by emissions coming from solid objects, where all the particles seem completely still? How could we possibly see distant stars through a telescope if there wasn't a continuous movement of light from those stars to our eyes?

Observation and reflection ought to convince us, that every thing in Nature is in continual motion—that there is not a single part, however small, that enjoys repose—that Nature acts in all—that she would cease to be Nature if she did not act. Practical knowledge teaches us, that without unceasing motion, nothing could be preserved—nothing could be produced—nothing could act in this Nature. Thus the idea of Nature necessarily includes that of motion. But it will be asked, and not a little triumphantly, from whence did she derive her motion? Our reply is, we know not, neither do they—that we never shall, that they never will. It is a secret hidden from us, concealed from them, by the most impenetrable veil. We also reply, that it is fair to infer, unless they can logically prove to the contrary, that it is in herself, since she is the great whole, out of which nothing can exist. We say this motion is a manner of existence, that flows, necessarily, out of the nature of matter; that matter moves by its own peculiar energies; that its motion is to be attributed to the force which is inherent in itself; that the variety of motion, and the phenomena which result, proceed from the diversity of the properties—of the qualities—of the combinations, which are originally found in the primitive matter, of which Nature is the assemblage.

Observation and reflection should make us realize that everything in Nature is constantly in motion—that there isn’t a single part, no matter how small, that remains at rest—that Nature is active in all things—and that she would cease to be Nature if she didn’t act. Practical knowledge shows us that without constant motion, nothing could be preserved, produced, or function within this Nature. Thus, the concept of Nature necessarily includes motion. However, it will be asked, rather triumphantly, where does her motion come from? Our answer is, we don’t know, nor do they—and we will never know, and neither will they. It’s a secret hidden from us, concealed from them, by an impenetrable veil. We also argue that it’s reasonable to conclude, unless they can logically prove otherwise, that the motion is within herself, as she is the whole from which nothing can exist. We state that this motion is a way of existing, that arises necessarily from the nature of matter; that matter moves due to its own inherent energies; that this motion is attributed to the force contained within itself; and that the variety of motion, along with the resulting phenomena, comes from the diversity of properties, qualities, and combinations initially present in the primitive matter, of which Nature is composed.

Natural philosophers, for the most part, have regarded as inanimate, or as deprived of the faculty of motion, those bodies which are only moved by the intervention of some agent or exterior cause; they have considered themselves justified in concluding, that the matter which forms these bodies is perfectly inert in its nature. They have not forsaken this error, although they must have observed, that whenever a body is left to itself, or disengaged from those obstructions which oppose themselves to its descent, it has a tendency to fall or to approach the centre of the earth, by a motion uniformly accelerated; they have rather chosen to suppose a visionary exterior cause, of which they themselves had but an imperfect idea, than admit that these bodies held their motion from their own peculiar nature.

Most natural philosophers have considered bodies that can only move through external agents or causes to be inanimate or lacking the ability to move on their own. They believe they are justified in concluding that the matter making up these bodies is completely inert by nature. They have not abandoned this mistake, even though they must have seen that whenever a body is left on its own or freed from the obstacles that prevent it from falling, it naturally tends to fall or move toward the center of the earth with a consistently accelerated motion. Instead, they prefer to imagine an imaginary external cause, which they only partially understand, rather than accept that these bodies have movement inherent to their own nature.

These philosophers, also, notwithstanding they saw above them an infinite number of globes that moved with great rapidity round a common centre, still adhered to their favourite opinions; and never ceased to suppose some whimsical causes for these movements, until the immortal NEWTON clearly demonstrated that it was the effect of the gravitation of these celestial bodies towards each other. Experimental philosophers, however, and amongst them the great Newton himself, have held the cause of gravitation as inexplicable. Notwithstanding the great weight of this authority, it appears manifest that it may be deduced from the motion of matter, by which bodies are diversely determined. Gravitation is nothing more than a mode of moving—a tendency towards a centre: to speak strictly, all motion is relative gravitation; since that which falls relatively to us, rises, with relation to other bodies. From this it follows, that every motion in our microcosm is the effect of gravitation; seeing that there is not in the universe either top or bottom, nor any absolute centre. It should appear, that the weight of bodies depends on their configuration, as well external as internal, which gives them that form of action which is called gravitation. Thus, for instance, a piece of lead, spherically formed, falls quickly and direct: reduce this ball into very thin plates, it will be sustained in the air for a much longer time: apply to it the action of fire, this lead will rise in the atmosphere: here, then, the same metal, variously modified, has very different modes of action.

These philosophers, even though they observed countless spheres moving rapidly around a common center, still stuck to their favorite ideas and kept inventing odd explanations for these movements until the legendary NEWTON clearly showed that it was due to the gravitational pull between these celestial bodies. However, experimental philosophers, including the great Newton himself, regarded the cause of gravitation as something that couldn't be explained. Despite this significant authority, it seems clear that it can be derived from the motion of matter, which determines the movement of bodies in different ways. Gravitation is basically just a way of moving—a pull toward a center. To put it more accurately, all motion is relative gravitation; what falls relative to us rises in relation to other bodies. This means that every movement in our small world is the result of gravitation since there is no absolute top or bottom in the universe, nor any fixed center. It seems that the weight of objects depends on their shape, both external and internal, which gives them the characteristic of gravitation. For example, a piece of lead shaped like a sphere falls quickly and straight down; if you break this ball into very thin sheets, it will float in the air for a much longer time. If you apply heat to it, this lead will rise in the atmosphere. Here, the same metal, changed in form, behaves in very different ways.

A very simple observation would have sufficed to make the philosophers, antecedent to Newton, feel the inadequateness of the causes they admitted to operate with such powerful effect. They had a sufficiency to convince themselves, in the collision of two bodies, which they could contemplate, and in the known laws of that motion, which these always communicate by reason of their greater or less compactness; from whence they ought to have inferred, that the density of subtle or ethereal matter, being considerably less than that of the planets, it could only communicate to them a very feeble motion, quite insufficient to produce that velocity of action, of which they could not possibly avoid being the witnesses.

A simple observation would have been enough to make the philosophers before Newton realize that the causes they believed were behind such powerful effects were inadequate. They had enough to convince themselves through the collision of two bodies, which they could see, and the known laws of motion that these bodies always follow due to their varying levels of compactness. From this, they should have inferred that the density of subtle or ethereal matter, being much less than that of the planets, could only give them a very weak motion, completely insufficient to create the level of action they couldn't help but witness.

If Nature had been viewed uninfluenced by prejudice, they must have been long since convinced that matter acts by its own peculiar activity; that it needs no exterior communicative force to set it in motion. They might have perceived that whenever mixed bodies were placed in a situation to act on each other, motion was instantly excited; and that these mixtures acted with a force capable of producing the most surprising results.

If Nature had been seen without bias, they would have been convinced long ago that matter operates with its own unique activity; it doesn't require any outside force to get it moving. They might have noticed that whenever different substances were put in a position to affect each other, motion was triggered immediately; and that these mixtures had a force strong enough to create the most astonishing outcomes.

If particles of iron, sulphur, and water be mixed together, these bodies thus capacitated to act on each other, are heated by degrees, and ultimately produce a violent combustion. If flour be wetted with water, and the mixture closed up, it will be found, after some lapse of time, (by the aid of a microscope) to have produced organized beings that enjoy life, of which the water and the flour were believed incapable: it is thus that inanimate matter can pass into life, or animate matter, which is in itself only an assemblage of motion.

If you mix together particles of iron, sulfur, and water, and then gradually heat them, they'll eventually cause a violent combustion. If you wet flour with water and seal the mixture, after some time (helped by a microscope), you'll find that it has produced living organisms, which we thought the water and flour couldn't do on their own. This shows how non-living matter can transform into living matter, which is really just a collection of movement.

Reasoning from analogy, which the philosophers of the present day do not hold incompatible, the production of a man, independent of the ordinary means, would not be more astonishing than that of an insect with flour and water. Fermentation and putrid substances, evidently produce living animals. We have here the principle; with proper materials, principles can always be brought into action. That generation which is styled uncertain is only so for those who do not reflect, or who do not permit themselves, attentively, to observe the operations of Nature.

Thinking by analogy, which modern philosophers don’t see as contradictory, creating a human without the usual means wouldn't be any more surprising than making an insect from flour and water. Fermentation and decaying substances clearly produce living creatures. This gives us the principle; with the right materials, principles can always be activated. That generation referred to as uncertain is only uncertain for those who don’t think deeply or who don’t allow themselves to carefully observe the workings of Nature.

The generative of motion, and its developement, as well as the energy of matter, may be seen everywhere; more particularly in those unitions in which fire, air, and water, find themselves combined. These elements, or rather these mixed bodies, are the most volatile, the most fugitive of beings; nevertheless in the hands of Nature, they are the essential agents employed to produce the most striking phenomena. To these we must ascribe the effects of thunder, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, &c. Science offers to our consideration an agent of astonishing force, in gunpowder, the instant it comes in contact with fire. In short, the most terrible effects result from the combination of matter, which is generally believed to be dead and inert.

The energy of movement and its development, along with the energy of matter, can be seen everywhere, especially in combinations where fire, air, and water come together. These elements, or rather these blended substances, are the most unstable and fleeting. However, in nature's hands, they are the key agents used to create the most amazing phenomena. We can attribute the effects of thunder, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc., to these elements. Science presents an astonishingly powerful agent in gunpowder as soon as it comes into contact with fire. In short, the most destructive effects come from the combination of matter, which is generally thought to be lifeless and inert.

These facts prove, beyond a doubt, that motion is produced, is augmented, is accelerated in matter, without the help of any exterior agent: therefore it is reasonable to conclude that motion is the necessary consequence of immutable laws, resulting from the essence, from the properties existing in the different elements, and the various combinations of these elements. Are we not justified, then, in concluding, from these precedents, that there may be an infinity of other combinations, with which we are unacquainted, competent to produce a great variety of motion in matter, without being under the necessity of having recourse, for the explanation, to agents who are more difficult to comprehend than even the effects which are attributed to them?

These facts clearly show that motion occurs, increases, and speeds up in matter without the need for any outside force. Thus, it makes sense to conclude that motion is a necessary result of unchanging laws that come from the essence and properties of different elements, as well as the various combinations of those elements. Aren't we justified in concluding, based on these examples, that there could be countless other combinations that we're unaware of, capable of producing a wide range of motion in matter, without having to resort to explanations that involve forces that are even harder to understand than the effects they supposedly cause?

Had man but paid proper attention to what passed under his review, he would not have sought out of Nature, a power distinguished from herself, to set her in action, and without which he believes she cannot move. If, indeed, by Nature is meant a heap of dead matter, destitute of peculiar qualities purely passive, we must unquestionably seek out of this Nature the principle of her motion. But if by Nature be understood, what it really is, a whole, of which the numerous parts are endowed with various properties, which oblige them to act according to these properties; which are in a perpetual ternateness of action and reaction; which press, which gravitate towards a common center, whilst others depart from and fly off towards the periphery, or circumference; which attract and repel; which by continual approximation and constant collision, produce and decompose all the bodies we behold; then, I say, there is no necessity to have recourse to supernatural powers, to account for the formation of things, and those extraordinary appearances which are the result of motion.

If people had paid proper attention to what they were observing, they wouldn’t have looked outside of Nature for a power that’s separate from her to get her moving, believing that she can’t move without it. If Nature is thought of as just a pile of lifeless matter, lacking any special qualities and merely passive, then we definitely need to find the principle of her motion from this Nature. But if Nature is understood for what it truly is—a whole, made up of many parts that have various properties which compel them to act according to those properties; which are in a constant state of action and reaction; which push toward a common center while others move away toward the edges; which attract and repel; and which, through continual closeness and ongoing collisions, create and break down all the bodies we see—then I say there’s no need to turn to supernatural forces to explain the formation of things and the extraordinary phenomena that result from motion.

Those who admit a cause exterior to matter, are obliged to believe that this cause produced all the motion by which matter is agitated in giving it existence. This belief rests on another, namely, that matter could begin to exist; an hypothesis that, until this moment, has never been satisfactorily demonstrated. To produce from nothing, or the CREATION, is a term that cannot give us the least idea of the formation of the universe; it presents no sense, upon which the mind can rely. In fact, the human mind is not adequate to conceive a moment of non-existence, or when all shall have passed away; even admitting this to be a truth, it is no truth for us, because by the very nature of our organization, we cannot admit positions as facts, of which no evidence can be adduced that has relation to our senses; we may, indeed, consent to believe it, because others say it; but will any rational being be satisfied with such an admission? Can any moral good spring from such blind assurance? Is it consistent with sound doctrine, with philosophy, or with reason? Do we, in fact, pay any respect to the intellectual powers of another, when we say to him, "I will believe this, because in all the attempts you have ventured, for the purpose of proving what you say, you have entirely failed; and have been at last obliged to acknowledge you know nothing about the matter?" What moral reliance ought we to have on such people? Hypothesis may succeed hypothesis; system may destroy system: a new set of ideas may overturn the ideas of a former day. Other Gallileos may be condemned to death—other Newtons may arise—we may reason—argue—dispute—quarrel—punish and destroy: nay, we may even exterminate those who differ from us in opinion; but when we have done all this, we shall be obliged to fall back upon our original darkness—to confess, that that which has no relation with our senses, that which cannot manifest itself to us by some of the ordinary modes by which other things are manifested, has no existence for us—is not comprehensible by us—can never entirely remove our doubt—can never seize on our stedfast belief; seeing it is that of which we cannot form even a notion; in short, that it is that, which as long as we remain what we are, must be hidden from us by a veil, which no power, no faculty, no energy we possess, is able to remove. All who are not enslaved by prejudice agree to the truth of the position, that nothing can be made of nothing. Many theologians have acknowledged Nature to be an active whole. Almost all the ancient philosophers were agreed to regard the world as eternal. OCELLUS LUCANUS, speaking of the universe, says, "it has always been, and it always will be." VATABLE and GROTIUS assure us, that to render the Hebrew phrase in the first chapter of GENESIS correctly, we must say, "when God made heaven and earth, matter was without form." If this be true, and every Hebraist can judge for himself, then the word which has been rendered created, means only to fashion, form, arrange. We know that the Greek words create and form, have always indicated the same thing. According to ST. JEROME, creare has the same meaning as condere, to found, to build. The Bible does not anywhere say in a clear manner, that the world was made of nothing. TERTULLIAN and the father PETAU both admit, that "this is a truth established more by reason than by authority." ST. JUSTIN seems to have contemplated matter as eternal, since he commends PLATO for having said, that "God, in the creation of the world, only gave impulse to matter, and fashioned it." BURNET and PYTHAGORAS were entirely of this opinion, and even our Church Service may be adduced in support; for although it admits by implication a beginning, it expressly denies an end: "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end." It is easy to perceive that that which cannot cease to exist, must have always been.

Those who acknowledge a cause outside of matter must believe that this cause generated all the motion that causes matter to exist. This belief hinges on the idea that matter could come into existence; a theory that has never been clearly proven. The notion of creating something from nothing does not help us understand how the universe formed; it lacks any basis for comprehension. In reality, the human mind struggles to grasp a moment of non-existence or a state when everything has vanished; even if we accept this as true, it doesn’t change our understanding, because our nature doesn't allow us to accept claims as facts without evidence that relates to our senses. We might agree to believe it because others say so, but can any rational person truly accept such claims? Can any real good come from such blind faith? Is it consistent with sound beliefs, philosophy, or reason? Do we show respect for someone's intellect when we say, "I will believe this because you've failed to prove your point completely, and have ultimately admitted you know nothing about it?" What moral trust should we place in such people? Hypotheses may replace one another; systems may dismantle other systems: new ideas may overthrow old ones. Other Galileos may face persecution—other Newtons may emerge—we can reason, argue, fight, punish, and destroy; we might even eliminate those who disagree with us. Yet after all this, we would still have to admit our original ignorance—to confess that what has no connection to our senses, what doesn’t reveal itself through the usual means that other things do, doesn’t exist for us—it isn't something we can grasp—it never fully resolves our doubts—it can’t take hold of our firm belief; because it's something about which we can't even form an idea; in short, it's something that, as long as we are who we are, will remain hidden from us by a veil that no power, ability, or energy we possess can lift. Everyone not bound by bias agrees with the truth that nothing can come from nothing. Many theologians have recognized that nature is a dynamic whole. Almost all ancient philosophers accepted the idea that the world is eternal. OCELLUS LUCANUS, discussing the universe, says, "it has always existed, and it always will." VATABLE and GROTIUS inform us that to accurately translate the Hebrew phrase in the first chapter of GENESIS, we should say, "when God created heaven and earth, matter was formless." If this is true, and any expert in Hebrew can judge for themselves, then the word translated as created means merely to shape, form, or arrange. We know that the Greek terms create and form have always meant the same thing. According to ST. JEROME, creare means the same as condere, which is to establish or build. The Bible does not explicitly state that the world was made from nothing. TERTULLIAN and the father PETAU acknowledge that "this is a truth established more by reason than by authority." ST. JUSTIN seems to have viewed matter as eternal since he praised PLATO for saying that "God, in the creation of the world, merely gave motion to matter and shaped it." BURNET and PYTHAGORAS shared this view, and even our Church Service can be cited in support; for while it implies a beginning, it clearly denies an end: "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end." It’s clear that what cannot cease to exist must have always been.

Motion becomes still more obscure, when creation, or the formation of matter, is attributed to a SPIRITUAL being; that is to say, to a being which has no analogy, no point of contact, with it—to a being which has neither extent or parts, and cannot, therefore, be susceptible of motion, as we understand the term; this being only the change of one body, relatively to another body, in which the body moved presents successively different parts to different points of space. Moreover, as all the world are nearly agreed that matter can never be totally annihilated, or cease to exist; by what reasoning, I would ask, do they comprehend—how understand—that that which cannot cease to be, could ever have had a beginning?

Motion becomes even more unclear when the creation or formation of matter is credited to a SPIRITUAL being; in other words, to a being that has no similarity or connection to it—one that has no physical dimensions or parts and therefore cannot experience motion in the way we understand it. Motion is simply the change of one object in relation to another, where the moving object successively presents different parts to different points in space. Additionally, since almost everyone agrees that matter can never be completely destroyed or stop existing, I ask, through what reasoning do they conclude—how do they understand—that something that can never cease to exist could ever have had a beginning?

If, therefore, it be asked, whence came matter? it is very reasonable to say it has always existed. If it be inquired, whence proceeds the motion that agitates matter? the same reasoning furnishes the answer; namely, that as motion is coeval with matter, it must have existed from all eternity, seeing that motion is the necessary consequence of its existence—of its essence—of its primitive properties, such as its extent, its gravity, its impenetrability, its figure, &c. By virtue of these essential constituent properties, inherent in all matter, and without which it is impossible to form an idea of it, the various matter of which the universe is composed must from all eternity have pressed against, each other—have gravitated towards a center—have clashed—have come in contact—have been attracted—have been repelled—have been combined—have been separated: in short, must have acted and moved according to the essence and energy peculiar to each genus, and to each of its combinations.

If someone asks where matter comes from, it makes sense to say that it has always existed. If the question is about where the motion that stirs matter comes from, the same reasoning applies; that is, since motion has always been present with matter, it must have existed for all eternity, as motion is a necessary result of matter's existence—its essence—its basic properties, like its size, weight, impenetrability, shape, and so on. Because of these essential properties inherent in all matter, which are crucial for understanding it, the various types of matter that make up the universe must have always been pressing against one another—gravitating toward a center—colliding—coming into contact—being attracted—being repelled—being combined—being separated: in short, they must have acted and moved according to the essence and energy specific to each type and each of its combinations.

Existence supposes properties in the thing that exists: whenever it has properties, its mode of action must necessarily flow from those properties which constitute, its mode of being. Thus, when a body is ponderous, it must fall; when it falls, it must come in collision with the bodies it meets in its descent; when it is dense, when it is solid, it must, by reason of this density, communicate motion to the bodies with which it clashes; when it has analogy, when it has affinity with these bodies, it must be attracted, must be united with them; when it has no point of analogy with them, it must be repulsed.

Existence implies certain characteristics in the thing that exists: whenever it has characteristics, its way of acting must flow from those characteristics that define its existence. So, when something is heavy, it must fall; when it falls, it must collide with the objects it encounters on the way down; when it is dense and solid, it must, due to this density, transfer motion to the objects it impacts; when it has similarities or connections with these objects, it must be drawn to them, must be joined with them; when it has no connection with them, it must be pushed away.

From which it may be fairly inferred, that in supposing, as we are under the necessity of doing, the existence of matter, we must suppose it to have some kind of properties; from which its motion, or modes of action, must necessarily flow. To form the universe, DESCARTES asked but matter and motion: a diversity of matter sufficed for him; variety of motion was the consequence of its existence, of its essence, of its properties: its different modes of action would be the necessary consequence of its different modes of being. Matter without properties would be a mere nothing; therefore, as soon as matter exists, it must act; as soon as it is various, it must act variously; if it cannot commence to exist, it must have existed from all eternity; if it has always existed, it can never cease to be: if it can never cease to be, it can never cease to act by its own energy. Motion is a manner of being, which matter derives from its peculiar existence.

From this, we can reasonably conclude that if we assume, as we must, that matter exists, we need to believe it has certain properties; these properties lead to its motion and ways of acting. To explain the universe, DESCARTES only needed matter and motion: he thought a variety of matter was enough; the different types of motion were just a result of matter's existence, essence, and properties. The different ways matter acts would be necessary outcomes of its various forms. Matter without properties would just be non-existent; therefore, once matter exists, it must act; and when it's diverse, it must act in different ways. If it can't come into existence, it must have existed forever; if it has always existed, it can never stop existing: and if it can never stop existing, it can never stop acting on its own. Motion is a way of being that matter gets from its specific existence.

The existence, then, of matter is a fact: the existence of motion is another fact. Our visual organs point out to us matter with different essences, forming a variety of combinations, endowed with various properties that discriminate them. Indeed, it is a palpable error to believe that matter is a homogeneous body, of which the parts differ from each other only by their various modifications. Among the individuals of the same species that come under our notice, no two resemble exactly; and it is therefore evident that the difference of situation alone will, necessarily, carry a diversity more or less sensible, not only in the modifications, but also in the essence, in the properties, in the entire system of beings. This truth was well understood by the profound and subtle LEIBNITZ.

The existence of matter is a fact, and so is the existence of motion. Our eyes help us see matter with different qualities, creating a variety of combinations, each with distinct properties that set them apart. It's clearly a mistake to think of matter as a uniform substance, where the parts only differ due to their various changes. Among individuals of the same species that we observe, no two are exactly alike; thus, it’s obvious that even just their location can lead to noticeable differences, not only in their changes but also in their essence and properties, and in the entire system of beings. This truth was well understood by the insightful and complex LEIBNITZ.

If this principle be properly digested, and experience seems always to produce evidence of its truth, we must be convinced that the matter or primitive elements which enter into the composition of bodies, are not of the same nature, and consequently, can neither have the same properties, nor the same modifications; and if so, they cannot have the same mode of moving and acting. Their activity or motion, already different, can be diversified to infinity, augmented or diminished, accelerated or retarded, according to the combinations, the proportions, the pressure, the density, the volume of the matter, that enters their composition. The endless variety to be produced, will need no further illustration than the commonest book of arithmetic furnishes us, where it will be found, that to ring all the changes that can be produced on twelve bells only, would occupy a space of more than ninety-one years. The element of fire is visibly more active and more inconstant than that of earth. This is more solid and ponderous than fire, air, or water. According to the quantity of these elements, which enter the composition of bodies, these must act diversely, and their motion must in some measure partake the motion peculiar to each of their constituent parts. Elementary fire appears to be in Nature the principle of activity; it may be compared to a fruitful leaven, that puts the mass into fermentation and gives it life. Earth appears to be the principle of solidity in bodies, from its impenetrability, and by the firm coherence of its parts. Water is a medium, to facilitate the combination of bodies, into which it enters itself, as a constituent part. Air is a fluid whose business it seems to be, to furnish the other elements with the space requisite to expand, to exercise their motion, and which is, moreover, found proper to combine with them. These elements, which our senses never discover in a pure state—which are continually and reciprocally set in motion by each other—which are always acting and re-acting, combining and separating, attracting and repelling—are sufficient to explain to us the formation of all the beings we behold. Their motion is uninterruptedly and reciprocally produced from each other; they are alternately causes and effects. Thus, they form a vast circle of generation and destruction—of combination and decomposition, which, it is quite reasonable to suppose, could never have had a beginning, and which, consequently can never have an end. In short, Nature is but an immense chain of causes and effects, which unceasingly flow from each other. The motion of particular beings depends on the general motion, which is itself maintained by individual motion. This is strengthened or weakened, accelerated or retarded, simplified or complicated, procreated or destroyed, by a variety of combinations and circumstances, which every moment change the directions, the tendency, the modes of existing, and of acting, of the different beings that receive its impulse.

If this principle is understood correctly, and experience consistently shows its truth, we must accept that the matter or basic elements that make up bodies are not the same in nature. Therefore, they cannot have the same properties or characteristics; if that’s the case, they also cannot have the same way of moving and acting. Their activity or motion, already different, can vary infinitely—intensified or lessened, sped up or slowed down—depending on the combinations, proportions, pressure, density, and volume of the matter that makes them up. The endless variations possible are illustrated simply by a basic book of arithmetic, which shows that permuting just twelve bells would take more than ninety-one years. The element of fire is clearly more active and less stable than earth, which is denser and heavier than fire, air, or water. Depending on the quantity of these elements that compose bodies, their actions must differ, and their motions must reflect the unique motions of each of their components. Elemental fire seems to be the source of activity in nature; it’s like a powerful yeast that brings the mass to life and causes fermentation. Earth stands as the foundation of solidity in bodies, due to its impenetrability and the strong connection of its parts. Water serves as a medium that helps combine bodies as a component itself. Air is a fluid that appears to create the necessary space for the other elements to expand and move, and is also suitable for combining with them. These elements, which we never see in their pure form—constantly moving and influencing each other, always acting and reacting, combining and separating, attracting and repelling—are enough to explain the formation of everything we observe. Their motion is continuously and reciprocally driven by one another; they are alternately causes and effects. Thus, they create a vast cycle of generation and destruction—of combination and decomposition—that probably never had a beginning and therefore can never have an end. In short, nature is simply an immense chain of causes and effects, constantly flowing from one to another. The motion of individual beings depends on the overall motion, which is upheld by individual movements. This motion can be strengthened or weakened, sped up or slowed down, simplified or complicated, created or destroyed, due to various combinations and circumstances that constantly shift the directions, tendencies, and modes of existence and action of the different beings influenced by it.

If it were true, as has been asserted by some philosophers, that every thing has a tendency to form one unique or single mass, and in that unique mass the instant should arrive when all was in nisus, all would eternally remain in this state; to all eternity there would be no more than one Being and one effort: this would be eternal and universal death.

If it were true, as some philosophers have claimed, that everything tends to come together into one unique mass, and that in that unique mass, there would come a moment when everything was in nisus, then everything would stay in that state forever; for all eternity, there would be only one Being and one effort: this would be eternal and universal death.

If we desire to go beyond this, to find the principle of action in matter, to trace the origin of things, it is for ever to fall back upon difficulties; it is absolutely to abridge the evidence of our senses; by which only we can understand, by which alone we can judge of the causes acting upon them, or the impulse by which they are set in action.

If we want to go further, to discover how matter acts, to uncover the origins of things, we will always run into challenges; it’s really a way of limiting what our senses tell us. Our senses are the only way we can understand and judge the causes that influence them or the forces that set them in motion.

Let us, therefore, content ourselves with saying WHAT is supported by our experience, and by all the evidence we are capable of understanding; against the truth of which not a shadow of proof, such as our reason can admit, has ever been adduced—which has been maintained by philosophers in every age—which theologians themselves have not denied, but which many of them have upheld; namely, that matter always existed; that it moves by virtue of its essence; that all the phenomena of Nature is ascribable to the diversified motion of the variety of matter she contains; and which, like the phoenix, is continually regenerating out of its own ashes.

Let’s, therefore, be satisfied with stating what is backed by our experience and all the evidence we can understand; against the truth of which not a hint of proof that our reason can accept has ever been presented—this has been argued by philosophers throughout history—something that even theologians have not denied, and many have actually supported; namely, that matter has always existed; it moves because of its essence; all natural phenomena can be attributed to the various motions of the different types of matter it contains; and like the phoenix, it is constantly regenerating from its own ashes.










CHAP. III.

Of Matter.—Of its various Combinations.—Of its diversified Motion, or of the Course of Nature.

About Matter.—About its different Combinations.—About its various Motion, or the Course of Nature.

We know nothing of the elements of bodies, but we know some of their properties or qualities; and we distinguish their various matter by the effect or change produced on our senses; that is to say, by the variety of motion their presence excites in us. In consequence, we discover in them, extent, mobility, divisibility, solidity, gravity, and inert force. From these general and primitive properties flow a number of others, such as density, figure, colour, ponderosity, &c. Thus, relatively to us, matter is all that affects our senses in any manner whatever; the various properties we attribute to matter, by which we discriminate its diversity, are founded on the different impressions we receive on the changes they produce in us.

We don’t know much about the elements of bodies, but we do understand some of their properties or qualities. We identify different materials by the effects or changes they create in our senses, meaning the various movements they provoke in us. As a result, we recognize in them dimensions, movement, separability, solidity, weight, and resistance. From these basic and fundamental properties come many others, like density, shape, color, heaviness, etc. So, in relation to us, matter is anything that affects our senses in any way; the various qualities we assign to matter, which help us differentiate its diversity, are based on the different impressions we experience from the changes they cause in us.

A satisfactory definition of matter has not yet been given. Man, deceived and led astray by his prejudices, formed but vague, superficial, and imperfect notions concerning it. He looked upon it as an unique being, gross and passive, incapable of either moving by itself, of forming combinations, or of producing any thing by its own energies. Instead of this unintelligible jargon, he ought to have contemplated it as a genus of beings, of which the individuals, although they might possess some common properties, such as extent, divisibility, figure, &c. should not, however, be all ranked in the same class, nor comprised under the same general denomination.

A clear definition of matter hasn't been established yet. People, misled by their biases, have formed vague, superficial, and incomplete ideas about it. They viewed it as a single entity, coarse and unchanging, unable to move on its own, create combinations, or produce anything through its own forces. Instead of this confusing language, they should see it as a genus of beings, where individuals, even though they may share some common traits, like size, divisibility, shape, etc., should not all be classified in the same category or fall under the same general term.

An example will serve more fully to explain what we have asserted, throw its correctness into light, and facilitate the application. The properties common to all matter, are extent, divisibility, impenetrability, figure, mobility, or the property of being moved in mass. FIRE, beside these general properties, common to all matter, enjoys also the peculiar property of being put into activity by a motion that produces on our organs of feeling the sensation of heat; and by another, that communicates to our visual organs the sensation of light. Iron, in common with matter in general, has extent and figure; is divisible, and moveable in mass: if fire be combined with it in a certain proportion, the iron acquires two new properties; namely, those of exciting in us similar sensations of heat and light, which were excited by the element of fire, but which the iron had not, before its combination with the igneous matter. These distinguishing properties are inseparable from matter, and the phenomena that result, may, in the strictest sense of the word, be said to result necessarily.

An example will better illustrate what we’ve claimed, highlight its accuracy, and help with application. The properties that all matter shares are size, divisibility, inability to be occupied by other matter, shape, and the ability to move or be moved as a whole. FIRE, in addition to these general properties that apply to all matter, also has the unique ability to be activated by motion that causes our sensory organs to feel heat, and by another that allows our eyes to detect light. Iron, like all matter, has size and shape; it is divisible and movable as a mass. When fire is combined with iron in a specific way, the iron gains two new properties: it can generate in us the same sensations of heat and light that fire does, which it didn’t have before bonding with the fiery substance. These unique properties are inherent to matter, and the resulting phenomena can, in the strictest sense, be said to necessarily follow.

If we contemplate a little the paths of Nature—if, for a time, we trace the beings in this Nature, under the different states through which, by reason of their properties, they are compelled to pass; we shall discover, that it is to motion, and motion only, that is to be ascribed all the changes, all the combinations, all the forms, in short, all the various modifications of matter. That it is by motion every thing that exists is produced, experiences change, expands, and is destroyed. It is motion that alters the aspect of beings; that adds to, or takes away from their properties; which obliges each of them, by a consequence of its nature, after having occupied a certain rank or order, to quit it, to occupy another, and to contribute to the generation, maintenance, and decomposition of other beings, totally different in their bulk, rank, and essence.

If we take a moment to think about the paths of Nature—if we follow the beings in this Nature through the different states they must go through because of their properties—we'll find that all changes, combinations, and forms, in short, all the various modifications of matter, can be attributed to motion, and motion alone. It is through motion that everything that exists is created, changes, expands, and ultimately is destroyed. Motion changes the appearance of beings; it adds to or takes away from their properties, and forces each of them, as a result of their nature, to move from a certain rank or order to another, contributing to the creation, maintenance, and breakdown of other beings that are completely different in size, rank, and essence.

In what experimental philosophers have styled the THREE ORDERS OF NATURE, that is to say, the mineral, the vegetable, and animal worlds, they have established, by the aid of motion, a transmigration, an exchange, a continual circulation in the particles of matter. Nature has occasion in one place, for those particles which, for a time, she has placed in another. These particles, after having, by particular combinations, constituted beings endued with peculiar essences, with specific properties, with determinate modes of action, dissolve and separate with more or less facility; and combining in a new manner, they form new beings. The attentive observer sees this law execute itself, in a manner more or less prominent, through all the beings by which he is surrounded. He sees nature full of erratic germe, some of which expand themselves, whilst others wait until motion has placed them in their proper situation, in suitable wombs or matrices, in the necessary circumstances, to unfold, to increase, to render them more perceptible by the addition of other substances of matter analogous to their primitive being. In all this we see nothing but the effect of motion, necessarily guided, modified, accelerated or slackened, strengthened or weakened, by reason of the various properties that beings successively acquire and lose; which, every moment, infallibly produces alterations in bodies more or less marked. Indeed, these bodies cannot be, strictly speaking, the same in any two successive moments of their existence; they must, every instant, either acquire or lose: in short, they are obliged to undergo continual variations in their essences, in their properties, in their energies, in their masses, in their qualities, in their mode of existence.

In what experimental philosophers have called the THREE ORDERS OF NATURE, namely the mineral, the vegetable, and animal worlds, they have demonstrated, with the help of motion, a transfer, an exchange, and a constant circulation among particles of matter. Nature needs, in one location, those particles that, for a while, she has set aside in another. These particles, after forming specific combinations that create beings with unique essences, distinct properties, and determined ways of acting, dissolve and separate with varying ease; and by combining in new ways, they give rise to new beings. A careful observer sees this law at work more or less prominently among all the beings around them. They see nature filled with erratic germ, some of which expand, while others wait until motion has positioned them correctly, in suitable environments or conditions, to develop, grow, and become more noticeable by the addition of other similar substances. In all of this, we see nothing but the effects of motion, which is necessarily guided, changed, sped up or slowed down, and intensified or weakened by the different properties that beings acquire and lose over time; which, every moment, undeniably leads to changes in bodies, some more significant than others. Indeed, these bodies cannot, strictly speaking, remain the same in any two consecutive moments of their existence; they must, at every instant, either gain or lose something: in short, they are compelled to undergo continuous changes in their essences, properties, energies, masses, qualities, and modes of existence.

Animals, after they have been expanded in, and brought out of, the wombs that are suitable to the elements of their machine, enlarge, strengthen, acquire new properties, new energies, new faculties; either by deriving nourishment from plants analogous to their being, or by devouring other animals whose substance is suitable to their preservation; that is to say, to repair the continual deperdition or loss of some portion of their own substance, that is disengaging itself every instant. These same animals are nourished, preserved, strengthened, and enlarged, by the aid of air, water, earth, and fire. Deprived of air, or of the fluid that surrounds them, that presses on them, that penetrates them, that gives them their elasticity, they presently cease to live. Water, combined with this air, enters into their whole mechanism of which it facilitates the motion. Earth serves them for a basis, by giving solidity to their texture: it is conveyed by air and water, which carry it to those parts of the body with which it can combine. Fire itself, disguised and enveloped under an infinity of forms, continually received into the animal, procures him heat, continues him in life, renders him capable of exercising his functions. The aliments, charged with these various principles, entering into the stomach, re-establish the nervous system, and restore, by their activity, and the elements which compose them, the machine which begins to languish, to be depressed, by the loss it has sustained. Forthwith the animal experiences a change in his whole system; he has more energy, more activity; he feels more courage; displays more gaiety; he acts, he moves, he thinks, after a different manner; all his faculties are exercised with more ease. This igneous matter, so congenial to generation—so restorative in its effect—so necessary to life, was the JUPITER of the ancients: from all that has preceded, it is clear, that what are called the elements, or primitive parts of matter, variously combined, are, by the agency of motion, continually united to, and assimilated with, the substance of animals—that they visibly modify their being—have an evident influence over their actions, that is to say, upon the motion they undergo, whether visible or concealed.

Animals, after they are born and come out of the wombs suited to their nature, grow, become stronger, and gain new qualities, new energies, and new abilities; either by getting nourishment from plants that match their needs or by eating other animals whose bodies are suitable for their survival. This helps them restore the constant loss of some parts of themselves that are always breaking down. These same animals rely on air, water, earth, and fire for nutrition, preservation, strength, and growth. Without air or the surrounding fluid that presses on them and enters them, giving them elasticity, they quickly stop living. Water, mixed with air, is part of their entire structure, facilitating movement. Earth provides a solid foundation for their bodies, delivered by air and water to the areas where it can combine. Fire, in many forms, continually enters the animal, providing heat, sustaining life, and enabling them to function. The food, filled with these various elements, enters the stomach, revitalizes the nervous system, and restores the body that has started to weaken due to loss. Immediately, the animal feels a change in its entire system; it has more energy, more activity; it feels braver, shows more joy; it acts, moves, and thinks differently; all its abilities are used more effortlessly. This fiery substance, so vital for growth—so restorative—so essential for life, was seen by the ancients as the JUPITER. From everything discussed, it’s evident that the so-called elements or basic parts of matter, combined in different ways, are continuously united with and assimilated into the bodies of animals through motion—that they visibly change their existence and have a clear impact on their actions, whether those actions are visible or hidden.

The same elements, which under certain circumstances serve to nourish, to strengthen, to maintain the animal, become, under others, the principles of his weakness, the instruments of his dissolution—of his death: they work his destruction, whenever they are not in that just proportion which renders them proper to maintain his existence: thus, when water becomes too abundant in the body of the animal, it enervates him, it relaxes the fibres, and impedes the necessary action of the other elements: thus, fire admitted in excess, excites in him disorderly motion destructive of his machine: thus, air, charged with principles not analogous to his mechanism, brings upon him dangerous diseases and contagion. In fine, the aliments modified after certain modes, in the room of nourishing, destroy the animal, and conduce to his ruin: the animal is preserved no longer than these substances are analogous to his system. They ruin him when they want that just equilibrium that renders them suitable to maintain his existence.

The same elements that can nourish, strengthen, and sustain an animal in certain situations can, in other circumstances, lead to its weakness and even death. They cause destruction whenever they are not in the right balance that allows for survival. For instance, when there’s too much water in an animal’s body, it weakens and relaxes its fibers, making it difficult for the other elements to function properly. Similarly, excess fire creates chaotic movement that harms its body, and air that contains harmful substances leads to serious diseases and infections. Ultimately, when food is altered in ways that prevent it from nourishing, it instead harms the animal and contributes to its decline. An animal can only survive as long as these elements match its needs. They cause harm when they lack the balance needed to sustain life.

Plants that serve to nourish and restore animals are themselves nourished by earth; they expand on its bosom, enlarge and strengthen at its expense, continually receiving into their texture, by their roots and their pores, water, air, and igneous matter: water visibly reanimates them whenever their vegetation or genus of life languishes; it conveys to them those analogous principles by which they are enabled to reach perfection: air is requisite to their expansion, and furnishes them with water, earth, and the igneous matter with which it is charged. By these means they receive more or less of the inflammable matter; the different proportions of these principles, their numerous combinations, from whence result an infinity of properties, a variety of forms, constitute the various families and classes into which botanists have distributed plants: it is thus we see the cedar and the hyssop develop their growth; the one rises to the clouds, the other creep humbly on the earth. Thus, by degrees, from an acorn springs the majestic oak, accumulating, with time, its numerous branches, and overshadowing us with its foliage. Thus, a grain of corn, after having drawn its own nourishment from the juices of the earth, serves, in its turn, for the nourishment of man, into whose system it conveys the elements or principles by which it has been itself expanded, combined, and modified in such a manner, as to render this vegetable proper to assimilate and unite with the human frame; that is to say, with the fluids and solids of which it is composed.

Plants that nourish and restore animals are themselves nourished by the earth; they grow from its surface, getting bigger and stronger at its expense, constantly taking in water, air, and minerals through their roots and pores. Water visibly revitalizes them whenever their growth or life diminishes; it provides them with the essential elements they need to thrive. Air is necessary for their growth, supplying them with water, earth, and the minerals it contains. Through these processes, they absorb varying amounts of combustible material; the different ratios of these elements and their many combinations lead to countless properties and forms, which categorize plants into various families and classes as defined by botanists. This is how we see the cedar and hyssop develop: one reaches for the sky, while the other grows humbly close to the ground. Similarly, from an acorn emerges a grand oak, which, over time, spreads its numerous branches and casts shade upon us with its leaves. A grain of corn, after taking its nutrients from the earth's juices, in turn nourishes humans, delivering the elements or principles that have helped it grow, combine, and transform in a way that makes it suitable for merging with the human body—that is, with the fluids and solids it comprises.

The same elements, the same principles, are found in the formation of minerals, as well as in their decomposition, whether natural or artificial. We find that earth, diversely modified, wrought, and combined, serves to increase their bulk, and give them more or less density and gravity. Air and water contribute to make their particles cohere; the igneous matter, or inflammable principle, tinges them with colour, and sometimes plainly indicates its presence, by the brilliant scintillation which motion elicits from them. These stones and metals, these bodies, so compact and solid, are disunited, are destroyed, by the agency of air, water, and fire; which the most ordinary analysis is sufficient to prove, as well as a multitude of experience, to which our eyes are the daily evidence.

The same elements and principles are present in the formation of minerals and in their breakdown, whether it happens naturally or artificially. We see that earth, modified, shaped, and combined in various ways, helps increase their size and gives them varying densities and weights. Air and water help their particles stick together; the fiery or flammable matter gives them color and sometimes clearly shows its presence through the sparkles that movement creates. These stones and metals, which are so dense and solid, can be separated and destroyed by air, water, and fire. This is evident through simple analysis and countless experiences that we witness every day.

Animals, plants, and minerals, after a lapse of time, give back to Nature; that is to say, to the general mass of things, to the universal magazine, the elements, or principles, which they have borrowed: The earth retakes that portion of the body of which it formed the basis and the solidity; the air charges itself with these parts, that are, analogous to it, and with those particles which are light and subtle; water carries off that which is suitable to liquescency; fire, bursting its chains, disengages itself, and rushes into new combinations with other bodies.

Animals, plants, and minerals eventually return to Nature; that is, to the overall mass of things, to the universal storehouse, the elements, or principles, they have borrowed. The earth reclaims the parts of the body it provided as a foundation and support; the air absorbs parts that are similar to it, along with light and delicate particles; water removes what can dissolve; fire, breaking free from its restraints, escapes and combines with other substances.

The elementary particles of the animal, being thus dissolved, disunited, and dispersed; assume new activity, and form new combinations: thus, they serve to nourish, to preserve, or destroy new beings; among others, plants, which arrived at their maturity, nourish and preserve new animals; these in their turn yielding to the same fate as the first.

The basic particles of the animal, having been broken down, separated, and spread out, take on new energy and create new combinations. They help feed, support, or eliminate new life forms; among these, mature plants nourish and sustain new animals; these, in turn, face the same fate as the originals.

Such is the constant, the invariable course, of Nature; such is the eternal circle of mutation, which all that exists is obliged to describe. It is thus motion generates, preserves for a time, and successively, destroys, one part of the universe by the other; whilst the sum of existence remains eternally the same. Nature, by its combinations, produces suns, which place themselves in the centre of so many systems: she forms planets, which, by their peculiar essence, gravitate and describe their revolutions round these suns: by degrees the motion is changed altogether, and becomes eccentric: perhaps the day may arrive when these wondrous masses will disperse, of which man, in the short space of his existence, can only have a faint and transient glimpse.

This is the constant, unchanging path of Nature; this is the eternal cycle of change that everything must follow. In this way, motion creates, temporarily sustains, and then gradually destroys parts of the universe in relation to one another, while the totality of existence stays unchanged. Nature, through its combinations, creates stars that position themselves at the center of numerous systems; it forms planets that, due to their unique nature, are drawn to and orbit around these stars. Over time, this motion can completely shift and become erratic; perhaps one day these incredible celestial bodies will scatter, a spectacle of which humanity can only catch a faint and fleeting glimpse during its brief existence.

It is clear, then, that the continual motion inherent in matter, changes and destroys all beings; every instant depriving them of some of their properties, to substitute others: it is motion, which, in thus changing their actual essence, changes also their order, their direction, their tendency, and the laws which regulate their mode of acting and being: from the stone formed in the bowels of the earth, by the intimate combination and close coherence of similar and analogous particles, to the sun, that vast reservoir of igneous particles, which sheds torrents of light over the firmament; from the benumbed oyster, to the thoughtful and active man; we see an uninterrupted progression, a perpetual chain of motion and combination; from which is produced, beings that only differ from each other by the variety of their elementary matter—by the numerous combinations of these elements, from whence springs modes of action and existence, diversified to infinity. In generation, in nutrition, in preservation, we see nothing more than matter, variously combined, of which each has its peculiar motion, regulated by fixed and determinate laws, which oblige them to submit to necessary changes. We shall find, in the formation, in the growth, in the instantaneous life, of animals, vegetables, and minerals, nothing but matter; which combining, accumulating, aggregating, and expanding by degrees, forms beings, who are either feeling, living, vegetating, or else destitute of these faculties; which, having existed some time under one particular form, are obliged to contribute by their ruin to the production of other forms.

It’s clear that the constant movement that’s inherent in matter changes and destroys all things; every moment stripping them of some of their characteristics and replacing them with others. This motion, by altering their actual essence, also modifies their order, direction, tendency, and the laws that govern how they act and exist. From the stone formed deep within the earth, created by the close combination of similar and related particles, to the sun, that immense source of fiery particles that pours streams of light across the sky; from the dormant oyster to the thoughtful and active human being, we observe an unbroken progression, a continuous chain of movement and combination. This results in beings that only differ from each other by the variety of their basic matter—through countless combinations of these elements emerge diverse ways of acting and existing, extending to infinity. In processes of generation, nutrition, and preservation, we see nothing but matter, combined in various ways, each having its unique motion, governed by fixed and specific laws that require them to undergo necessary changes. In the formation, growth, and fleeting life of animals, plants, and minerals, we find nothing but matter; which, through combining, accumulating, aggregating, and gradually expanding, creates beings that may either be sentient, living, or vegetative, or devoid of these abilities; which, having existed for some time in one specific form, must ultimately contribute through their decay to the emergence of other forms.

Thus, to speak strictly, nothing in Nature is either born, or dies, according to the common acceptation of those terms. This truth was felt by many of the ancient philosophers. PLATO says, that according to tradition, "the living were born of the dead, the same as the dead did come of the living; and that this is the constant routine of Nature." He adds from himself, "who knows, if to live, be not to die; and if to die, be not to live?" This was the doctrine of PYTHAGORAS, a man of great talent and no less note. EMPEDOCLES asserts, "there is neither birth nor death, for any mortal; but only a combination, and a separation of that which was combined, and that this is what amongst men they call birth, and death." Again he remarks, "those are infants, or short-sighted persons, with very contracted understandings, who imagine any thing is born, which did not exist before, or that any thing can die or perish totally."

So, strictly speaking, nothing in nature is actually born or dies in the way we commonly think of those terms. Many ancient philosophers recognized this truth. Plato said, according to tradition, "the living came from the dead, just as the dead came from the living; and this is the ongoing cycle of nature." He also added, "who knows if living is not just dying, and if dying is not just living?" This was the belief of Pythagoras, a highly talented and well-known figure. Empedocles asserted, "there is no birth or death for any mortal; there’s only a coming together and a falling apart of what was combined, and this is what people call birth and death." He also noted, "those who think that something is born that didn't exist before, or that anything can completely die or cease to exist, are like infants or shortsighted individuals with very limited understanding."










CHAP. IV.

Laws of Motion, common to every Being of Nature.—Attraction and Repulsion.—Inert Force.—Necessity.

Laws of Motion, shared by all Living Beings in Nature.—Attraction and Repulsion.—Inert Force.—Necessity.

Man is never surprised at those effects, of which he thinks he knows the cause; he believes he does know the cause, as soon as he sees them act in an uniform and determinate manner, or when the motion excited is simple: the descent of a stone, that falls by its own peculiar weight, is an object of contemplation to the philosopher only; to whom the mode by which the most immediate causes act, and the most simple motion, are no less impenetrable mysteries than the most complex motion, and the manner by which the most complicated causes give impulse. The uninformed are seldom tempted either to examine the effects which are familiar to them, or to recur to first principles. They think they see nothing in the descent of a stone, which ought to elicit their surprise, or become the object of their research: it requires a NEWTON to feel that the descent of heavy bodies is a phenomenon, worthy his whole, his most serious attention; it requires the sagacity of a profound experimental philosopher, to discover the laws by which heavy bodies fall, by which they communicate to others their peculiar motion. In short, the mind that is most practised in philosophical observation, has frequently the chagrin to find, that the most simple and most common effects escape all his researches, and remain inexplicable to him.

A person is never surprised by effects when they think they know the cause. They believe they understand the cause as soon as they see it happening consistently and clearly, or when the motion is straightforward. The falling of a stone, which descends by its own weight, is something that only a philosopher contemplates; for them, the way immediate causes work and the simplest motions are just as much mysteries as complex motions or the ways complicated causes create movement. Most people are rarely inclined to investigate the effects that are familiar to them or to revisit basic principles. They don’t see anything surprising about a stone’s descent that would warrant their curiosity or research. It takes a NEWTON to recognize that the fall of heavy objects is a phenomenon that deserves serious attention; it requires the insight of a deep experimental philosopher to uncover the laws governing how heavy objects fall and how they transfer their specific motion to others. In short, the mind that is most skilled in philosophical observation often feels frustrated to find that the simplest and most common effects elude their understanding and remain unexplained.

When any extraordinary, any unusual, effect is produced, to which our eyes have not been accustomed; or when we are ignorant of the energies of the cause, the action of which so forcibly strikes our senses, we are tempted to meditate upon it, and take it into our consideration. The European, accustomed to the use of GUNPOWDER, passes it by, without thinking much of its extraordinary energies; the workman, who labours to manufacture it, finds nothing marvellous in its properties, because he daily handles the matter that forms its composition. The American, to whom this powder was a stranger, who had never beheld its operation, looked upon it as a divine power, and its energies as supernatural. The uninformed, who are ignorant of the true cause of THUNDER, contemplate it as the instrument of divine vengeance. The experimental philosopher considers it as the effect of the electric matter, which, nevertheless, is itself a cause which he is very far from perfectly understanding.—It required the keen, the penetrating mind of a FRANKLIN, to throw light on the nature of this subtle fluid—to develop the means by which its effects might be rendered harmless—to turn to useful purposes, a phenomenon that made the ignorant tremble—that filled their minds with terror, their hearts with dismay, as indicating the anger of the gods: impressed with this idea, they prostrated themselves, they sacrificed to JUPITER, to deprecate his wrath.

When something extraordinary or unusual happens that we’re not used to seeing, or when we don’t understand what’s causing it, we tend to reflect on it and consider it more deeply. A European who regularly uses gunpowder tends to overlook its remarkable power, while the worker who makes it finds nothing surprising about it because he handles its components every day. An American who encounters gunpowder for the first time views it as a divine force, believing its power is supernatural. Those who don’t understand the real cause of thunder see it as a sign of divine punishment. Meanwhile, a scientist sees it as a result of electric energy, though he still doesn’t fully grasp the nature of that energy. It took the sharp and insightful mind of Franklin to shed light on this mysterious fluid, to discover ways to make its effects safe, and to turn a phenomenon that terrified the uninformed into something useful. Feared as a sign of divine anger, people would bow down and make sacrifices to Jupiter to seek his mercy.

Be this as it may, whenever we see a cause act, we look upon its effect as natural: when this cause becomes familiar to the sight, when we are accustomed to it, we think we understand it, and its effects surprise us no longer. Whenever any unusual effect is perceived, without our discovering the cause, the mind sets to work, becomes uneasy; this uneasiness increases in proportion to its extent: as soon as it is believed to threaten our preservation, we become completely agitated; we seek after the cause with an earnestness proportioned to our alarm; our perplexity augments in a ratio equivalent to the persuasion we are under: how essentially requisite it is, we should become acquainted with the cause that has affected us in so lively a manner. As it frequently happens that our senses can teach us nothing respecting this cause which so deeply interests us—which we seek with so much ardour, we have recourse to our imagination; this, disturbed with alarm, enervated by fear, becomes a suspicious, a fallacious guide: we create chimeras, fictitious causes, to whom we give the credit, to whom we ascribe the honour of those phenomena by which we have been so much alarmed. It is to this disposition of the human mind that must be attributed, as will be seen in the sequel, the religious errors of man, who, despairing of the capacity to trace the natural causes of those perplexing phenomena to which he was the witness, and sometimes the victim, created in his brain (heated with terror) imaginary causes, which have become to him a source of the most extravagant folly.

Even so, whenever we see a cause at work, we view its effect as normal. When this cause becomes familiar to us and we get used to it, we think we understand it, and its effects no longer surprise us. However, when we notice an unusual effect without being able to identify the cause, our minds start to work, becoming unsettled. This unease grows as it intensifies: once we believe it jeopardizes our safety, we become completely agitated; we search for the cause with a determination that matches our alarm. Our confusion increases in proportion to the belief that knowing the cause is essential for us. Since it often happens that our senses can't tell us anything about this cause that concerns us so deeply—which we pursue with such eagerness—we turn to our imagination. This, thrown into disarray by fear, becomes a misleading and unreliable guide: we conjure up illusions and fake causes, attributing to them the effects that have alarmed us so much. This tendency of the human mind accounts for what will later be shown to be the religious errors of mankind, who, unable to trace the natural causes of the confusing phenomena he encountered and sometimes suffered from, created imaginary causes in his mind (agitated by fear), which led to a source of the most extreme folly.

In Nature, however, there can be only natural causes and effects; all motion excited in this Nature, follows constant and necessary laws: the natural operations, to the knowledge of which we are competent, of which we are in a capacity to judge, are of themselves sufficient to enable us to discover those which elude our sight; we can at least judge of them by analogy. If we study Nature with attention, the modes of action which she displays to our senses will teach us not to be disconcerted by those which she refuses to discover. Those causes which are the most remote from their effects, unquestionably act by intermediate causes; by the aid of these, we can frequently trace out the first. If in the chain of these causes we sometimes meet with obstacles that oppose themselves to our research, we ought to endeavour by patience and diligence to overcome them; when it so happens we cannot surmount the difficulties that occur, we still are never justified in concluding the chain to be broken, or that the cause which acts is SUPER-NATURAL. Let us, then, be content with an honest avowal, that Nature contains resources of which we are ignorant; but never let us substitute phantoms, fictions, or imaginary causes, senseless terms, for those causes which escape our research; because, by such means we only confirm ourselves in ignorance, impede our enquiries, and obstinately remain in error.

In nature, there are only natural causes and effects; all motion that happens in nature follows constant and necessary laws. The natural processes we can understand and judge are enough to help us discover those that are hidden from us; at least we can make educated guesses about them by analogy. If we pay close attention to nature, the ways she reveals herself to our senses will help us not to be discouraged by what she doesn’t show us. The causes that are farthest from their effects undoubtedly operate through intermediate causes; with their help, we can often trace back to the original cause. If we encounter obstacles in this chain of causes that make our research difficult, we should strive patiently and diligently to overcome them. Even when we can’t overcome these difficulties, we should never conclude that the chain is broken or that the acting cause is supernatural. Instead, let’s honestly acknowledge that nature has resources we don’t yet understand; but we should never replace those unknown causes with phantoms, fictions, or imaginary explanations, because doing so only reinforces our ignorance, hinders our inquiries, and keeps us stuck in error.

In spite of our ignorance with respect to the meanderings of Nature, (for of the essence of being, of their properties, their elements, their combinations, their proportions, we yet know the simple and general laws, according to which bodies move;) we see clearly, that some of these laws, common to all beings, never contradict themselves; although, on some occasions, they appear to vary, we are frequently competent to discover that the cause becoming complex, from combination with other causes, either impedes or prevents its mode of action being such as in its primitive state we had a right to expect. We know that active, igneous matter, applied to gunpowder, must necessarily cause it to explode: whenever this effect does not follow the combination of the igneous matter with the gunpowder—whenever our senses do not give us evidence of the fact, we are justified in concluding, either that the powder is damp, or that it is united with some other substance that counteracts its explosion. We know that all the actions of man have a tendency to render him happy: whenever, therefore, we see him labouring to injure or destroy himself, it is just to infer that he is moved by some cause opposed to his natural tendency; that he is deceived by some prejudice; that, for want of experience, he is blind to consequences: that he does not see whither his actions will lead him.

Despite our lack of understanding regarding the complexities of Nature, (for while we may not grasp the essence of being, its properties, elements, combinations, or proportions, we do know the simple and general laws governing the movement of bodies;) we clearly see that some of these laws, which are common to all beings, never contradict themselves. Although they may sometimes seem to vary, we often find that when the cause becomes complicated due to interaction with other causes, it either hinders or prevents its expected mode of action from what we initially anticipated. We know that when active, fiery matter is applied to gunpowder, it must inevitably cause an explosion. Whenever this expected effect does not materialize after combining the fiery matter with the gunpowder—whenever we do not perceive evidence of this—we can conclude that the powder is damp or that it has mixed with another substance that inhibits its explosion. We understand that all human actions tend to promote happiness; therefore, when we see someone working to harm or destroy themselves, we can rightly infer that they are influenced by something contrary to their natural inclination; that they are misled by some bias; that due to a lack of experience, they are unaware of the consequences; that they do not recognize where their actions will lead them.

If the motion excited in beings was always simple; if their actions did not blend and combine with each other, it would be easy to know, and we should be assured, in the first instance, of the effect a cause would produce. I know that a stone, when descending, ought to describe a perpendicular: I also know, that if it encounters any other body which changes its course, it is obliged to take an oblique direction, but if its fall be interrupted by several contrary powers, which act upon it alternately, I am no longer competent to determine what line it will describe. It may be a parabola, an ellipsis, spiral, circular, &c. this will depend on the impulse, it receives, and the powers by which it is impelled.

If the motion experienced by beings were always straightforward; if their actions didn’t mix and interact with one another, it would be easy to understand the effect that a cause would have. I know that a stone, when it falls, should move straight down: I also know that if it hits another object that changes its path, it has to move at an angle, but if its fall is interrupted by various opposing forces acting on it at different times, I can no longer predict its trajectory. It could take the shape of a parabola, an ellipse, a spiral, a circle, etc. This depends on the force it receives and the influences acting on it.

The most complex motion, however, is never more than the result of simple motion combined: therefore as soon as we know the general laws of beings and their action, we have only to decompose, to analyse them, in order to discover those of which they are combined; experience teaches us the effects we are to expect. Thus it is clear, the simplest motion causes that necessary junction of different matter, of which all bodies are composed: that matter, varied in its essence, in its properties, in its combinations, has each its several modes of action or motion, peculiar to itself; the whole motion of a body is consequently the sum total of each particular motion that is combined.

The most complex movement, however, is really just the result of simple movements combined: so once we understand the general laws of things and how they work, we just need to break them down and analyze them to figure out the individual components that make them up; experience teaches us what effects to expect. So, it's clear that the simplest motion leads to the necessary connection of different matter, which makes up all bodies: that matter, differing in its essence, properties, and combinations, has its own specific modes of action or motion; therefore, the overall motion of a body is simply the total of each individual motion that is combined.

Amongst the matter we behold, some is constantly disposed to unite, whilst other is incapable of union; that which is suitable to unite, forms combinations, more or less intimate, possessing more or less durability: that is to say, with more or less capacity to preserve their union, to resist dissolution. Those bodies which are called SOLIDS, receive into their composition a great number of homogeneous, similar, and analogous particles, disposed to unite themselves with energies conspiring or tending to the same point. The primitive beings, or elements of bodies, have need of supports, of props; that is to say, of the presence of each other, for the purpose of preserving themselves; of acquiring consistence or solidity: a truth, which applies with equal uniformity to what is called physical, as to what is termed moral.

Among the materials we see, some naturally tend to come together, while others cannot form connections; those that can unite create combinations that can vary in closeness and durability: in other words, they have varying abilities to maintain their unity and resist breaking apart. The substances we refer to as SOLIDS are made up of a large number of similar, uniform, and compatible particles that are inclined to connect with energies directed towards the same goal. The fundamental elements of matter need support from each other to maintain their existence and achieve consistency or solidity: a principle that holds true for both what we call physical and what we refer to as moral.

It is upon this disposition in matter and bodies, with relation to each other, that is founded those modes of action which natural philosophers designate by the terms attraction, repulsion, sympathy, antipathy, affinities, relations; that moralists describe under the names of love, hatred, friendship, aversion. Man, like all the beings in nature, experiences the impulse of attraction and repulsion; the motion excited in him differing from that of other beings, only, because it is more concealed, and frequently so hidden, that neither the causes which excite it, nor their mode of action are known. This system of attraction and repulsion is very ancient, although it required a NEWTON to develop it. That love, to which the ancients attributed the unfolding, or disentanglement of chaos, appears to have been nothing more than a personification of the principle of attraction. All their allegories and fables upon chaos, evidently indicate nothing more than the accord or union that exists between analogous and homogeneous substances; from whence resulted the existence of the universe: whilst discord or repulsion, which they called SOIS, was the cause of dissolution, confusion, and disorder; there can scarcely remain a doubt, but this was the origin of the doctrines of the TWO PRINCIPLES. According to DIOGENES LAERTIUS, the philosopher, EMPEDOCLES, asserted, that "there is a kind of affection by which the elements unite themselves; and a sort of discord, by which they separate or remove themselves."

It is based on the way matters and bodies relate to each other that the modes of action are established, which natural philosophers refer to as attraction, repulsion, sympathy, antipathy, affinities, relations; and moralists describe with terms like love, hatred, friendship, aversion. Humans, like all beings in nature, feel the pull of attraction and repulsion; the motions stirred within them differ from those of other beings only because they are more hidden, often so concealed that the causes that trigger them and how they work are unknown. This system of attraction and repulsion is very old, even though it took a NEWTON to explain it. The love that the ancients believed sparked the order from chaos seems to have been simply a personification of the principle of attraction. All their myths and stories about chaos clearly point to the harmony or connection between similar and compatible substances, which led to the existence of the universe; while discord or repulsion, referred to as SOIS, was the reason for breakdown, confusion, and disorder; there is hardly any doubt that this was the foundation for the theories of the TWO PRINCIPLES. According to DIOGENES LAERTIUS, the philosopher EMPEDOCLES claimed that "there is a kind of affection by which the elements unite themselves; and a sort of discord, by which they separate or remove themselves."

However it may be, it is sufficient for us to know that by an invariable law, certain bodies are disposed to unite with more or less facility; whilst others cannot combine or unite themselves: water combines itself readily with salt, but will not blend with oil. Some combinations are very strong, cohering with great force, as metals; others are extremely feeble, their cohesion slight and easily decomposed, as in fugitive colours. Some bodies, incapable of uniting by themselves, become susceptible of union by the agency of other bodies, which serve for common bonds or MEDIUMS. Thus, oil and water, naturally heterogeneous, combine and make soap, by the intervention of alkaline salt. From matter diversely combined, in proportions varied almost to infinity, result all physical and moral bodies; the properties and qualities of which are essentially different, with modes of action more or less complex: which are either understood with facility, or difficult of comprehension, according to the elements or matter that has entered into their composition, and the various modifications this matter has undergone.

However it is, it's enough for us to understand that by a constant rule, some substances tend to combine more easily than others while some cannot bond at all: water mixes easily with salt but won’t blend with oil. Some combinations are very strong, sticking together firmly like metals; others are very weak, their bond slight and easily broken, like temporary colors. Some substances, which can't combine on their own, become able to unite through the help of other substances that act as common links or MEDIUMS. For example, oil and water, which don't naturally mix, combine to make soap with the help of alkaline salt. From matter combined in different ways and in almost infinite proportions come all physical and moral entities, whose properties and qualities are fundamentally different, with modes of action that can be simple or complex: some are easy to understand, while others are more challenging, depending on the substances involved and the various changes those substances have experienced.

It is thus, from the reciprocity of their attraction, the primitive imperceptible particles of matter, which constitute bodies, become perceptible, form compound substances, aggregate masses; by the union of similar and analogous matter, whose essences fit them to cohere. The same bodies are dissolved, their union broken, whenever they undergo the action of matter inimical to their junction. Thus by degrees are formed, plants, metals, animals, men; each grows, expands, and increases in its own system or order; sustaining itself in its respective existence, by the continual attraction of analogous matter; to which it becomes united, and by which it is preserved and strengthened. Thus, certain aliments become fit for the sustenance of man, whilst others destroy his existence: some are pleasant to him, strengthen his habit; others are repugnant to him, weaken his system: in short, never to separate physical from moral laws, it is thus that men, mutually attracted to each other by their reciprocal wants, form those unions which we designate by the terms, MARRIAGE, FAMILIES, SOCIETIES, FRIENDSHIPS, CONNEXIONS: it is thus that virtue strengthens and consolidates them; that vice relaxes or totally dissolves them.

From the mutual attraction they have, the tiny, invisible particles that make up matter become visible, form complex substances, and build up masses. This happens through the coming together of similar and compatible matter, which allows them to stick together. These same bodies can be broken apart, their connections severed, whenever they come into contact with matter that’s detrimental to their bonding. Gradually, this process leads to the formation of plants, metals, animals, and humans; each one develops, grows, and expands within its own system or order, maintaining its existence through the ongoing attraction of similar matter, which it unites with, and that keeps it alive and strong. Some foods are suitable for human nourishment while others threaten his survival: some are enjoyable and strengthen his body, while others are harmful and weaken his system. In short, without separating physical from moral laws, this is how people, drawn to one another by their mutual needs, create the bonds we call MARRIAGE, FAMILIES, SOCIETIES, FRIENDSHIPS, CONNECTIONS: this is how virtue strengthens and solidifies those bonds, while vice weakens or completely breaks them apart.

Of whatever nature may be the combination of beings, their motion has always one direction or tendency: without direction we could not have any idea of motion: this direction is regulated by the properties of each being; as soon as they have any given properties, they necessarily act in obedience to them: that is to say, they follow the law invariably determined by these same properties; which, of themselves, constitute the being such as he is found, and settle his mode of action, which is always the consequence of his manner of existence. But what is the general direction, or common tendency, we see in all beings? What is the visible and known end of all their motion? It is to conserve their actual existence—to preserve themselves—to strengthen their several bodies—to attract that which is favorable to them—to repel that which is injurious them—to avoid that which can harm them—to resist impulsions contrary to their manner of existence, and to their natural tendency.

No matter how beings are combined, their movement always has one direction or purpose: without direction, we wouldn't understand motion at all. This direction is determined by the unique properties of each being; once they have specific properties, they must act according to them. In other words, they adhere to the laws established by those properties, which fundamentally define the being as it exists and dictate how it acts, always as a result of its mode of existence. But what is the overarching direction, or common purpose, that we observe in all beings? What is the visible and recognized goal of all their movement? It is to maintain their current existence—to preserve themselves—to strengthen their respective bodies—to attract what benefits them—to push away what harms them—to evade potential threats—and to resist forces that are opposed to their way of existence and natural tendencies.

To exist, is to experience the motion peculiar to a determinate essence: to conserve this existence, is to give and receive that motion from which results its maintenance:—it is to attract matter suitable to corroborate its being—to avoid that by which it may be either endangered or enfeebled. Thus, all beings of which we have any knowledge, have a tendency to conserve themselves, each after its peculiar manner: the stone, by the firm adhesion of its particles, opposes resistance to its destruction. Organized beings conserve themselves by more complicated means, but which are, nevertheless, calculated to maintain their existence against that by which it may be injured. Man, both in his physical and in his moral capacity, is a living, feeling, thinking, active being; who, every instant of his duration, strives equally to avoid that which may be injurious, and to procure that which is pleasing to him, or that which is suitable to his mode of existence; all his actions tending solely to conserve himself. ST. AUGUSTINE admits this tendency in all whether organized or not.

To exist means to experience the specific activity tied to a certain essence: to maintain this existence involves giving and receiving that activity which ensures its survival. It means attracting suitable matter to support its being and avoiding anything that might endanger or weaken it. Thus, all beings we are aware of have a natural inclination to preserve themselves, each in their own way: a stone resists destruction through the strong bond of its particles. Living beings preserve themselves through more complex methods, yet these methods are still aimed at protecting their existence from harm. Humans, in both physical and moral senses, are living, feeling, thinking, active beings, who continuously strive to avoid anything harmful and seek what brings them pleasure or fits their way of living; all their actions are directed solely toward self-preservation. ST. AUGUSTINE acknowledges this inclination in all beings, whether they are organized or not.

Conservation, then, is the common point to which all the energies, all the powers, all the faculties of beings, seem continually directed. Natural philosophers call this direction or tendency, SELF-GRAVITATION: NEWTON calls it INERT FORCE: moralists denominate it in man, SELF-LOVE which is nothing more than the tendency he has to preserve himself—a desire of happiness—a love of his own welfare—a wish for pleasure—a promptitude in seizing on every thing that appears favourable to his conservation—a marked aversion to all that either disturbs his happiness, or menaces his existence—primitive sentiments, that are common to all beings of the human species; which all their faculties are continually striving to satisfy; which all their passions, their wills, their actions, have eternally for their object and their end. This self-gravitation, then, is clearly a necessary disposition in man, and in all other beings; which, by a variety means, contribute to the preservation of the existence they have received, as long as nothing deranges the order of their machine, or its primitive tendency.

Conservation is the common goal that all beings seem to focus their energy, power, and abilities on. Natural philosophers refer to this focus or drive as SELF-GRAVITATION; NEWTON calls it INERT FORCE; moralists refer to it in humans as SELF-LOVE, which is simply the drive to preserve oneself—a desire for happiness—a concern for one's own welfare—a wish for pleasure—a quickness in grabbing onto anything that seems favorable for one's preservation—a distinct aversion to anything that disrupts happiness or threatens existence—basic feelings that are shared by all humans. All of their abilities constantly aim to fulfill these feelings, and all their passions, wills, and actions are ultimately directed towards these aims. Thus, this self-gravitation is clearly an essential trait in humans and all other beings, which, through various means, helps maintain the existence they have, as long as nothing disrupts the order of their system or its original direction.

Cause always produces effect; there can be no effect without cause. Impulse is always followed by some motion, more or less sensible; by some change, more or less remarkable in the body which receives it. But motion, and its various modes of displaying itself, is, as has been already shewn, determined by the nature, the essence, the properties, the combinations of the beings acting. It must, then, be concluded that motion, or the modes by which beings act, arises from some cause; that as this cause is not able to move or act, but in conformity with the manner of its being or its essential properties, it must equally be concluded, that all the phenomena we perceive are necessary; that every being in Nature, under the circumstances in which it is placed, and with the given properties it possesses, cannot act otherwise than it does.

Every cause leads to an effect; there can't be an effect without a cause. Every impulse is followed by some movement, whether noticeable or not; by some change, more or less significant in the body that experiences it. But movement, along with its various ways of showing itself, is, as we've already shown, determined by the nature, essence, properties, and combinations of the entities involved. So, we can conclude that movement, or the ways that entities act, comes from some cause; since this cause can only move or act according to its nature or essential properties, we can also conclude that all the phenomena we observe are necessary; that every being in Nature, given its circumstances and the properties it possesses, cannot act differently than it does.

Necessity is the constant and infallible relation of causes with their effects. Fire consumes, of necessity, combustible matter plated within its circuit of action: man, by fatality, desires either that which really is, or appears to be serviceable to his welfare. Nature, in all the extraordinary appearances she exhibits, necessarily acts after her own peculiar essence: all the beings she contains, necessarily act each after its own a individual nature: it is by motion that the whole has relation with its parts; and these parts with the whole: it is thus that in the general system every thing is connected: it is itself but an immense chain of causes and effects, which flow without ceasing, one from the other. If we reflect, we shall be obliged to acknowledge that every thing we see is necessary; that it cannot be otherwise than it is; that all the beings we behold, as well as those which escape our sight, act by invariable laws. According to these laws, heavy bodies fall—light bodies ascend—analogous substances attract each other—beings tend to preserve themselves—man cherishes himself; loves that which he thinks advantageous—detests that which he has an idea may prove unfavourable to him.—In fine, we are obliged to admit, there can be no perfectly independent energy—no separated cause—no detached action, in a nature where all the beings are in a reciprocity of action—who, without interruption, mutually impel and resist each other—who is herself nothing more than an eternal circle of motion, given and received according to necessary laws; which under the same given incidents, invariably produce the same effect.

Necessity is the constant and undeniable connection between causes and their effects. Fire inevitably consumes combustible materials within its reach: people, by nature, seek what truly benefits them or what seems useful for their well-being. Nature, in all its extraordinary manifestations, acts according to its unique essence: every being within it acts according to its individual nature. It is through motion that the whole relates to its parts, and those parts to the whole. This is how everything in the broader system is interconnected: it is essentially a vast chain of causes and effects, continuously flowing from one to another. If we think about it, we must acknowledge that everything we see is necessary; it cannot be any different from what it is; all beings we observe, along with those we can't see, operate according to unchanging laws. According to these laws, heavy objects fall—light objects rise—similar substances attract each other—beings strive to sustain themselves—people look after themselves; they love what they believe is beneficial and dislike what they think may be harmful to them. In short, we must accept that there can be no completely independent force—no separate cause—no isolated action, in a nature where all beings interact with one another—constantly pushing and pulling against each other—where everything is just an eternal cycle of motion, given and received according to necessary laws; which, under the same conditions, consistently produce the same outcomes.

Two examples will serve to throw the principle here laid down, into light—one shall be taken from physics, the other from morals.

Two examples will help clarify the principle presented here—one will be from physics, and the other from morals.

In a whirlwind of dust, raised by elemental force, confused as it appears to our eyes, in the most frightful tempest excited by contrary winds, when the waves roll high as mountains, there is not a single particle of dust, or drop of water, that has been placed by CHANCE, that has not a cause for occupying the place where it is found; that does not, in the most rigorous sense of the word, act after the manner in which it ought to act; that is, according to its own peculiar essence, and that of the beings from whom it receives this communicated force. A geometrician exactly knew the different energies acting in each case, with the properties of the particles moved, could demonstrate that after the causes given, each particle acted precisely as it ought to act, and that it could not have acted otherwise than it did.

In a swirl of dust kicked up by natural forces, despite how chaotic it looks to us, even in the most terrifying storm stirred by opposing winds, when the waves rise as high as mountains, not a single speck of dust or drop of water is positioned by CHANCE. Each one has a reason for being where it is; they all, in the strictest sense, behave in the way they should—specifically according to their unique nature and that of the entities that impart this force to them. A mathematician who understands the various forces acting in each scenario, along with the characteristics of the moving particles, could prove that given the right causes, each particle behaves exactly as it should, and it couldn’t have acted any differently.

In those terrible convulsions that sometimes agitate political societies, shake their foundations, and frequently produce the overthrow of an empire; there is not a single action, a single word, a single thought, a single will, a single passion in the agents, whether they act as destroyers, or as victims, that is not the necessary result of the causes operating; that does not act, as, of necessity, it must act, from the peculiar essence of the beings who give the impulse, and that of the agents who receive it, according to the situation these agents fill in the moral whirlwind. This could be evidently proved by an understanding capacitated to rate all the action and re-action, of the minds and bodies of those who contributed to the revolution.

In those intense upheavals that sometimes shake political societies, disrupt their foundations, and often lead to the downfall of an empire, every action, word, thought, will, and passion of the people involved—whether they are the ones causing destruction or the ones suffering from it—results directly from the underlying causes at play. Each one acts, as they inevitably must, based on the unique nature of the individuals who initiate the actions and those who respond to them, depending on the roles these individuals play in the chaos. This could be clearly demonstrated by an understanding capable of evaluating all the actions and reactions of the minds and bodies of those who took part in the revolution.

In fact, if all be connected in Nature, if all motion be produced, the one from the other, notwithstanding their secret communications frequently elude our sight; we ought to feel convinced of this truth, that there is no cause, however minute, however remote, that does not sometimes produce the greatest and most immediate effects on man. It may, perhaps, be in the parched plains of Lybia, that are amassed the first elements of a storm or tempest, which, borne by the winds, approach our climate, render our atmosphere dense, and thus operating on the temperament, may influence the passions of a man, whose circumstances shall have capacitated him to influence many others, who shall decide after his will the fate of many nations.

In fact, if everything is connected in nature and all movement comes from one another, even if their hidden links often escape our notice, we should be convinced of this truth: there is no cause, no matter how small or distant, that doesn’t sometimes lead to the greatest and most immediate effects on people. It might be in the dry plains of Libya where the initial elements of a storm or tempest gather, which, carried by the winds, move toward our climate, thicken our atmosphere, and thus affect our temperament, potentially influencing the emotions of a person whose situation allows them to impact many others, who will then decide the fate of numerous nations based on their will.

Man, in fact, finds himself in Nature, and makes a part of it: he acts according to laws, which are appropriate to him; he receives in a manner more or less distinct, the action and impulse of the beings who surround him; who themselves act after laws that are peculiar to their essence. Thus he is variously modified; but his actions are always the result of his own energy, and that of the beings who act upon him, and by whom he is modified. This is what gives such variety to his determinations—what generally produces such contradiction in his thoughts, his opinions, his will, his actions; in short, in that motion, whether concealed or visible, by which he is agitated. We shall have occasion, in the sequel, to place this truth, at present so much contested, in a clearer light: it will be sufficient for our purpose at present to prove, generally, that every thing in Nature is necessary—that nothing to be found in it can act otherwise than it does.

Human beings are actually part of Nature and play a role within it. They operate according to laws that suit them; they perceive, to varying degrees, the actions and influences of the beings around them, who also act according to their own inherent laws. This leads to different influences on them, but their actions always stem from their own energy and that of the beings influencing them. This is what creates such variety in their decisions—it often results in contradictions in their thoughts, opinions, desires, and actions; in short, in the way they are moved, whether that motion is hidden or visible. We will later clarify this truth, which is often debated, but for now, it’s enough to generally state that everything in Nature is necessary—nothing in it can act in any way other than how it does.

Motion, alternately communicated and received, establishes the connection or relation between the different orders of beings: when they are in the sphere of reciprocal action, attraction approximates them; repulsion dissolves and separates them; the one strengthens and preserves them; the other enfeebles and destroys them. Once combined, they have a tendency to conserve themselves in that mode of existence, by virtue of their inert force; in this they cannot succeed, because they are exposed to the continual influence of all other beings, who perpetually and successively act upon them; their change of form, their dissolution, is requisite to the preservation of Nature herself: this is the sole end we are able to assign her—to which we see her tend without intermission—which she follows without interruption, by the destruction and reproduction of all subordinate beings, who are obliged to submit to her laws—to concur, by their mode of action, to the maintenance of her active existence, so essentially requisite to the GREAT WHOLE.

Motion, which is shared and received, creates the connection between different types of beings. When they engage with each other, attraction brings them closer, while repulsion pulls them apart. Attraction strengthens and preserves them, while repulsion weakens and destroys them. Once they come together, they tend to sustain their state of existence due to their inert force. However, they can't truly maintain this, because they are constantly influenced by all other beings that act upon them in a never-ending cycle. Their transformation and dissolution are necessary for the preservation of Nature itself. This is the only purpose we can assign to her—it’s what we see her continually striving for, following without pause, through the destruction and creation of all subordinate beings who must adhere to her laws, contributing through their actions to sustain her active existence, which is essential for the GREAT WHOLE.

It is thus each being is an individual, who, in the great family, performs his necessary portion of the general labour—who executes the unavoidable task assigned to him. All bodies act according to laws, inherent in their peculiar essence, without the capability to swerve, even for a single instant, from those according to which Nature herself acts. This is the central power, to which all other powers, essences, and energies, are submitted: she regulates the motions of beings, by the necessity of her own peculiar essence: she makes them concur by various modes to the general plan: this appears to be nothing more than the life, action, and maintenance of the whole, by the continual change of its parts. This object she obtains, in removing them, one by the other; by that which establishes, and by that which destroys, the relation subsisting between them; by that which gives them, and that which deprives them of, their forms, combinations, proportions, and qualities, according to which they act for a time, after a given mode; these are afterwards taken from them, to make them act after a different manner. It is thus that Nature makes them expand and change, grow and decline, augment and diminish, approximate and remove, forms and destroys them, according as she finds it requisite to maintain the whole; towards the conservation which this Nature is herself essentially necessitated to have a tendency.

Every being is an individual who, within the larger family, plays their necessary part in the overall work—carrying out the essential task assigned to them. All entities operate according to laws that are inherent to their unique nature, unable to deviate, even for a moment, from the principles that govern Nature itself. This central force is what all other powers, essences, and energies are subject to: it regulates the movements of beings based on the necessity of its own unique essence. It causes them to collaborate in various ways towards the overall plan, which seems to be nothing more than the life, action, and maintenance of the whole, through the continuous change of its components. This goal is achieved by replacing them with one another; through what establishes and what destroys the relationships between them; through what gives them and what takes away their forms, combinations, proportions, and qualities, based on which they operate for a time in a certain way; these are later altered to make them operate in a different manner. This is how Nature causes them to expand and change, grow and decline, increase and decrease, come together and separate, form and destroy them, as needed to sustain the whole; towards which this Nature is essentially driven to tend.

This irresistible power, this universal necessity, this general energy, then, is only a consequence of the nature of things; by virtue of which every thing acts, without intermission, after constant and immutable laws: these laws not varying more for the whole than for the beings of which it is composed. Nature is an active living whole, to which all its parts necessarily concur; of which, without their own knowledge, they maintain the activity, the life, and the existence. Nature acts and exists necessarily: all that she contains, necessarily conspires to perpetuate her active existence. This is the decided opinion of PLATO, when he says, "matter and necessity are the same thing; this necessity is the mother of the world." In point of fact, we cannot go beyond this aphorism, MATTER ACTS, BECAUSE IT EXISTS; AND EXISTS, TO ACT. If it be enquired how, or for why, matter exists? We answer, we know not: but reasoning by analogy, of what we do not know by that which we do, we should be of opinion it exists necessarily, or because it contains within itself a sufficient reason for its existence. In supposing it to be created or produced by a being distinguished from it, or less known than itself, (which it may be, for any thing we know to the contrary,) we must still admit, that this being is necessary, and includes a sufficient reason for his own existence. We have not then removed any of the difficulty, we have not thrown a clearer light upon the subject, we have not advanced a single step; we have simply laid aside a being, of which we know some few of the properties, but of which we are still extremely ignorant, to have recourse to a power, of which it is utterly impossible we can, as long as we are men, form any distinct idea; of which, notwithstanding it may be a truth, we cannot, by any means we possess, demonstrate the existence. As, therefore, these must be at best but speculative points of belief, which each individual, by reason of its obscurity, may contemplate with different optics, under various aspects, they surely ought to be left free for each to judge after his own fashion: the Hindoo can have no just cause of enmity against the Christian for his faith: this has no moral right to question the Mussulman upon his; the numerous sects of each of the various persuasions spread over the face of the earth, ought to make it a creed to look with an eye of complacency on the deviation of the others; and rest upon that great moral axiom, which is strictly conformable to Nature, which contains the whole of man's happiness—"Do not unto another, that which do you not wish another should do unto you;" for it is evident, according to their own doctrines, out of all the variety of systems, one only can be right.

This powerful force, this universal need, this general energy, is simply a result of the nature of things; because of this, everything constantly acts according to unchanging and consistent laws: these laws don’t change for the whole any more than for the individual beings that make it up. Nature is an active, living whole, where all its parts contribute without realizing it, sustaining activity, life, and existence. Nature acts and exists necessarily: everything it holds must work together to maintain its active existence. This reflects Plato's clear view when he says, "matter and necessity are the same thing; this necessity is the mother of the world." In fact, we can't go beyond this saying, MATTER ACTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS; AND EXISTS TO ACT. If we ask how or why matter exists, our answer is that we don't know: but reasoning by analogy, considering what we do know, we think it exists necessarily, or because it contains within itself a good reason for its existence. If we assume it was created or produced by a being different from it or less known than it (which it might be, for anything we know to the contrary), we must still accept that this being is necessary and has a sufficient reason for its own existence. We haven't resolved any of the difficulty; we haven’t shed any clearer light on the subject; we haven’t made even a single step forward; we have simply set aside a being, of which we know a few properties, but about which we are still largely ignorant, in order to rely on a power we can never fully grasp as long as we are human; one whose existence we cannot demonstrate by any means available to us, despite possibly being true. Therefore, since these must at best be speculative beliefs, which each person, due to their obscurity, may view differently in various ways, they should be left free to judge for themselves: a Hindu should have no real cause to resent a Christian for his faith; the Christian has no moral right to question the Muslim about his; the many sects within each of the various beliefs across the globe should adopt the principle of looking kindly at each other's differences and embrace that great moral axiom, which aligns with Nature and encompasses all of human happiness—"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself;" for it is clear that, according to their own teachings, only one among all the diverse systems can be correct.

We shall see in the sequel, how much man's imagination labours to form an idea, of the energies of that Nature he has personified, and distinguished from herself: in short, we shall examine some of the ridiculous and pernicious inventions, which, for want of understanding Nature, have been imagined to impede her course, to suspend her eternal laws, to place obstacles to the necessity of things.

We will see later how much effort people put into creating an idea of the powers of Nature, which they have personified and separated from herself. In summary, we will look at some of the silly and harmful ideas that, due to a lack of understanding of Nature, have been thought to interfere with her processes, disrupt her eternal laws, and create barriers to the necessities of life.










CHAP. V.

Order and Confusion.—Intelligence.—Chance.

The observation of the necessary, regular, and periodical motion in the universe, generated in the mind of man the idea of ORDER; this term, in its original signification, represents nothing more than a mode of considering, a facility of perceiving, together and separately, the different relations of a whole; in which is discovered, by its manner of existing and acting, a certain affinity or conformity with his own. Man, in extending this idea to the universe, carried with him those methods of considering things which are peculiar to himself: he has consequently supposed there really existed in Nature affinities and relations, which he classed under the name of ORDER; and others which appeared to him not to conform to those, which he has ranked under the term of CONFUSION.

The observation of the necessary, regular, and periodic motion in the universe led humans to the idea of ORDER; this term, in its original sense, simply refers to a way of thinking, a way of seeing the different relationships within a whole, where a certain similarity or connection to themselves is found in how things exist and act. As humans applied this idea to the universe, they brought along their own ways of looking at things: they therefore assumed that there really were affinities and relationships in Nature, which they categorized under the name of ORDER; and others that seemed to them not to fit into that, which they labeled as CONFUSION.

It is easy to comprehend, that this idea of order and confusion can have no absolute existence in Nature, where every thing is necessary; where the whole follows constant and invariable laws, which oblige each being, in every moment of its duration, to submit to other laws, which flow from its own peculiar mode of existence. Therefore it is in his imagination, only, man finds a model of that which he terms order or confusion; which, like all his abstract, metaphysical ideas, supposes nothing beyond his reach. Order, however, is never more than the faculty of conforming himself with the beings by whom he is environed, or with the whole of which he forms a part.

It's easy to understand that the concept of order and chaos can't truly exist in nature, where everything is essential; where everything follows consistent and unchanging laws, which require each being, at every moment of its existence, to obey other laws that arise from its unique way of being. So, it's only in his imagination that a person creates a model of what he calls order or chaos; these, like all his abstract, philosophical ideas, assume nothing is beyond his grasp. However, order is ultimately just the ability to align himself with the beings around him or with the larger whole of which he is a part.

Nevertheless, if the idea of order be applied to Nature, it will be found to be nothing but a series of action or motion, which he judges to conspire to one common end. Thus, in a body that moves, order is the chain of action, the series of motion, proper to constitute it what it is, and to maintain it in its actual state. Order, relatively to the whole of Nature, is the concatenation of causes and effects, necessary to her active existence—to maintaining her constantly together; but, as it has been proved in the chapter preceding, every individual being is obliged to concur to this end, in the different ranks they occupy; from whence it is a necessary deduction, that what is called the ORDER OF NATURE, can never be more than a certain manner of considering the necessity of things, to which all, of which man has any knowledge, is submitted. That which is styled CONFUSION, is only a relative term, used to designate that series of necessary action, that chain of requisite motion, by which an individual being is necessarily changed or disturbed in its mode of existence—by which it is instantaneously obliged to alter its manner of action; but no one of these actions, no part of this motion is capable, even for a single instant, of contradicting or deranging the general order of Nature; from which all beings derive their existence, their properties, the motion appropriate to each.

However, if we apply the concept of order to Nature, we'll see that it's simply a series of actions or movements that come together to achieve a common goal. In a moving body, order is the sequence of actions and motions that define what it is and keep it in its current state. Order, in relation to all of Nature, is the connection of causes and effects that are essential for its active existence—keeping everything constantly together. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, every individual being must contribute to this goal according to their different roles; thus, it follows that what we call the ORDER OF NATURE is merely a specific way of understanding the necessity of things to which everything, known to humanity, is subject. What we refer to as CONFUSION is just a relative term to describe that series of necessary actions, that chain of essential movements, through which an individual being is inevitably changed or disrupted in its way of existing—forcing it to change its method of action. Yet, none of these actions, nor any part of this motion, can, even for a moment, contradict or disrupt the overall order of Nature, from which all beings obtain their existence, their properties, and the specific motion suitable to each.

What is termed confusion in a being, is nothing more than its passage into a new class, a new mode of existence; which necessarily carries with it a new series of action, a new chain of motion, different from that of which this being found itself susceptible in the preceding rank it occupied. That which is called order, in Nature, is a mode of existence, or a disposition of its particles, strictly necessary. In every other assemblage of causes and effects, of worlds, as well as in that which we inhabit, some sort of arrangement, some kind of order would necessarily be established. Suppose the most incongruous, the most heterogeneous substances were put into activity, and assembled by a concatenation of extraordinary circumstances; they would form amongst themselves, a complete order, a perfect arrangement. This is the true notion of a property, which may be defined, an aptitude to constitute a being, such as it is actually found, such as it is with respect to the whole of which it makes a part.

What we call confusion in a being is actually just its transition into a new category, a new way of existing. This change brings about a new set of actions and a new sequence of movements, different from what that being was capable of in the previous position it held. What is referred to as order in Nature is a mode of existence or an arrangement of its particles that is strictly necessary. In every other combination of causes and effects, in the worlds we know, as well as in the one we live in, some sort of arrangement or order must be formed. Imagine the most mismatched, the most diverse substances being activated and brought together by a series of extraordinary events; they would create their own complete order and perfect arrangement. This is the true understanding of a property, which can be defined as the ability to form a being, as it is actually found, in relation to the whole of which it is a part.

Order, then, is nothing but necessity, considered relatively to the series of actions, or the connected chain of causes and effects, that it produces in the universe. What is the motion in our planetary system; but a series of phenomena, operated upon according to necessary laws, that regulate the bodies of which it is composed? In conformity to these laws, the sun occupies the centre; the planets gravitate towards it, and revolve round it, in regulated periods: the satellites of these planets gravitate towards those which are in the centre of their sphere of action, and describe round them their periodical route. One of these planets, the earth which man inhabits, turns on its own axis; and by the various aspects which its revolution obliges it to present to the sun, experiences those regular variations which are called SEASONS. By a sequence of the sun's action upon different parts of this globe, all its productions undergo vicissitudes: plants, animals, men, are in a sort of morbid drowsiness during Winter: in Spring, these beings re-animate, to come as it were out of a long lethargy. In short, the mode in which the earth receives the sun's beams, has an influence on all its productions; these rays, when darted obliquely, do not act in the same manner as when they fall perpendicularly; their periodical absence, caused by the revolution of this sphere on itself, produces night and day. However, in all this, man never witnesses more than necessary effects, flowing from the nature of things, which, whilst that remains the same, can never be opposed with propriety. These effects are owing to gravitation, attraction, centrifugal power, &c.

Order, then, is simply a necessity, viewed in relation to the series of actions or the connected chain of causes and effects that it creates in the universe. What is the motion in our planetary system, if not a series of phenomena governed by necessary laws that regulate the bodies within it? According to these laws, the sun is at the center; the planets are drawn toward it and orbit around it in timed cycles. The satellites of these planets are attracted to those at the center of their action sphere, following their own periodic paths around them. One of these planets, Earth, where humans live, spins on its own axis; and due to the different angles it presents to the sun as it revolves, it experiences regular changes known as SEASONS. Through the sun's impact on various parts of the globe, all its life forms go through changes: plants, animals, and humans are in a kind of sluggish state during Winter; in Spring, they revive as if awakening from a long sleep. In short, the way Earth receives the sun's rays influences everything it produces; these rays, when striking at an angle, do not have the same effect as when they hit straight on; their periodic absence, caused by the rotation of this sphere on itself, results in night and day. However, throughout all of this, humans only witness the necessary effects arising from the nature of things, which, as long as it remains unchanged, cannot be properly contested. These effects are due to gravity, attraction, centrifugal force, and so on.

On the other hand, this order, which man admires as a supernatural effect, is sometimes disturbed, or changed into what he calls confusion: this confusion is, however, always a necessary consequence of the laws of Nature; in which it is requisite to the support of the whole that some of her parts should be deranged and thrown out of the ordinary course. It is thus, COMETS present themselves so unexpectedly to man's wondering eyes; their eccentric motion disturbs the tranquillity of his planetary system; they excite the terror of the misinstructed to whom every thing unusual is marvellous. The natural philosopher, himself, conjectures that in former ages, these comets have overthrown the surface of this mundane ball, and caused great revolutions on the earth. Independent of this extraordinary confusion, he is exposed to others more familiar to him: sometimes, the seasons appear to have usurped each other's place; to have quitted their regular order: sometimes the opposing elements seem to dispute among themselves the dominion of the world; the sea bursts its limits; the solid earth is shaken and rent asunder; mountains are in a state of conflagration; pestilential diseases destroy both men and animals; sterility desolates a country: then affrighted man utters piercing cries, offers up his prayers to recall order; tremblingly raises his hands towards the Being he supposes to be the author of all these calamities; nevertheless, the whole of this afflicting confusion are necessary effects, produced by natural causes; which act according to fixed laws, determined by their own peculiar essence, and the universal essence of Nature: in which every thing must necessarily be changed, moved, and dissolved; where that which is called ORDER, must sometimes be disturbed and altered into a new mode of existence; which to his deluded mind, to his imagination, led astray by ignorance and want of reflection, appears CONFUSION.

On the other hand, this order that people admire as a supernatural effect is sometimes disrupted or turned into what they call confusion: however, this confusion is always a necessary result of the laws of Nature. It's required for the support of the whole system that some parts should be disordered and thrown off the regular path. This is why COMETS appear so unexpectedly to astonished humans; their unusual paths disrupt the calm of the planetary system and instill fear in those who find everything unusual to be amazing. Even the natural philosopher speculates that in ancient times, these comets have altered the surface of our world and caused major upheavals on Earth. Besides this extraordinary confusion, he faces other, more familiar types of disruption: sometimes, the seasons seem to have swapped places and abandoned their normal order; at times, opposing elements seem to fight among themselves for control of the world; the sea overflows its boundaries; the solid ground shakes and cracks apart; mountains ignite in flames; diseases wipe out both people and animals; barrenness devastates a region. In these moments, terrified humans cry out for help, praying to restore order; they raise their hands trembling toward the force they believe is responsible for all these disasters. Nonetheless, all this painful confusion results from natural causes, operating according to fixed laws defined by their unique essence and the universal essence of Nature, where everything must inevitably change, move, and dissolve. In this context, what is called ORDER must sometimes be disrupted and transformed into a new way of existence, which, to his misled mind and imagination—guided astray by ignorance and lack of reflection—appears as CONFUSION.

There cannot possibly exist what is generally termed a confusion of Nature: man finds order in every thing that is conformable to his own mode of being; confusion in every thing by which it is opposed: nevertheless, in Nature, all is in order; because none of her parts are ever able to emancipate themselves from those invariable rules which flow from their respective essences: there is not, there cannot be confusion in a whole, to the maintenance of which what is called confusion is absolutely requisite; of which the general course can never be discomposed, although individuals may be, and necessarily are; where all the effects produced are the consequence of natural causes, that under the circumstances in which they are placed, act only as they infallibly are obliged to act.

There can't possibly be what people usually call a confusion of Nature: humans find order in everything that aligns with their own way of being and see confusion in anything that challenges it. However, in Nature, everything is orderly because none of its parts can break free from the unchanging rules that come from their own essences. There is not, and cannot be, confusion in a whole that actively requires what is called confusion to maintain itself; the overall process can never be disrupted, even though individuals may be, and inevitably are. All the effects produced are the result of natural causes, which, given the circumstances they are in, can only act in the specific way they must.

It therefore follows, there can be neither monsters nor prodigies; wonders nor miracles in Nature: those which are designated MONSTERS, are certain combinations, with which the eyes of man are not familiarized; but which, therefore, are not less the necessary effects of natural causes. Those which he terms PRODIGIES, WONDERS, or SUPERNATURAL effects, are phenomena of Nature, with whose mode of action he is unacquainted; of which his ignorance does not permit him to ascertain the principles; whose causes he cannot trace; but which his impatience, his heated imagination, aided by a desire to explain, makes him foolishly attribute to imaginary causes; which, like the idea of order, have no existence but in himself; and which, that he may conceal his own ignorance, that he may obtain more respect with the uninformed, he places beyond Nature, out of which his experience is every instant demonstrably proving that none of these things can have existence.

It follows that there can be no monsters or prodigies, wonders or miracles in Nature. Those labeled as MONSTERS are just certain combinations that people aren’t used to seeing; however, they are still necessary effects of natural causes. What people call PRODIGIES, WONDERS, or SUPERNATURAL events are just phenomena of Nature, which they don’t understand. Their ignorance prevents them from grasping the principles or tracing the causes, leading them to foolishly attribute these things to imaginary causes. These ideas, like the concept of order, exist only in their own minds. To hide their ignorance and gain more respect from those who are uninformed, they place these phenomena outside of Nature, even though their own experiences constantly prove that none of these things can actually exist.

As for those effects which are called MIRACLES, that is to say, contrary to the unalterable laws of Nature, it must be felt such things are impossible; because, nothing can, for an instant, suspend the necessary course of beings, without the whole of Nature was arrested; without she was disturbed in her tendency. There have neither been wonders nor miracles in Nature; except for those, who have not sufficiently studied the laws, who consequently do not feel, that those laws can never be contradicted, even in the most minute parts, without the whole being destroyed, or at least without changing her essence, her mode of action; that it is the height of folly to recur to supernatural causes to explain the phenomena man beholds, before he becomes fully acquainted with natural causes—with the powers and capabilities which Nature herself contains.

Regarding those effects known as MIRACLES, meaning things that go against the unchanging laws of Nature, it's clear that such occurrences are impossible. Nothing can, even for a moment, interrupt the necessary course of existence without affecting the entirety of Nature; without disrupting her natural tendency. There have been no wonders or miracles in Nature, except for those who haven't studied the laws enough, and therefore don't realize that these laws can never be contradicted, even in the smallest details, without risking the destruction of everything, or at least altering her essence and operations. It's utterly foolish to turn to supernatural explanations for the phenomena that humans see before fully understanding the natural causes—the powers and capabilities inherent in Nature itself.

Order and Confusion, then, are only relative terms, by which man designates the state in which particular beings find themselves. He says, a being is in order, when all the motion it undergoes conspires to favor its tendency to its own preservation; when it is conducive to the maintenance of its actual existence: that it is in confusion when the causes which move it disturb the harmony of its existence, or have a tendency to destroy the equilibrium necessary to the conservation of its actual state. Nevertheless, confusion, as we have shown, is nothing but the passage of a being into a new order; the more rapid the progress, the greater the confusion for the being that is submitted to it: that which conducts man to what is called death, is, for him, the greatest of all possible confusion. Yet this death is nothing more than a passage into a new mode of existence: it is the eternal, the invariable, the unconquerable law of Nature, to which the individuals of his order, each in his turn, is obliged to submit.

Order and Confusion are just relative terms that people use to describe the state of different beings. A being is considered to be in order when all the movements it experiences work together to support its survival; it's in a state of confusion when the forces acting on it disrupt its harmony or threaten the balance necessary for its continued existence. However, confusion, as we've demonstrated, is simply the transition of a being into a new order; the faster this change happens, the more confusion it creates for the being experiencing it. For humans, the process leading to what is called death represents the greatest confusion of all. Yet, this death is simply a transition into a new form of existence; it is the eternal, unchanging, and invincible law of Nature that every individual of its kind must eventually face.

The human body is said to be in order, when its various component parts act in that mode, from which results the conservation of the whole; from which emanates that which is the tendency of his actual existence; in other words, when all the impulse he receives, all the motion he communicates, tends to preserve his health, to render him happy, by promoting the happiness of his fellow men. He is said to be in health when the fluids and solids of his body concur to render him robust, to keep his mind in vigour; when each lends mutual aid towards this end. He is said to be in confusion, or in ill health, whenever this tendency is disturbed; when any of the essential parts of his body cease to concur to his preservation, or to fulfil its peculiar functions. This it is that happens in a state of sickness, in which, however, the motion excited in the human machine is as necessary, is regulated by laws as certain, as natural, as invariable, as that which concurs to produce health. Sickness merely produces in him a new order of motion, a new series of action, a new chain of things. Man dies: to him, this appears the greatest confusion he can experience; his body is no longer what it was—its parts no longer concur to the same end—his blood has lost its circulation—he is deprived of feeling—his ideas have vanished—he thinks no more—his desires have fled—death is the epoch, the cessation of his human existence.—His frame becomes an inanimate mass, by the subtraction of those principles by which it was animated; that is, which made it act after a determinate manner: its tendency has received a new direction; its action is changed; the motion excited in its ruins conspires to a new end. To that motion, the harmony of which he calls order, which produced life, sentiment, thought, passions, health, succeeds a series of motion of another species; that, nevertheless, follows laws as necessary as the first; all the parts of the dead man conspire to produce what is called dissolution, fermentation, putrefaction: these new modes of being, of acting, are just as natural to man, reduced to this state, as sensibility, thought, the periodical motion of the blood, &c. were to the living man: his essence having changed, his mode of action can no longer be the same. To that regulated motion, to that necessary action, which conspired to the production of life, succeeds that determinate motion, that series of action which concurs to produce the dissolution of the dead carcass; the dispersion of its parts; the formation of new combinations, from which result new beings; and which, as we have before seen, is the immutable order of active Nature.

The human body is considered to be in order when its different parts work together to maintain the whole, leading to the preservation of life. This creates the foundation for his existence; in other words, when all the impulses he receives and all the movements he makes aim to keep him healthy and happy, while also promoting the happiness of others. He is said to be in good health when the fluids and solids in his body work together to keep him strong and his mind sharp; when each part supports the other toward this goal. He is in confusion, or in poor health, whenever this balance is disrupted; when any essential part of his body stops contributing to his well-being or fulfilling its specific functions. This is what happens in sickness, which, however, involves a necessary motion within the human body, governed by consistent and natural laws, just like the processes that lead to health. Sickness merely results in a different pattern of movement, a new set of actions, a new chain of events. When a person dies, it seems to him the greatest confusion he can face; his body is no longer what it was—its parts no longer work together for the same purpose—his blood has stopped circulating—he has lost the ability to feel—his thoughts have disappeared—he no longer thinks—his desires have vanished—death marks the end of his human existence. His body becomes an inanimate mass, losing the principles that once animated it, which made it function in a specific way: its purpose has shifted; its actions have changed; the movements taking place in its remnants are aimed at a new outcome. The harmony that produced life, feelings, thoughts, passions, and health gives way to a different kind of motion; this new motion, however, follows laws just as necessary as the first. All parts of the dead body contribute to what is known as decay, fermentation, and decomposition: these new ways of being and acting are just as natural to a person in this state as sensitivity, thought, and the rhythmic motion of blood were to the living individual. With the change in essence, the mode of action can no longer be the same. The regulated motions and necessary actions that contributed to life give way to specific movements and actions that lead to the dissolution of the dead body; the separation of its parts; the creation of new combinations that result in new entities; and this, as we have seen before, is the unchanging order of active Nature.

How then can it be too often repeated, that relatively to the great whole, all the motion of beings, all their modes of action, can never be but in order, that is to say, are always conformable to Nature; that in all the stages through which beings are obliged to pass, they invariably act after a mode necessarily subordinate to the universal whole? To say more, each individual being always acts in order; all its actions, the whole system of its motion, are the necessary consequence of its peculiar mode of existence; whether that be momentary or durable. Order, in political society, is the effect of a necessary series of ideas, of wills, of actions, in those who compose it; whose movements are regulated in a manner, either calculated to maintain its indivisibility, or to hasten its dissolution. Man constituted, or modified, in the manner we term virtuous, acts necessarily in that mode, from whence results the welfare of his associates: the man we stile wicked, acts necessarily in that mode, from whence springs the misery of his fellows: his Nature, being essentially different, he must necessarily act after a different mode: his individual order is at variance, but his relative order is complete: it is equally the essence of the one, to promote happiness, as it is of the other to induce misery.

How can it be emphasized enough that in relation to the bigger picture, all beings' movements and actions are always aligned with Nature? In every phase that beings go through, they act in a way that is necessarily subordinate to the universal whole. To elaborate, each individual being acts in order; all its actions and the entire system of its movement are the inevitable result of its unique mode of existence, whether it is temporary or lasting. Order in society is the result of a necessary sequence of ideas, wills, and actions by those who make it up, and their movements are regulated either to maintain its unity or to speed up its collapse. A person who is shaped or influenced in what we call a virtuous way acts in that manner, leading to the well-being of those around them; conversely, a person deemed wicked acts in a way that brings suffering to others. Since their natures are fundamentally different, they must act in different ways: their individual order may conflict, but their relative order is complete. It is inherent to one to promote happiness, just as it is inherent to the other to cause misery.

Thus, order and confusion in individual beings, is nothing more than the manner of man's considering the natural and necessary effects, which they produce relatively to himself. He fears the wicked man; he says that he will carry confusion into society, because he disturbs its tendency and places obstacles to its happiness. He avoids a falling stone, because it will derange in him the order necessary to his conservation. Nevertheless, order and confusion, are always, as we have shewn, consequences, equally necessary to either the transient or durable state of beings. It is in order that fire burns, because it is of its essence to burn; on the other hand, it is in order, that an intelligent being should remove himself from whatever can disturb his mode of existence. A being, whose organization renders him sensible, must in virtue of his essence, fly from every thing that can injure his organs, or that can place his existence in danger.

So, order and chaos in individuals are just how people view the natural and necessary effects they have on themselves. They fear the wicked person, believing they'll bring chaos to society by disrupting its progress and creating obstacles to happiness. They dodge a falling stone because it could throw off the balance essential for their survival. However, as we've shown, order and chaos are always necessary consequences for both temporary and permanent states of existence. Fire burns in order because burning is part of its nature; similarly, an intelligent being should distance itself from anything that could disrupt its way of life. A being with the ability to feel must, by its nature, avoid anything that might harm its body or threaten its existence.

Man calls those beings intelligent, who are organized after his own manner; in whom he sees faculties proper for their preservation; suitable to maintain their existence in the order that is convenient to them; that can enable them to take the necessary measures towards this end, with a consciousness of the motion they undergo. From hence, it will be perceived, that the faculty called intelligence, consists in a possessing capacity to act comformably to a known end, in the being to which it is attributed. He looks upon these beings as deprived of intelligence, in which he finds no conformity with himself; in whom he discovers neither the same construction, nor the same faculties: of which he knows neither the essence, the end to which they tend, the energies by which they act, nor the order that is necessary to them. The whole cannot have a distinct name, or end, because there is nothing out of itself, to which it can have a tendency. If it be in himself, that he arranges the idea of order, it is also in himself, that he draws up that of intelligence. He refuses to ascribe it to those beings, who do not act after his own manner: he accords it to all those whom he supposes to act like himself: the latter he calls intelligent agents: the former blind causes; that is to say, intelligent agents who act by chance: thus chance is an empty word without sense, but which is always opposed to that of intelligence, without attaching any determinate, or any certain idea.

People label those beings as intelligent who are organized in a way similar to their own, where they see abilities that help them survive and keep their existence in a way that suits them. These beings can take the necessary actions to achieve this while being aware of the changes they experience. From this, it becomes clear that the ability called intelligence consists of having the capability to act toward a known purpose, in the being to which it is attributed. People consider beings to lack intelligence if they don’t resemble themselves; they find no similarity in structure or abilities and are unaware of their essence, their goals, the forces that drive them, or the order they require. The whole cannot have a specific name or purpose because there’s nothing outside itself to which it can strive. If it's within themselves that they define the idea of order, it's also in themselves that they formulate the concept of intelligence. They refuse to attribute it to those beings that don’t act like them; they grant it to those they believe behave similarly: they label the latter as intelligent agents and the former as blind causes, meaning intelligent agents that operate by chance. Thus, chance is an empty term without meaning, always contrasted with intelligence, without attaching any specific or clear idea.

Man, in fact, attributes to chance all those effects, of which the connection they have with their causes is not seen. Thus he uses the word chance, to cover his ignorance of those natural causes, which produce visible effects, by means which he cannot form an idea of; or that act by a mode of which he does not perceive the order; or whose system is not followed by actions conformable to his own. As soon as he sees, or believes he sees, the order of action, or the manner of motion, he attributes this order to an intelligence; which is nothing more than a quality borrowed from himself—from his own peculiar mode of action—from the manner in which he is himself affected.

People often attribute to chance all those outcomes that they can't see the connection to their causes. So, they use the term chance to hide their ignorance of the natural causes that create visible effects through methods they can't comprehend; or that operate in a way whose order they don't notice; or whose system doesn't follow actions that match their own. Once they see, or think they see, the order of action or the way of motion, they attribute this order to an intelligence; which is really just a quality they've projected onto it—derived from their own unique way of acting—reflecting how they themselves are affected.

Thus an intelligent being is one who thinks, who wills, and who acts, to compass an end. If so, he must have organs, an aim conformable to those of man: therefore, to say Nature is governed by an intelligence, is to affirm that she is governed by a being, furnished with organs; seeing that without this organic construction, he can neither have sensations, perceptions, ideas, thought, will, plan, nor action which he understands.

Thus an intelligent being is someone who thinks, makes decisions, and acts to achieve a goal. If that's the case, they must have organs and a purpose similar to those of humans. Therefore, to say that Nature is controlled by intelligence is to say that it is controlled by a being with organs since, without this biological structure, they cannot have sensations, perceptions, ideas, thoughts, will, plans, or actions that they comprehend.

Man always makes himself the center of the universe: it is to himself that he relates all he beholds. As soon as he believes he discovers a mode of action that has a conformity with his own, or some phenomenon that interests his feelings, he attributes it to a cause that resembles himself—that acts after his manner—that has faculties similar to those he possesses—whose interests are like his own—whose projects are in unison with and have the same tendency as those he himself indulges: in short, it is from himself, or the properties which actuate him, that he forms the model of this cause. It is thus that man beholds, out of his own species, nothing but beings who act differently from himself; yet believes that he remarks in Nature an order similar to his own ideas—views conformable to those which he himself possesses. He imagines that Nature is governed by a cause whose intelligence is conformable to his own, to whom he ascribes the honor of the order which he believes he witnesses—of those views that fall in with those that are peculiar to himself—of an aim which quadrates with that which is the great end of all his own actions. It is true that man, feeling his incapability of producing the vast, the multiplied effects of which he witnesses the operation, when contemplating the universe, was under the necessity of making a distinction between himself and the cause which he supposed to be the author of such stupendous effects; he believed he removed every difficulty, by amplifying in this cause all those faculties of which he was himself in possession; adding others of which his own self-love made him desirous, or which he thought would render his being more perfect: thus, he gave JUPITER wings, with the faculty of assuming any form he might deem convenient: it was thus, by degrees, he arrived at forming an idea of that intelligent cause, which he has placed above Nature, to preside over action—to give her that motion of which he has chosen to believe she was in herself incapable. He obstinately persists in regarding this Nature as a heap of dead, inert matter, without form, which has not within itself the power of producing any of those great effects, those regular phenomena, from which emanates what he styles the order of the Universe. ANAXAGORAS is said to have been the first who supposed the universe created and governed by an intelligence: ARISTOTLE reproaches him with having made an automaton of this intelligence; or in other words, with ascribing to it the production of things, only when he was at a loss to account for their appearance. From whence it may be deduced, that it is for want of being acquainted with the powers of Nature, or the properties of matter, that man has multiplied beings without necessity—that he has supposed the universe under the government of an intelligent cause, which he is, and perhaps always will be, himself the model: in fine, this cause has been personified under such a variety of shapes, sexes, and names, that a list of the deities he has at various times supposed to guide this Nature, or to whom he has submitted her, makes a large volume that occupies some years of his youthful education to understand. He only rendered this cause more inconceivable, when he extended in it his own faculties too much. He either annihilates, or renders it altogether impossible, when he would attach to it incompatible qualities, which he is obliged to do, to enable him to account for the contradictory and disorderly effects he beholds in the world. In fact, he sees confusion in the world; yet, notwithstanding his confusion contradicts the plan, the power, the wisdom, the bounty of this intelligence, and the miraculous order which he ascribes to it; he says, the extreme beautiful arrangement of the whole, obliges him to suppose it to be the work of a sovereign intelligence: unable, however, to reconcile this seeming confusion with the benevolence he attaches to this cause, he had recourse to another effort of his imagination; he made a new cause, to whom he ascribed all the evil, all the misery, resulting from this confusion: still, his own person served for the model; to which he added those deformities which he had learned to hold in disrespect: in multiplying these counter or destroying causes, he peopled Pandemonium.

Humans always make themselves the center of the universe: everything they observe is related to themselves. As soon as they think they've found a way of acting that aligns with their own, or a phenomenon that stirs their feelings, they attribute it to a cause that resembles them—something that acts like they do—that has abilities similar to theirs—whose interests mirror their own—whose ambitions align with those they pursue: in short, they mold this cause from themselves or from the traits that drive them. Thus, humans see, outside their own kind, nothing but beings that behave differently; yet they believe they observe in Nature an order similar to their own ideas—views in line with their own beliefs. They imagine that Nature is run by a cause whose intelligence matches theirs, to which they credit the order they think they see—those perspectives that resonate with their unique views—an aim that aligns with the ultimate purpose of all their actions. It's true that humans, realizing they can't create the vast, complex effects they see when contemplating the universe, needed to distinguish themselves from the cause they believed produced such incredible effects; they thought they resolved this by amplifying in this cause all the abilities they possessed, adding other traits that their self-love craved or that they thought would make them more complete: thus, they gave JUPITER wings, with the ability to take any form he deemed necessary: it was through this process that they gradually formed an idea of the intelligent cause they positioned above Nature, to govern action—to propel her in ways they chose to believe she was incapable of doing on her own. They stubbornly insist on viewing this Nature as a mass of lifeless, inert matter, lacking the power within itself to produce any of those remarkable effects, those orderly phenomena, from which what they call the order of the Universe emerges. ANAXAGORAS is said to be the first to suggest that the universe was created and ruled by an intelligence: ARISTOTLE criticized him for turning this intelligence into an automaton; in other words, for attributing the creation of things only when he couldn't explain their existence. This implies that due to a lack of understanding of Nature's powers or the properties of matter, humans have unnecessarily multiplied beings—presuming the universe is under the rule of an intelligent cause, which is always modeled after themselves: in short, this cause has been personified in so many forms, genders, and names that a catalog of the deities they've believed to guide this Nature, or to whom they've surrendered it, would fill a large volume that would take years of their education to grasp. They only made this cause more unfathomable by stretching their own traits too far within it. They either erase it or make it impossible when they attach incompatible qualities to it, which they must do to explain the contradictory and chaotic effects they witness in the world. Indeed, they see chaos around them; yet, despite this chaos contradicting the design, power, wisdom, generosity of this intelligence, and the miraculous order they attribute to it, they claim that the incredibly beautiful arrangement of everything compels them to believe it is the work of a supreme intelligence: however, unable to reconcile this apparent chaos with the kindness they assign to this cause, they resorted to another stretch of their imagination; they created a new cause to which they blamed all the evil, all the misery caused by this confusion: still, their own self served as the model; to which they added the flaws they had learned to scorn: by multiplying these opposing or destructive causes, they populated Pandemonium.

It will no doubt be argued, that as Nature contains and produces intelligent beings, either she must be herself intelligent, or else she must be governed by an intelligent cause. We reply, intelligence is a faculty peculiar to organized beings, that it is to say, to beings constituted and combined after a determinate manner; from whence results certain modes of action, which are designated under various names; according to the different effects which these beings produce: wine has not the properties called wit and courage; nevertheless, it is sometimes seen that it communicates those qualities to men, who are supposed to be in themselves entirely devoid of them. It cannot be said Nature is intelligent after the manner of any of the beings she contains; but she can produce intelligent beings by assembling matter suitable to their particular organization, from whose peculiar modes of action will result the faculty called intelligence; who shall be capable of producing certain effects which are the necessary consequence of this property. I therefore repeat, that to have intelligence, designs and views, it is requisite to have ideas; to the production of ideas, organs or senses are necessary: this is what is neither said of Nature nor of the causes he has supposed to preside over her actions. In short experience warrants the assertion, it does more, it proves beyond a doubt, that matter, which is regarded as inert and dead, assumes sensible action, intelligence, and life, when it is combined and organized after particular modes.

It will probably be argued that since Nature includes and creates intelligent beings, either she must be intelligent herself or she must be controlled by an intelligent cause. We respond that intelligence is a quality unique to organized beings, meaning those formed and arranged in a specific way, which leads to certain types of actions that are labeled with various names based on the different effects these beings produce: wine doesn't have qualities like wit and courage; yet we sometimes see that it imparts those traits to people who are thought to lack them entirely. It can't be said that Nature is intelligent in the same way as any of the beings within her; however, she can create intelligent beings by bringing together matter appropriate for their specific organization, which in turn leads to the unique modes of action producing what we call intelligence. These beings will be capable of generating certain effects that necessarily follow from this property. Therefore, I restate that to possess intelligence, intentions, and perspectives, it is essential to have ideas; to create ideas, organs or senses are needed: this is something that is not said about Nature or the causes that have been suggested to oversee her actions. In summary, experience supports the claim, and proves undeniably that matter, considered inert and lifeless, takes on sensible action, intelligence, and life when it is arranged and organized in particular ways.

From what has been said, it must rationally be concluded that order is never more than the necessary or uniform connection of causes with their effects; or that series of action which flows from the peculiar properties of beings, so long as they remain in a given state; that confusion is nothing more than the change of this state; that in the universe, all is necessarily in order, because every thing acts and moves according to the various properties of the different beings it contains; that in Nature there cannot be either confusion or real evil, since every thing follows the laws of its natural existence; that there is neither chance nor any thing fortuitous in this Nature, where no effect is produced without a sufficient, without a substantial cause; where all causes act necessarily according to fixed and certain laws, which are themselves dependant on the essential properties of these causes or beings, as well as on the combination, which constitutes either their transitory or permanent state; that intelligence is a mode of acting, a method of existence natural to some particular beings; that if this intelligence should be attributed to Nature, it would then be nothing more than the faculty of conserving herself in active existence by necessary means. In refusing to Nature the intelligence he himself enjoys—in rejecting the intelligent cause which is supposed to be the contriver of this Nature, or the principle of that order he discovers in her course, nothing is given to chance, nothing to a blind cause, nothing to a power which is indistinguishable; but every thing he beholds is attributed to real, to known causes; or to those which by analogy are easy of comprehension. All that exists is acknowledged to be a consequence of the inherent properties of eternal matter, which by contact, by blending, by combination, by change of form, produces order and confusion; with all those varieties which assail his sight, it is himself who is blind, when he imagines blind causes:—man only manifested his ignorance of the powers of motion, of the laws of Nature, when he attributed, any of its effects to chance. He did not shew a more enlightened feeling when he ascribed them to an intelligence, the idea of which he borrowed from himself, but which is never in conformity with the effects which he attributes to its intervention—he only imagined words to supply the place of things—he made JUPITER, SATURN, JUNO, and a thousand others, operate that which he found himself inadequate to perform; he distinguished them from Nature, gave them an amplification of his own properties, and believed he understood them by thus obscuring ideas, which he never dared either define or analyze.

From what has been discussed, it can be logically concluded that order is simply the necessary or consistent connection between causes and their effects; or the sequence of actions that arises from the unique properties of beings, as long as they remain in a specific state; that confusion is just a change in this state; that in the universe, everything is necessarily ordered because everything acts and moves according to the various properties of the different beings it contains; that in Nature, there can be no confusion or real evil, since everything follows the laws of its natural existence; that there is neither chance nor anything random in this Nature, where no effect occurs without a sufficient and substantial cause; where all causes act necessarily according to fixed and certain laws, which are themselves dependent on the essential properties of these causes or beings, as well as on the combinations that create either their temporary or permanent states; that intelligence is a way of acting, a method of existence natural to certain beings; that if this intelligence were attributed to Nature, it would simply be the ability to sustain itself in active existence by necessary means. By denying Nature the intelligence he himself possesses—in dismissing the intelligent cause that is thought to be the creator of this Nature, or the principle of that order he notices in its processes, nothing is assigned to chance, nothing to a blind cause, nothing to an indistinct power; but everything he observes is attributed to real, known causes, or those that are easily understood by analogy. Everything that exists is acknowledged to be a result of the inherent properties of eternal matter, which through contact, blending, combination, and change of form, generates both order and confusion; amidst all the variations that confront his perception, it is he who is blind when he imagines blind causes:—humanity only reveals its ignorance of the powers of motion and the laws of Nature when it attributes any of its effects to chance. It does not show a deeper understanding when it attributes them to an intelligence, the concept of which it borrows from itself, but which never aligns with the effects it attributes to its intervention—humanity only conjures up words to replace real things—it created JUPITER, SATURN, JUNO, and a thousand others to perform tasks it felt incapable of executing; it distinguished them from Nature, endowed them with an exaggeration of its own properties, and believed it understood them by thus obscuring ideas, which it never dared to define or analyze.










CHAP. VI.

Moral and Physical Distinctions of Man.—His Origin.

Let us now apply the general laws we have scrutinized, to those beings of Nature who interest us the most. Let us see in what man differs from the other beings by which he is surrounded. Let us examine if he has not certain points in conformity with them, that oblige him, notwithstanding the different properties they respectively possess, to act in certain respects according to the universal laws to which every thing is submitted. Finally, let us enquire if the ideas he has formed of himself in meditating on his own peculiar mode of existence, be chimerical, or founded in reason.

Let's now apply the general principles we've looked at to those parts of nature that interest us the most. Let's explore how humanity differs from the other beings around us. Let's check if there are certain similarities that force him, despite the different traits they each have, to act in certain ways according to the universal laws that govern everything. Finally, let's consider whether the ideas he has about himself, while reflecting on his unique way of existing, are unrealistic or based on sound reasoning.

Man occupies a place amidst that crowd, that multitude of beings, of which Nature is the assemblage. His essence, that is to say, the peculiar manner of existence, by which he is distinguished from other beings, renders him susceptible of various modes of action, of a variety of motion, some of which are simple and visible, others concealed and complicated. His life itself is nothing more than a long series, a succession of necessary and connected motion; which operates perpetual changes in his machine; which has for its principle either causes contained within himself, such as blood, nerves, fibres, flesh, bones; in short, the matter, as well solid as fluid, of which his body is composed—or those exterior causes, which, by acting upon him, modify him diversely; such as the air with which he is encompassed, the aliments by which he is nourished, and all those objects from which he receives any impulse whatever, by the impression they make on his senses.

A person occupies a space among the crowd, among the multitude of beings that make up Nature. His essence, meaning the unique way he exists that sets him apart from other beings, makes him capable of various actions and movements, some of which are straightforward and visible, while others are hidden and complex. His life is essentially a long series, a chain of necessary and connected motions that create constant changes in his body. These changes stem from either internal causes within himself, such as blood, nerves, fibers, flesh, and bones; in short, the solid and liquid materials of which his body is made—or from external causes that affect him in different ways, such as the air that surrounds him, the food that sustains him, and all the objects that prompt any reaction through their impact on his senses.

Man, like all other beings in Nature, tends to his own destruction—he experiences inert force—he gravitates upon himself—he is attracted by objects that are contrary or repugnant to his existence—he seeks after some—he flies, or endeavours to remove himself from others. It is this variety of action, this diversity of modification of which the human being is susceptible, that has been designated under such different names, by such varied nomenclature. It will be necessary, presently, to examine these closely and go more into detail.

Man, like all other beings in nature, moves toward his own destruction—he experiences a lack of energy—he pulls in on himself—he is drawn to things that are contrary or harmful to his existence—he pursues some things—he escapes or tries to distance himself from others. It is this range of actions, this variety of ways in which humans can be affected, that has been described with so many different terms. We will need to take a closer look at these and discuss them in more detail soon.

However marvellous, however hidden, however secret, however complicated may be the modes of action, which the human frame undergoes, whether interiorly or exteriorly; whatever may be, or appear to be the impulse he either receives or communicates, examined closely, it will be found that all his motion, all his operations, all his changes, all his various states, all his revolutions, are constantly regulated by the same laws, which Nature has prescribed to all the beings she brings forth—which she developes—which she enriches with faculties—of which she increases the bulk—which she conserves for a season—which she ends by decomposing, by destroying: obliging them to change their form.

No matter how amazing, hidden, secret, or complex the ways in which the human body functions—whether internally or externally—whatever impulses a person receives or communicates, if you take a closer look, you’ll find that all their movements, actions, changes, various states, and transformations are constantly governed by the same laws that Nature has set for all the beings she creates, develops, enriches with abilities, increases in size, preserves for a time, and ultimately breaks down and destroys, forcing them to change their form.

Man, in his origin, is an imperceptible point, a speck, of which the parts are without form; of which the mobility, the life, escapes his senses; in short, in which he does not perceive any sign of those qualities, called SENTIMENT, FEELING, THOUGHT, INTELLIGENCE, FORCE, REASON, &c. Placed in the womb suitable to his expansion, this point unfolds, extends, increases, by the continual addition of matter he attracts, that is analogous to his being, which consequently assimilates itself with him. Having quitted this womb, so appropriate to conserve his existence, to unfold his qualities, to strengthen his habits; so competent to give, for a season, consistence to the weak rudiments of his frame; he travels through the stage of infancy; he becomes adult: his body has then acquired a considerable extension of bulk, his motion is marked, his action is visible, he is sensible in all his parts; he is a living, an active mass; that is to say, a combination that feels and thinks; that fulfils the functions peculiar to beings of his species. But how has he become sensible? Because he has been by degrees nourished, enlarged, repaired by the continual attraction that takes place within himself, of that kind of matter which is pronounced inert, insensible, inanimate; which is, nevertheless, continually combining itself with his machine; of which it forms an active whole, that is living, that feels, judges, reasons, wills, deliberates, chooses, elects; that has the capability of labouring, more or less efficaciously, to his own individual preservation; that is to say, to the maintenance of the harmony of his existence.

Man, in his origin, is an almost invisible point, a tiny speck, where the parts have no shape; where mobility and life elude his senses; in short, in which he doesn't see any sign of those qualities known as SENTIMENT, FEELING, THOUGHT, INTELLIGENCE, FORCE, REASON, etc. Positioned in the womb suited for his growth, this point unfolds, expands, and increases by the constant addition of matter he attracts that corresponds to his being, which then assimilates with him. After leaving this womb, which perfectly preserves his existence, develops his qualities, and strengthens his habits—providing temporary support to the fragile beginnings of his body—he moves through infancy and becomes an adult: at this point, his body has gained significant bulk, his movements are defined, his actions are apparent, and he is aware of all his parts; he is a living, active mass; in other words, a combination that feels and thinks; that carries out the functions specific to beings of his kind. But how has he become aware? Because he has gradually been nourished, grown, and repaired by the ongoing attraction that occurs within himself for that kind of matter that is described as inert, unfeeling, inanimate; which, nevertheless, continually combines with his system; from which it forms an active whole that is living, that feels, judges, reasons, wills, deliberates, chooses, and elects; that has the ability to work, more or less effectively, for his own survival; that is, to maintain the harmony of his existence.

All the motion and changes that man experiences in the course of his life, whether it be from exterior objects or from those substances contained within himself, are either favorable or prejudicial to his existence; either maintain its order, or throw it into confusion; are either in conformity with, or repugnant to, the essential tendency of his peculiar mode of being. He is compelled by Nature to approve of some, to disapprove of others; some of necessity render him happy, others contribute to his misery; some become the objects of his most ardent desire, others of his determined aversion: some elicit his confidence, others make him tremble with fear.

All the motion and changes that a person goes through in life, whether from outside influences or from within themselves, are either beneficial or harmful to their existence; they either keep things in order or create chaos; they either align with or oppose the natural tendencies of their unique way of being. Nature compels them to like some things and dislike others; some inevitably bring them happiness, while others add to their suffering; some become the focus of their deepest desires, and others evoke strong dislike; some inspire confidence, while others instill fear.

In all the phenomena man presents, from the moment he quits the womb of his mother, to that wherein he becomes the inhabitant of the silent tomb, he perceives nothing but a succession of necessary causes and effects, which are strictly conformable to those laws that are common to all the beings in Nature. All his modes of action—all his sensations—all his ideas—all his passions—every act of his will—every impulse which he either gives or receives, are the necessary consequences of his own peculiar properties, and those which he finds in the various beings by whom he is moved. Every thing he does—every thing that passes within himself—his concealed motion—his visible action, are the effects of inert force—of self-gravitation—the attractive or repulsive powers contained in his machine—of the tendency he has, in common with other beings, to his own individual preservation; in short, of that energy which is the common property of every being he beholds. Nature, in man, does nothing more than shew, in a decided manner, what belongs to the peculiar nature by which he is distinguished from the beings of a different system or order.

From the moment a person leaves their mother’s womb until they become a resident of the silent grave, they only see a series of necessary causes and effects that strictly follow the laws common to all beings in nature. Every action they take, every sensation they feel, every idea they have, every passion they experience, every choice they make, and every impulse they give or receive are the unavoidable results of their unique traits and those they encounter in other beings that influence them. Everything they do—everything that happens within them—their hidden movements and visible actions, are the results of passive forces, self-gravitation, and the attractive or repulsive powers in their system, driven by the innate desire to preserve themselves, similar to other beings. In short, this energy is something that all beings possess. Nature, in humans, simply demonstrates clearly what is inherent in their unique nature that sets them apart from beings of different systems or orders.

The source of those errors into which man has fallen, when he has contemplated himself, has its rise, as will presently be shown, in the opinion he has entertained, that he moved by himself—that he always acts by his own natural energy—that in his actions, in the will that gave him impulse, he was independent of the general laws of Nature; and of those objects which, frequently, without his knowledge, always in spite of him, in obedience to these laws, are continually acting upon him. If he had examined himself attentively, he must have acknowledged, that none of the motion he underwent was spontaneous—he must have discovered, that even his birth depended on causes, wholly out of the reach of his own powers—that, it was without his own consent he entered into the system in which he occupies a place—that, from the moment in which he is born, until that in which he dies, he is continually impelled by causes, which, in spite of himself, influence his frame, modify his existence, dispose of his conduct. Would not the slightest reflection have sufficed to prove to him, that the fluids, the solids, of which his body is composed, as well as that concealed mechanism, which he believes to be independent of exterior causes, are, in fact, perpetually under the influence of these causes; that without them he finds himself in a total incapacity to act? Would he not have seen, that his temperament, his constitution, did in no wise depend on himself—that his passions are the necessary consequence of this temperament—that his will is influenced, his actions determined by these passions; consequently by opinions, which he has not given to himself, of which he is not the master? His blood, more or less heated or abundant; his nerves more or less braced, his fibres more or less relaxed, give him dispositions either transitory or durable—are not these, at every moment decisive of his ideas; of his thoughts: of his desires: of his fears: of his motion, whether visible or concealed? The state in which he finds himself, does it not necessarily depend on the air which surrounds him diversely modified; on the various properties of the aliments which nourish him; on the secret combinations that form themselves in his machine, which either preserve its order, or throw it into confusion? In short, had man fairly studied himself, every thing must have convinced him, that in every moment of his duration, he was nothing more than a passive instrument in the hands of necessity.

The source of the mistakes people make when they reflect on themselves comes from the misconception that they act on their own—that they are always driven by their own natural energy—and that their actions and motivations are independent of the broader laws of nature. In reality, many influences are constantly acting on them, often without their awareness or against their will. If he had taken a close look at himself, he would have realized that none of his movements were spontaneous; even his birth depended on causes beyond his control. He entered into the world without his consent, and from the moment he is born until he dies, he is constantly pushed by forces that influence his body, alter his existence, and determine his behavior. Wouldn't even a little self-reflection make it clear that the fluids and solids making up his body, as well as the hidden mechanisms he believes are independent, are constantly affected by these external causes? Without them, he would be completely incapable of action. Wouldn't he see that his temperament and constitution are not under his control, and that his passions arise as a direct result of his temperament? His will is shaped and his actions directed by these passions, which in turn are influenced by ideas he hasn't created himself and cannot control. His blood, whether warm or abundant; his nerves, whether tight or loose; and his muscles, whether tense or relaxed, all affect his temporary or lasting dispositions—aren't these decisive in shaping his ideas, thoughts, desires, fears, and his movements, both visible and hidden? His current state relies heavily on the air around him, which changes in quality; on the various properties of the food that sustains him; and on the secret combinations happening within his own system that either keep it in order or throw it into chaos. In short, if a person carefully studied themselves, everything would convince them that at every moment of their existence, they are nothing more than a passive instrument in the hands of necessity.

Thus it must appear, that where all is connected, where all the causes are linked one to the other, where the whole forms but one immense chain, there cannot be any independent, any isolated energy; any detached power. It follows then, that Nature, always in action, marks out to man each point of the line he is bound to describe; establishes the route, by which he must travel. It is Nature that elaborates, that combines the elements of which he must be composed;—It is Nature that gives him his being, his tendency, his peculiar mode of action. It is Nature that develops him, expands him, strengthens him, increases his bulk—preserves him for a season, during which he is obliged to fulfil the task imposed on him. It is Nature, that in his journey through life, strews on the road those objects, those events; those adventures, that modify him in a variety of ways, that give him impulses which are sometimes agreeable and beneficial, at others prejudicial and disagreeable. It is Nature, that in giving him feeling, in supplying him with sentiment, has endowed him with capacity to choose, the means to elect those objects, to take those methods that are most conducive, most suitable, most natural, to his conservation. It is Nature, who when he has run his race, when he has finished his career, when he has described the circle marked out for him, conducts him in his turn to his destruction; dissolves the union of his elementary particles, and obliges him to undergo the constant, the universal law; from the operation of which nothing is exempted. It is thus, motion places man in the matrix of his mother; brings him forth out of her womb; sustains him for a season; at length destroys him; obliges him to return into the bosom of Nature; who speedily reproduces him, scattered under an infinity of forms; in which each of his particles run over again, in the same manner, the different stages, as necessary as the whole had before run over those of his preceding existence.

It must be clear that where everything is connected, where all causes are linked together, forming one huge chain, there can't be any independent or isolated energy; no detached power. Therefore, Nature, always in motion, shows humans every point they need to follow; it sets out the path they must take. It is Nature that shapes and combines the elements that make up who they are; it is Nature that gives them their existence, their inclinations, and their unique way of acting. Nature develops them, expands them, strengthens them, and increases their presence—preserving them for a time during which they must fulfill their assigned tasks. It is Nature that, throughout their journey in life, places on their path those objects, events, and adventures that transform them in various ways, providing them with impulses that can be enjoyable and beneficial at times, while at other times harmful and unpleasant. It is Nature that, by giving them emotions and feelings, equips them with the ability to choose, enabling them to select the options and methods that best support their survival. When they have completed their journey, when they have finished their life, when they have followed the path laid out for them, it is Nature that guides them to their end; it breaks apart their basic elements and makes them face the constant, universal law from which nothing escapes. In this way, movement places a person in the womb of their mother; brings them into the world; sustains them for a while; ultimately destroys them; and forces them to return to the embrace of Nature, which quickly recreates them, scattered into countless forms, where each of their particles relives the various stages, as necessary as those they previously experienced in their past existence.

The beings of the human species, as well as all other beings, are susceptible of two sorts of motion: the one, that of the mass, by which an entire body, or some of its parts, are visibly transferred from one place to another; the other, internal and concealed, of some of which man is sensible, while some takes place without his knowledge, and is not even to be guessed at, but by the effect it outwardly produces. In a machine so extremely complex as man, formed by the combination of such a multiplicity of matter, so diversified in its properties, so different in its proportions, so varied in its modes of action, the motion necessarily becomes of the most complicated kind; its dullness, as well as its rapidity, frequently escapes the observation of those themselves, in whom it takes place.

Human beings, like all other entities, can move in two ways: one is the movement of the whole mass, where a body or part of it visibly shifts from one location to another; the other is internal and hidden. Some of these internal movements are noticeable to a person, while others happen without their awareness and can only be inferred from the effects they produce externally. In a machine as complex as a human being, made up of a variety of materials, each with different properties, proportions, and ways of operating, the resulting motion is incredibly intricate. The slow and fast movements often go unnoticed even by the individuals experiencing them.

Let us not, then, be surprised, if, when man would account to himself for his existence, for his manner of acting, finding so many obstacles to encounter, he invented such strange hypotheses to explain the concealed spring of his machine—if then this motion appeared to him, to be different from that of other bodies, he conceived an idea, that he moved and acted in a manner altogether distinct from the other beings in Nature. He clearly perceived that his body, as well as different parts of it, did act; but, frequently, he was unable to discover what brought them into action: from whence he received the impulse: he then conjectured he contained within himself a moving principle distinguished from his machine, which secretly gave an impulse to the springs which set this machine in motion; that moved him by its own natural energy; that consequently he acted according to laws totally distinct from those which regulated the motion of other beings: he was conscious of certain internal motion, which he could not help feeling; but how could he conceive, that this invisible motion was so frequently competent to produce such striking effects? How could he comprehend, that a fugitive idea, an imperceptible act of thought, was so frequently capacitated to bring his whole being into trouble and confusion? He fell into the belief, that he perceived within himself a substance distinguished from that self, endowed with a secret force; in which he supposed existed qualities distinctly differing from those, of either the visible causes that acted on his organs, or those organs themselves. He did not sufficiently understand, that the primitive cause which makes a stone fall, or his arm move, are perhaps as difficult of comprehension, as arduous to be explained, as those internal impulses, of which his thought or his will are the effects. Thus, for want of meditating Nature—of considering her under her true point of view—of remarking the conformity—of noticing the simultaneity, the unity of the motion of this fancied motive-power with that of his body—of his material organs—he conjectured he was not only a distinct being, but that he was set apart, with different energies, from all the other beings in Nature; that he was of a more simple essence having nothing in common with any thing by which he was surrounded; nothing that connected him with all that he beheld.

Let’s not be surprised that when a person tries to make sense of their existence and behavior—facing so many obstacles—they come up with strange theories to explain the hidden workings of themselves. If they view their actions as being different from those of other things in the world, they might develop the idea that they move and act in a way that’s completely separate from the rest of nature. They realize that their body and its various parts do act, but often struggle to figure out what triggers that action or where the impulse comes from. This leads them to guess that there is a moving force within them, separate from their physical being, which secretly drives the mechanisms that set them in motion; a force that moves them by its own natural energy. Consequently, they believe they operate according to rules that are entirely different from those that govern the motions of other beings. They are aware of certain internal movements that they can’t help but feel, but how could they think that this invisible motion is often capable of causing such notable effects? How could they understand that a fleeting thought or a subtle mental act can frequently disrupt their entire being? They came to believe that there’s a substance within themselves that is separate from their core self, endowed with a hidden power; they thought this substance contained qualities different from those of visible causes affecting their senses or even from the organs themselves. They didn’t fully grasp that the fundamental cause of a stone falling or their arm moving might be just as hard to understand and explain as those internal impulses that their thoughts or will produce. Thus, lacking contemplation of nature—looking at it from the right perspective, noticing the connections, and recognizing the simultaneous and unified movement of this imagined driving force with their body and material organs—they imagined not only that they were a distinct being but also that they were uniquely set apart, possessing different energies from all other beings in nature; that they were of a simpler essence, with nothing in common with their surroundings or anything that linked them to all they saw.

It is from thence has successively sprung his notions of SPIRITUALITY, IMMATERIALITY, IMMORTALITY; in short, all those vague unmeaning words he has invented by degrees, in order to subtilize and designate the attributes of the unknown power, which he believes he contains within himself; which he conjectures to be the concealed principle of all his visible actions when man once imbibes an idea that he cannot comprehend, he meditates upon it until he has given it a complete personification: Thus he saw, or fancied he saw, the igneous matter pervade every thing; he conjectured that it was the only principle of life and activity; he proceeded to embody it; he gave it his own form; called it JUPITER, and ended by worshipping this image of his own creation, as the power from whom he derived every good he experienced, every evil he sustained. To crown the bold conjectures he ventured to make on this internal motive-power, he supposed, that different from all other beings, even from the body that served to envelope it, it was not bound to undergo dissolution; that such was its perfect simplicity, that it could not be decomposed, nor even change its form; in short, that it was by its essence exempted from those revolutions to which he saw the body subjected, as well as all the compound beings with which Nature is filled.

From there, his ideas about SPIRITUALITY, IMMATERIALITY, and IMMORTALITY gradually emerged. In short, he created all those vague terms to refine and describe the qualities of the unknown force he believes exists within him—the hidden principle behind all his visible actions. Once a person absorbs an idea they can’t fully grasp, they reflect on it until they give it a complete form. Thus, he perceived, or thought he perceived, fiery matter present in everything; he theorized that it was the sole source of life and energy; he went on to represent it; he shaped it in his own image, named it JUPITER, and ultimately worshipped this figure of his own design as the source of every good he experienced and every hardship he faced. To top off the daring assumptions he made about this inner driving force, he believed that, unlike all other beings—even the body that encased it—it was not subject to decay. He thought its perfect simplicity meant it couldn’t be broken down or even change its form; in essence, it was free from the cycles that he observed the body and all composite beings in Nature undergo.

Thus man, in his own ideas, became double; he looked upon himself as a whole, composed by the inconceivable assemblage of two different, two distinct natures, which have no point of analogy between themselves: he distinguished two substances in himself; one evidently submitted to the influence of gross beings, composed of coarse inert matter: this he called BODY;—the other, which he supposed to be simple, of a purer essence, was contemplated as acting from itself: giving motion to the body, with which it found itself so miraculously united: this he called SOUL, or SPIRIT; the functions of the one, he denominated physical, corporeal, material; the functions of the other he styled spiritual, intellectual. Man, considered relatively to the first, was termed the PHYSICAL MAN; viewed with relation to the last, he was designated the MORAL MAN. These distinctions, although adopted by the greater number of the philosophers of the present day, are, nevertheless, only founded on gratuitous suppositions. Man has always believed he remedied his ignorance of things, by inventing words to which he could never attach any true sense or meaning. He imagined he understood matter, its properties, its faculties, its resources, its different combinations, because he had a superficial glimpse of some of its qualities: he has, however, in reality, done nothing more than obscure the faint ideas he has been capacitated to form of this matter, by associating it with a substance much less intelligible than itself. It is thus, speculative man, in forming words, in multiplying beings, has only plunged himself into greater difficulties than those he endeavoured to avoid; and thereby placed obstacles to the progress of his knowledge: whenever he has been deficient of facts, he has had recourse to conjecture, which he quickly changed into fancied realities. Thus, his imagination, no longer guided by experience, hurried on by his new ideas, was lost, without hope of return, in the labyrinth of an ideal, of an intellectual world, to which he had himself given birth; it was next to impossible to withdraw him from this delusion, to place him in the right road, of which nothing but experience can furnish him the clue. Nature points out to man, that in himself, as well as in all those objects which act upon him, there is never more than matter endowed with various properties, diversely modified, that acts by reason of these properties: that man is an organized whole, composed of a variety of matter; that like all the other productions of Nature, he follows general and known laws, as well as those laws or modes of action which are peculiar to himself and unknown.

So, humans came to see themselves as complex; they viewed themselves as a complete being made up of two different, distinct natures that have no connection to each other. They recognized two substances within themselves: one was clearly influenced by physical things, made up of dense, inert matter, which they called BODY; the other was believed to be simpler and of a purer essence, acting on its own, giving motion to the body it was mysteriously connected to, which they called SOUL or SPIRIT. The functions of the body were labeled physical, corporeal, material; the functions of the soul were called spiritual, intellectual. When considering the first, humans were seen as the PHYSICAL MAN; when looking at the latter, they were regarded as the MORAL MAN. Although most modern philosophers accept these distinctions, they are based on unfounded assumptions. Humans have always thought they solved their ignorance by creating words that they could never truly define. They believed they understood matter, its properties, abilities, resources, and combinations because they had a glimpse of some of its qualities. However, they really only muddied their understanding of matter by linking it to something even less comprehensible. In doing so, speculative humans, by forming words and multiplying concepts, only complicated their situation more than they intended to escape. This effort put up barriers to their knowledge: whenever they lacked facts, they turned to guesswork, which they quickly mistook for reality. Thus, their imaginations, no longer guided by experience, raced forward with new ideas, getting lost without hope in the maze of an ideal, intellectual world they had created; it became nearly impossible to pull them out of this illusion and steer them back onto a path that only experience could illuminate. Nature shows humans that within themselves, as well as in all objects that influence them, there is only matter with various properties, differently modified, acting based on those properties: that humans are organized wholes made up of a variety of matter; that, like all other creations of Nature, they follow general known laws, as well as those specific laws or modes of action that are unique to themselves and still unknown.

Thus, when it shall be inquired, what is man?

Thus, when it is asked, what is man?

We say, he is a material being, organized after a peculiar manner; conformed to a certain mode of thinking—of feeling; capable of modification in certain modes peculiar to himself—to his organization—to that particular combination of matter which is found assembled in him.

We say he is a physical being, structured in a unique way; shaped by a specific way of thinking and feeling; able to change in certain ways that are unique to him—to his organization—to that specific arrangement of matter that makes up who he is.

If, again, it be asked, what origin we give to beings of the human species?

If we are asked again, what is the origin we associate with human beings?

We reply, that, like all other beings, man is a production of Nature, who resembles them in some respects, and finds himself submitted to the same laws; who differs from them in other respects, and follows particular laws, determined by the diversity of his conformation.

We respond that, like all other beings, humans are a creation of Nature, resembling them in some ways and subject to the same laws; yet they differ in other ways and follow specific laws dictated by the uniqueness of their structure.

If, then, it be demanded, whence came man?

If it's asked, where did man come from?

We answer, our experience on this head does not capacitate us to resolve the question: but that it cannot interest us, as it suffices for us to know that man exists; that he is so constituted, as to be competent to the effects we witness.

We reply that our experience on this subject doesn’t enable us to answer the question. However, it doesn’t concern us too much since all we need to know is that humans exist and that they are made in a way that explains the effects we see.

But it will be urged, has man always existed? Has the human species existed from all eternity; or is it only an instantaneous production of Nature? Have there been always men like ourselves? Will there always be such? Have there been, in all times, males and females? Was there a first man, from whom all others are descended? Was the animal anterior to the egg, or did the egg precede the animal? Is this species without beginning? Will it also be without end? The species itself, is it indestructible, or does it pass away like its individuals? Has man always been what he now is; or has he, before he arrived at the state in which we see him, been obliged to pass under an infinity of successive developements? Can man at last flatter himself with having arrived at a fixed being, or must the human species again change? If man is the production of Nature, it will perhaps be asked, Is this Nature competent to the production of new beings, to make the old species disappear? Adopting this supposition, it may be inquired, why Nature does not produce under our own eyes new beings—new species?

But it will be asked, has humanity always existed? Has the human species been around forever, or is it just a momentary creation of Nature? Have there always been people like us? Will there always be such people? Have there been males and females at all times? Was there a first man from whom all others are descended? Was the animal here before the egg, or did the egg come first? Is this species without a beginning? Will it also be without an end? Is the species itself indestructible, or does it fade away like its individuals? Has humanity always been what it is today, or has it gone through a countless number of developments before reaching its current state? Can humans finally believe they have reached a stable existence, or must the human species change again? If humans are a creation of Nature, it may be asked, is this Nature capable of creating new beings, of making old species disappear? Assuming this idea, one might wonder why Nature doesn’t create new beings—new species—right before our eyes?

It would appear on reviewing these questions, to be perfectly indifferent, as to the stability of the argument we have used, which side was taken; that, for want of experience, hypothesis must settle a curiosity that always endeavours to spring forward beyond the boundaries prescribed to our mind. This granted, the contemplator of Nature will say, that he sees no contradiction, in supposing the human species, such as it is at the present day, was either produced in the course of time, or from all eternity: he will not perceive any advantage that can arise from supposing that it has arrived by different stages, or successive developements, to that state in which it is actually found. Matter is eternal, it is necessary, but its forms are evanescent and contingent. It may be asked of man, is he any thing more than matter combined, of which the former varies every instant?

It seems that upon reviewing these questions, it doesn’t really matter what side we take regarding the stability of our argument; due to a lack of experience, we have to let hypothesis satisfy a curiosity that always tries to go beyond the limits set for our minds. Accepting this, a thinker contemplating Nature might say that he sees no contradiction in believing that the human species, as we know it today, was either created over time or has existed from all eternity. He won’t see any benefit in thinking that it reached its current state through different stages or successive developments. Matter is eternal; it’s necessary, but its forms are fleeting and contingent. One might ask whether man is anything more than a combination of matter, which changes every moment.

Notwithstanding, some reflections seem to favor the supposition, to render more probable the hypothesis, that man is a production formed in the course of time; who is peculiar to the globe he inhabits, who is the result of the peculiar laws by which it is directed; who, consequently, can only date his formation as coeval with that of his planet. Existence is essential to the universe, or the total assemblage of matter essentially varied that presents itself to our contemplation; the combinations, the forms, however, are not essential. This granted, although the matter of which the earth is composed has always existed, this earth may not always have had its present form—its actual properties; perhaps it may be a mass detached in the course of time from some other celestial body;—perhaps it is the result of the spots, or those encrustations which astronomers discover in the sun's disk, which have had the faculty to diffuse themselves over our planetary system;—perhaps the sphere we inhabit may be an extinguished or a displaced comet, which heretofore occupied some other place in the regions of space;—which, consequently, was then competent to produce beings very different from those we now behold spread over its surface; seeing that its then position, its nature, must have rendered its productions different from those which at this day it offers to our view.

Nevertheless, some thoughts seem to support the idea that humans are a product formed over time, unique to the planet they inhabit and shaped by the specific laws that govern it. As a result, we can only trace our origins back to the same time as our planet. Existence is fundamental to the universe, or the total collection of matter that we observe in various forms; however, the combinations and shapes aren't essential. With that in mind, while the material that makes up the Earth has always existed, the Earth may not always have had its current form or properties. It could be a mass that broke away from another celestial body over time; perhaps it is the result of spots or encrustations that astronomers see on the sun's surface, which have spread throughout our solar system. Maybe the sphere we live on was once an extinguished or displaced comet that occupied a different location in space, capable of producing beings that differ from those we see today, as its previous position and nature would have led to different outcomes than those we currently observe.

Whatever may be the supposition adopted, plants, animals, men, can only be regarded as productions inherent in and natural to our globe, in the position and in the circumstances in which it is actually found: these productions it would be reasonable to infer would be changed, if this globe by any revolution should happen to shift its situation. What appears to strengthen this hypothesis, is, that on our ball itself, all the productions vary, by reason of its different climates: men, animals, vegetables, minerals, are not the same on every part of it: they vary sometimes in a very sensible manner, at very inconsiderable distances. The elephant is indigenous to, or native of the torrid zone: the rein deer is peculiar to the frozen climates of the North; Indostan is the womb that matures the diamond; we do not find it produced in our own country: the pine-apple grows in the common atmosphere of America; in our climate it is never produced in the open ground, never until art has furnished a sun analogous to that which it requires—the European in his own climate finds not this delicious fruit. Man in different climates varies in his colour, in his size, in his conformation, in his powers, in his industry, in his courage, and in the faculties of his mind. But, what is it that constitutes climate? It is the different position of parts of the same globe, relatively to the sun; positions that suffice to make a sensible variety in its productions.

No matter what assumption we make, plants, animals, and humans can only be seen as products that are inherent to and natural for our planet, based on its actual position and circumstances. It’s reasonable to think that these products would change if our planet were to shift its position due to any upheaval. What supports this idea is that on Earth itself, all products vary because of different climates: humans, animals, plants, and minerals are not the same everywhere; they can vary quite noticeably even over short distances. The elephant is native to the tropical regions, while the reindeer is found in the frozen climates of the North; India is where diamonds are formed, but we don't find them in our own country. The pineapple grows in the typical climate of America, but it never grows in our climate without human intervention, which provides a warm environment similar to what it needs—Europeans do not find this delicious fruit in their own climate. Humans vary in different climates in terms of skin color, size, shape, abilities, work ethic, courage, and mental faculties. But what exactly defines climate? It’s the different positions of various parts of the same planet in relation to the sun; these positions create noticeable differences in its products.

There is, then, sufficient foundation to conjecture that if by any accident our globe should become displaced, all its productions would of necessity be changed; seeing that causes being no longer the same, or no longer acting after the same manner, the effects would necessarily no longer be what they now are, all productions, that they may be able to conserve themselves, or maintain their actual existence, have occasion to co-order themselves with the whole from which they have emanated. Without this they would no longer be in a capacity to subsist: it is this faculty of co-ordering themselves,—this relative adaption, which is called the ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE: the want of it is called CONFUSION. Those productions which are treated as MONSTROUS, are such as are unable to co-order themselves with the general or particular laws of the beings who surround them, or with the whole in which they find themselves placed: they have had the faculty in their formation to accommodate themselves to these laws; but these very laws are opposed to their perfection: for this reason they are unable to subsist. It is thus that by a certain analogy of conformation, which exists between animals of different species, mules are easily produced; but these mules, unable to co-order themselves with the beings that surround them, are not able to reach perfection, consequently cannot propagate their species. Man can live only in air, fish only in water: put the man into the water, the fish into the air, not being able to co-order themselves with the fluids which surround them, these animals will quickly be destroyed. Transport by imagination, a man from our planet into SATURN, his lungs will presently be rent by an atmosphere too rarified for his mode of being, his members will be frozen with the intensity of the cold; he will perish for want of finding elements analogous to his actual existence: transport another into MERCURY, the excess of heat, beyond what his mode of existence can bear, will quickly destroy him.

There is a solid basis to suggest that if, by some chance, our planet were to become displaced, all of its outputs would inevitably change. Since the causes would no longer be the same or would not act in the same way, the effects would also no longer be what they currently are. All outputs, in order to sustain themselves or maintain their current existence, must arrange themselves in harmony with the whole from which they originated. Without this, they wouldn't be able to survive. This ability to align themselves—this relative adaptation—is what we call the ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE; its absence is referred to as CONFUSION. Outputs that are seen as MONSTROUS are those that cannot align themselves with the general or specific laws of the beings around them, or with the whole they are part of. They had the ability during their formation to adapt to these laws, but these very laws contradict their realization, making them unable to survive. This is why, through a certain similarity in structure among different animal species, mules can be easily produced; however, these mules, unable to align themselves with their surroundings, cannot reach their full potential and consequently cannot reproduce. Humans can only live in air, while fish can only live in water: if a human is placed in water or a fish in air, they cannot adapt to the environments surrounding them, and they will quickly perish. Imagine transporting a human from our planet to SATURN; their lungs would be torn by an atmosphere too thin for their existence, and their body would freeze from the extreme cold. They would die for the lack of elements compatible with their current existence. Similarly, if another were transported to MERCURY, the overwhelming heat, exceeding what they can endure, would swiftly eliminate them.

Thus, every thing seems to authorise the conjecture, that the human species is a production peculiar to our sphere, in the position in which it is found: that when this position may happen to change, the human species will, of consequence, either be changed or will be obliged to disappear; seeing that there would not then be that with which man could co-order himself with the whole, or connect himself with that which can enable him to subsist. It is this aptitude in man to co-order himself with the whole, that not only furnishes him with the idea of order, but also makes him exclaim "whatever is, is right;" whilst every thing is only that which it can be, as long as the whole is necessarily what it is; whilst it is positively neither good nor bad, as we understand those terms: it is only requisite to displace a man, to make him accuse the universe of confusion.

Everything seems to support the idea that the human species is unique to our environment, in the specific context where it exists: when this context changes, the human species will either change or be forced to disappear; because then there wouldn’t be anything for humans to relate to in the larger scheme, or connect with that which allows them to survive. It’s this ability in humans to relate to the whole that not only gives them the concept of order but also makes them say "whatever is, is right;" while everything simply is what it can be, as long as the whole is necessarily what it is; and it is neither good nor bad in the way we typically understand those terms: just remove someone from their situation, and they will blame the universe for being chaotic.

These reflections would appear to contradict the ideas of those, who are willing to conjecture that the other planets, like our own, are inhabited by beings resembling ourselves. But if the LAPLANDER differs in so marked a manner from the HOTTENTOT, what difference ought we not rationally to suppose between an inhabitant of our planet and one of SATURN or of VENUS?

These thoughts seem to go against the beliefs of those who are ready to guess that other planets, like ours, are home to beings similar to us. But if the LAPLANDER is so different from the HOTTENTOT, what kind of differences should we not logically assume between someone from our planet and someone from SATURN or VENUS?

However it may be, if we are obliged to recur by imagination to the origin of things, to the infancy of the human species, we may say that it is probable that man was a necessary consequence of the disentangling of our globe; or one of the results of the qualities, of the properties, of the energies, of which it is susceptible in its present position—that he was born male and female—that his existence is co-ordinate with that of the globe, under its present position—that as long as this co-ordination shall subsist, the human specie will conserve himself, will propagate himself, according to the impulse, after the primitive laws, which he has originally received—that if this co-ordination should happen to cease; if the earth, displaced, should cease to receive the same impulse, the same influence, on the part of those causes which actually act upon it, or which give it energy; that then the human species would change, to make place for new beings, suitable to co-order themselves with the state that should succeed to that which we now see subsist.

However it may be, if we are forced to imagine the origins of things, to the early days of humanity, we can say that it’s likely that humans were a necessary outcome of the formation of our planet; or one of the results of the characteristics, properties, and energies that it has in its current state—that humans were born male and female—that their existence is connected to that of the Earth under its current conditions—that as long as this connection remains, the human species will sustain itself and reproduce according to the impulses and primitive laws it was originally given—that if this connection were to end; if the Earth, displaced, were to stop receiving the same impulses and influences from those forces currently acting on it, or which energize it; then the human species would change, making way for new beings that would fit into the new state that would follow the one we now see existing.

In thus supposing the changes in the position of our globe, the primitive man did, perhaps, differ more from the actual man, than the quadruped differs from the insect. Thus man, the same as every thing else that exists on our planet, as well as in all the others, may be regarded as in a state of continual vicissitude: thus the last term of the existence of man is to us as unknown and as indistinct as the first: there is, therefore, no contradiction in the belief that the species vary incessantly—that to us it is as impossible to know what he will become, as to know what he has been.

In considering the changes in our planet's position, early humans probably differed from modern humans more than mammals differ from insects. Just like everything else on our planet—and others—humans are constantly changing. Therefore, the endpoint of human existence is just as unknown and unclear to us as its beginning. There’s no contradiction in believing that species are always evolving; it’s just as impossible for us to know what humans will become as it is to know what they have been.

With respect to those who may ask why Nature does not produce new beings? we may enquire of them in turn, upon what foundation they suppose this fact? What it is that authorizes them to believe this sterility in Nature? Know they if, in the various combinations which she is every instant forming, Nature be not occupied in producing new beings, without the cognizance of these observers? Who has informed them that this Nature is not actually assembling, in her immense elaboratory, the elements suitable to bring to light, generations entirely new, that will have nothing in common with those of the species at present existing? What absurdity then, or what want of just inference would there be, to imagine that the man, the horse, the fish, the bird, will be no more? Are these animals so indispensably requisite to Nature, that without them she cannot continue her eternal course? Does not all change around us? Do we not ourselves change? Is it not evident that the whole universe has not been, in its anterior eternal duration, rigorously the same that it now is? that it is impossible, in its posterior eternal duration, it can be rigidly in the same state that it now is for a single instant? How, then, pretend to divine that, to which the infinite succession of destruction, of reproduction, of combination, of dissolution, of metamorphosis, of change, of transposition, may be able eventually to conduct it by their consequence? Suns encrust themselves, and are extinguished; planets perish and disperse themselves in the vast plains of air; other suns are kindled, and illumine their systems; new planets form themselves, either to make revolutions round these suns, or to describe new routes; and man, an infinitely small portion of the globe, which is itself but an imperceptible point in the immensity of space, vainly believes it is for himself this universe is made; foolishly imagines he ought to be the confident of Nature; confidently flatters himself he is eternal: and calls himself KING OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

Regarding those who may ask why Nature doesn't create new beings, we can ask them in return on what basis they think this is true. What gives them the right to believe that Nature is sterile? Do they know whether, in the countless combinations she is constantly forming, Nature is not producing new beings without these observers being aware of it? Who told them that this Nature isn't actually assembling, in her vast workshop, the elements needed to bring to life entirely new generations that will have nothing in common with the existing species? What absurdity, or lack of proper reasoning, would it take to think that humans, horses, fish, and birds will no longer exist? Are these animals so essential to Nature that without them, she cannot continue her eternal cycle? Doesn't everything around us change? Don't we change ourselves? Isn't it clear that the entire universe has not remained exactly the same throughout its previous eternal existence, and that it's impossible for it to remain unchanged for even a moment in the future? How, then, can we claim to predict where the endless cycle of destruction, reproduction, combination, dissolution, metamorphosis, change, and transposition may eventually lead? Suns form and extinguish; planets die and scatter across the vastness of space; new suns ignite and illuminate their systems; new planets emerge, either orbiting these suns or charting new paths; and humanity, a minuscule part of the Earth—an almost invisible point in the vastness of space—foolishly believes the universe was created for him, naively thinks he should be Nature's confidant, and confidently deludes himself into thinking he is eternal: and calls himself KING OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

O man! wilt thou never conceive, that thou art but an ephemeron? All changes in the great macrocosm: nothing remains the same an instant, in the planet thou inhabitest: Nature contains no one constant form, yet thou pretendest thy species can never disappear; that thou shalt be exempted from the universal law, that wills all shall experience change! Alas! In thy actual being, art not thou submitted to continual alterations? Thou, who in thy folly, arrogantly assumest to thyself the title of KING OF NATURE! Thou, who measurest the earth and the heavens! Thou, who in thy vanity imaginest, that the whole was made, because thou art intelligent! There requires but a very slight accident, a single atom to be displaced, to make thee perish; to degrade thee; to ravish from thee this intelligence of which thou appearest so proud.

O man! Will you never realize that you are just a fleeting being? Everything in the vast universe changes; nothing stays the same for even a moment on the planet you live on. Nature has no permanent form, yet you seem to think that your species can never fade away; that you will be exempt from the universal law that dictates that everything must change! Alas! In your current existence, are you not constantly undergoing changes? You, who in your foolishness arrogantly call yourself the KING OF NATURE! You, who measure the earth and the heavens! You, who in your vanity believe that everything was created because you are intelligent! It only takes a tiny accident, a single atom being shifted, to bring about your end; to diminish you; to strip away the very intelligence you seem so proud of.

If all the preceding conjectures be refused by those opposed to us; if it be pretended that Nature acts by a certain quantum of immutable and general laws; if it be believed that men, quadrupeds, fish, insects, plants, are from all eternity, and will remain eternally, what they now are: if I say it be contended, that from all eternity the stars have shone, in the immense regions of space, have illuminated the firmament; if it be insisted, we must no more demand why man is such as he appears, then ask why Nature is such as we behold her, or why the world exists? We are no longer opposed to such arguments. Whatever may be the system adopted, it will perhaps reply equally well to the difficulties with which our opponents endeavour to embarrass the way: examined closely, it will be perceived they make nothing against those truths, which we have gathered from experience. It is not given to man to know every thing—it is not given him to know his origin—it is not given him to penetrate into the essence of things, nor to recur to first principles—but it is given him, to have reason, to have honesty, to ingenuously allow he is ignorant of that which he cannot know, and not to substitute unintelligible words, absurd suppositions, for his uncertainty. Thus, we say to those, who to solve difficulties far above their reach, pretend that the human species descended from a first man and a first woman, created diversely according to different creeds;—that we have some ideas of Nature, but that we have none of creation;—that the human mind is incapable of comprehending the period when all was nothing;—that to use words we cannot understand, is only in other terms to acknowledge our ignorance of the powers of Nature;—that we are unable to fathom the means by which she has been capacitated to produce the phenomena we behold.

If everyone dismisses the earlier points we've made; if it’s claimed that Nature operates under a fixed set of unchanging and universal laws; if people believe that humans, animals, fish, insects, and plants have existed in their current forms forever and will continue to do so; if it’s argued that the stars have always shone in the vastness of space and lit up the sky; if it’s insisted that we shouldn’t question why humans are the way they are any more than we should question why Nature is as we see it, or why the world exists? We are no longer against such arguments. No matter what theory is chosen, it might just as well address the challenges our opponents throw in our path: upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that they don’t challenge the truths we’ve gathered through experience. Humans aren’t meant to know everything—it’s not for us to understand our origins—it’s not for us to probe the essence of things or revert to foundational principles—but we are capable of reason, of honesty, and of admitting that we don’t understand what we can’t know, rather than filling that gap with meaningless jargon or nonsensical assumptions. So, we say to those who, in trying to answer questions far beyond their understanding, claim that humans descended from a first man and a first woman, created differently according to various beliefs;—that we have some understanding of Nature, but none of creation;—that the human mind can’t grasp the time when there was nothing;—that using terms we can’t comprehend only serves to reveal our ignorance of Nature’s powers;—that we cannot understand how she has been able to produce the phenomena we observe.

Let us then conclude, that man has no just, no solid reason to believe himself a privileged being in Nature; because he is subject to the same vicissitudes, as all her other productions. His pretended prerogatives have their foundation in error, arising from mistaken opinions concerning his existence. Let him but elevate himself by his thoughts above the globe he inhabits, he will look upon his own species with the same eyes he does all other beings in Nature: He will then clearly perceive that in the same manner that each tree produces its fruit, by reason of its energies, in consequence of its species: so each man acts by reason of his particular energy; that he produces fruit, actions, works, equally necessary: he will feel that the illusion which he anticipates in favour of himself, arises from his being, at one and the same time, a spectator and a part of the universe. He will acknowledge, that the idea of excellence which he attaches to his being, has no other foundation than his own peculiar interest; than the predilection he has in favour of himself—that the doctrine he has broached with such seeming confidence, bottoms itself on a very suspicious foundation, namely IGNORANCE and SELF-LOVE.

Let’s conclude that humans have no valid or solid reason to see themselves as special in Nature because they go through the same ups and downs as everything else around them. Their supposed privileges are based on misunderstandings about their existence. If they rise above their planet through their thinking, they will view their own species just like all other beings in Nature. They will clearly see that, just like every tree bears fruit due to its characteristics, every person acts based on their specific abilities; that they produce outcomes, actions, and works that are equally essential. They will realize that the illusion they have in favor of themselves comes from being both an observer and a part of the universe at the same time. They will acknowledge that the idea of greatness they attach to themselves is based only on their own interests and their bias toward themselves—that the beliefs they’ve expressed with such confidence rest on a very questionable foundation, namely IGNORANCE and SELF-LOVE.










CHAP. VII.

The Soul and the Spiritual System.

Man, after having gratuitously supposed himself composed of two distinct independent substances, that have no common properties, relatively with each other; has pretended, as we have seen, that that which actuated him interiorly, that motion which is invisible, that impulse which is placed within himself, is essentially different from those which act exteriorly. The first he designated, as we have already said, by the name of a SPIRIT or a SOUL. If however it be asked, what is a spirit? The moderns will reply, that the whole fruit of their metaphysical researches is limited to learning that this motive-power, which they state to be the spring of man's action, is a substance of an unknown nature; so simple, so indivisible, so deprived of extent, so invisible, so impossible to be discovered by the senses, that its parts cannot be separated, even by abstraction or thought. The question then arises, how can we conceive such a substance, which is only the negation of every thing of which we have a knowledge? How form to ourselves an idea of a substance, void of extent, yet acting on our senses; that is to say, on those organs which are material, which have extent? How can a being without extent be moveable; how put matter in action? How can a substance devoid of parts, correspond successively with different parts of space? But a very cogent question presents itself on this occasion: if this distinct substance that is said to form one of the component parts of man, be really what it is reported, and if it be not, it is not what it is described; if it be unknown, if it be not pervious to the senses; if it be invisible, by what means did the metaphysicians themselves become acquainted with it? How did they form ideas of a substance, that taking their own account of it, is not, under any of its circumstances, either directly or by analogy, cognizable to the mind of man? If they could positively achieve this, there would no longer be any mystery in Nature: it would be as easy to conceive the time when all was nothing, when all shall have passed away, to account for the production of every thing we behold, as to dig in a garden or read a lecture.—Doubt would vanish from the human species; there could no longer be any difference of opinion, since all must necessarily be of one mind on a subject so accessible to every enquirer.

Man, after assuming that he is made up of two separate, independent substances that have no common properties, has claimed that what motivates him internally—those invisible movements and impulses within himself—is fundamentally different from what acts on him externally. The first he referred to, as we’ve already mentioned, as a SPIRIT or a SOUL. If someone asks, what is a spirit? The modern answer would be that their entire exploration into metaphysics has led them to learn that this driving force, which they say is the source of human action, is a substance of unknown nature; it’s so simple, so indivisible, so lacking in physicality, so invisible, and so impossible to detect through the senses that its parts can’t even be separated by thought. This raises the question: how can we understand such a substance, which is basically the opposite of everything we know? How can we form an idea of a substance that lacks physical extent but still acts on our senses—meaning on our physical organs that do have extent? How can something without extent be capable of movement; how can it affect material things? How can a substance without parts interact successively with different locations in space? But a critical question arises here: if this distinct substance is indeed what it's said to be, then what is it if it's not? If it's unknown, if it's not detectable by our senses, if it's invisible, how did metaphysicians come to know about it? How did they conceive of a substance that, according to their own description, is not recognizable to the human mind under any circumstances, either directly or through analogy? If they could do this definitively, there would be no mystery left in Nature: it would be as simple to grasp the time when there was nothing or when everything will cease to exist, as it is to dig in a garden or read a book. Doubt would disappear from humanity; there could be no differing opinions, since everyone would have to agree on something so easily accessible to any inquiry.

But it will be replied, the materialist himself admits, the natural philosophers of all ages have admitted, elements and atoms, beings simple and indivisible, of which bodies are composed:—granted; they have no more: they have also admitted that many of these atoms, many of these elements, if not all, are unknown to them: nevertheless, these simple beings, these atoms of the materialist, are not the same thing with the spirit, or the soul of the metaphysician. When the natural philosopher talks of atoms—when he describes them as simple beings, he indicates nothing more than that they are homogeneous, pure, without mixture: but then he allows that they have extent, consequently parts, are separable by thought, although no other natural agent with which he is acquainted is capable of dividing them: that the simple beings of this genus are susceptible of motion—can impart action—receive impulse—are material—are placed in Nature—are indestructible;—that consequently, if he cannot know them from themselves, he can form some idea of them by analogy: thus he has done that intelligibly, which the metaphysician would do unintelligibly: the latter, with a view to render man immortal, finding difficulties to his wish, from seeing that the body decayed—that it has submitted to the great, the universal law—has, to solve the difficulty, to remove the impediment, given him a soul, distinct from the body, which he says is exempted from the action of the general law: to account for this, he has called it a spiritual being, whose properties are the negation of all known properties, consequently inconceivable: had he, however, had recourse to the atoms of the former—had he made this substance the last possible term of the division of matter—it would at least have been intelligible; it would also have been immortal, since, according to the reasonings of all men, whether metaphysicians, theologians, or natural philosophers, an atom is an indestructible element, that must exist to all eternity.

But it will be answered, the materialist himself admits, the natural philosophers of all ages have acknowledged, elements and atoms, simple and indivisible beings, of which bodies are made:—agreed; they have no more: they have also accepted that many of these atoms, many of these elements, if not all, are unknown to them: nonetheless, these simple beings, these atoms of the materialist, are not the same as the spirit or soul of the metaphysician. When the natural philosopher talks about atoms—when he describes them as simple beings, he indicates nothing more than that they are uniform, pure, without mixture: but then he accepts that they have extension, therefore parts, and can be separated by thought, even though no other natural force he knows can divide them: that these simple beings of this kind are capable of motion—can exert action—receive force—are material—exist in Nature—are indestructible;—that therefore, if he cannot know them by themselves, he can form some idea of them by analogy: thus he has done something understandable that the metaphysician would do in a confusing way: the latter, aiming to make man immortal, finds challenges to his desire, noticing that the body decays—that it has succumbed to the great, universal law—has, to solve the issue and eliminate the obstacle, given him a soul, distinct from the body, which he claims is exempt from the operation of the general law: to explain this, he has labeled it a spiritual being, whose properties negate all known properties, hence inconceivable: however, had he turned to the atoms mentioned earlier—had he made this substance the final possible point in the division of matter—it would at least have been understandable; it would also have been immortal, since, according to the reasoning of all men, whether metaphysicians, theologians, or natural philosophers, an atom is an indestructible element that must exist for all eternity.

All men are agreed in this position, that motion is the successive change of the relations of one body with other bodies, or with the different parts of space. If that which is called spirit be susceptible of communicating or receiving motion—if it acts—if it gives play to the organs of body—to produce these effects, it necessarily follows that this being changes successively its relation, its tendency, its correspondence, the position of its parts, either relatively to the different points of space, or to the different organs of the body which it puts in action: but to change its relation with space, with the organs to which it gives impulse, it follows of necessity that this spirit most have extent, solidity, consequently distinct parts: whenever a substance possesses these qualities, it is what we call MATTER, it can no longer be regarded as a simple pure being, in the sense attached to it by the moderns, or by theologians.

All people agree that motion is the continuous change in the relationships between one body and other bodies, or with different parts of space. If what we call spirit can communicate or receive motion—if it acts—if it activates the body's organs to produce these effects, it inevitably follows that this being changes its relationships, tendencies, and positions of its parts, either in relation to various points in space or to the different organs of the body that it energizes. However, in order to change its relationships with space and the organs it affects, this spirit must have extent, solidity, and therefore distinct parts. Whenever a substance has these qualities, it's what we refer to as MATTER; it can no longer be seen as a simple, pure being in the way that modern thinkers or theologians define it.

Thus it will be seen, that those who, to conquer insurmountable difficulties, have supposed in man an immaterial substance, distinguished from his body, have not thoroughly understood themselves; indeed they have done nothing more than imagined a negative quality, of which they cannot have any correct idea: matter alone is capable of acting on our senses; without this action nothing would be capable of making itself known to us. They have not seen that a being without extent is neither in a capacity to move itself, nor has the capability of communicating motion to the body; since such a being, having no parts, has not the faculty of changing its relation, or its distance, relatively to other bodies, nor of exciting motion in the human body, which is itself material. That which is called our soul moves itself with us; now motion is a property of matter—this soul gives impulse to the arm; the arm, moved by it, makes an impression, a blow, that follows the general law of motion: in this case, the force remaining the same, if the mass was two-fold, the blow should be double. This soul again evinces its materiality in the invincible obstacles it encounters on the part of the body. If the arm be moved by its impulse when nothing opposes it, yet this arm can no longer move, when it is charged with a weight beyond its strength. Here then is a mass of matter that annihilates the impulse given by a spiritual cause, which spiritual cause having no analogy with matter, ought not to find more difficulty in moving the whole world, than in moving a single atom, nor an atom, than the universe. From this, it is fair to conclude, such a substance is a chimera—a being of the imagination. That it required a being differently endowed, differently constituted, to set matter in motion—to create all the phenomena we behold: nevertheless, it is a being the metaphysicians have made the contriver, the Author of Nature. As man, in all his speculations, takes himself for the model, he no sooner imagined a spirit within himself, than giving it extent, he made it universal; then ascribed to it all those causes with which his ignorance prevents him from becoming acquainted, thus he identified himself with the Author of Nature—then availed himself of the supposition to explain the connection of the soul with the body: his self-complacency prevented his perceiving that he was only enlarging the circle of his errors, by pretending to understand that which it is more than possible he will never be permitted to know; his self-love prevented him from feeling, that whenever he punished another for not thinking as he did, that he committed the greatest injustice, unless he was satisfactorily able to prove that other wrong, and himself right: that if he himself was obliged to have recourse to hypothesis—to gratuitous suppositions, whereon to found his doctrine, that from the very fallibility of his nature, these might be erroneous: thus GALLILEO was persecuted, because the metaphysicians, the theologians of his day, chose to make others believe what it was evident they did not themselves understand.

Thus, it will be clear that those who, in order to overcome insurmountable difficulties, have assumed that there is an immaterial part of man separate from his body, have not fully grasped their own understanding; indeed, they have merely imagined a negative quality, of which they cannot have a clear idea: only matter can affect our senses; without this interaction, nothing could reveal itself to us. They fail to recognize that a being without physical presence cannot move itself, nor can it transmit motion to a body; since such a being, lacking parts, cannot change its relationship or distance to other bodies, nor can it generate motion in the material human body. What we call our soul moves along with us; now, motion is a property of matter—this soul directs the arm; the arm, moved by it, creates an impact, a strike, that follows the general law of motion: in this scenario, if the force remains the same, if the mass doubles, the impact should double. This soul also shows its material nature in the undeniable challenges it faces from the body. If the arm is moved by its direction when there is no resistance, it can no longer move when loaded with weight beyond its strength. Here is a mass of matter that cancels the impact given by a spiritual cause, which, having no connection to matter, should find it equally easy to move the entire world as it would to move a single atom, and vice versa. From this, we can conclude that such a substance is a fantasy—a figment of the imagination. It requires a being with different abilities and constitution to put matter into motion—to create all the phenomena we observe; nevertheless, this is a being that metaphysicians have envisioned as the creator, the Author of Nature. As humans often use themselves as a model in all their reflections, once they imagined a spirit within themselves, they made it vast; they then attributed to it all those causes that their ignorance prevents them from understanding, thus identifying themselves with the Author of Nature—this allowed them to use the assumption to explain the connection between the soul and the body: their own satisfaction blinded them to the fact that they were merely expanding their circle of errors by claiming to comprehend what might be beyond their reach; their self-interest prevented them from realizing that whenever they punished someone for not agreeing with them, they were committing the greatest injustice, unless they could convincingly prove that other wrong and themselves right: if they themselves had to resort to hypotheses—to unfounded assumptions, on which to base their beliefs, these might be mistaken due to the very fallibility of human nature: thus, Galileo was persecuted because the metaphysicians and theologians of his time chose to make others believe what was clear they did not fully understand themselves.

As soon as I feel an impulse, or experience motion, I am under the necessity to acknowledge extent, solidity, density, impenetrability in the substance I see move, or from which I receive impulse: thus, when action is attributed to any cause whatever, I am obliged to consider it MATERIAL. I may be ignorant of its individual nature, of its mode of action, or of its generic properties; but I cannot deceive myself in general properties, which are common to all matter: this ignorance will only be increased, when I shall take that for granted of a being, of which from that moment I am precluded by what I admit from forming any idea, which moreover deprives it completely either of the faculty of moving itself, giving an impulse, or acting. Thus, according to the received idea of the term, a spiritual substance that moves itself, that gives motion to matter, and that acts, implies a contradiction, that necessarily infers a total impossibility.

As soon as I feel an impulse or see something moving, I have to recognize the extent, solidity, density, and impenetrability of the substance I observe moving or from which I receive that impulse. So, when action is linked to any cause at all, I have to consider it MATERIAL. I might not know its specific nature, how it acts, or its general properties, but I can't fool myself about the general properties that are true for all matter. This ignorance will only grow if I assume something about a being that I can't fully understand, which also removes from it the ability to move itself, give an impulse, or act. So, as the term is commonly understood, a spiritual substance that moves itself, gives motion to matter, and acts involves a contradiction that necessarily means it's completely impossible.

The partizans of spirituality believe they answer the difficulties they have accumulated, by asserting that "the soul is entire—is whole under each point of its extent." If an absurd answer will solve difficulties, they certainly have done it. But let us examine this reply:—it will be found that this indivisible part which is called soul, however insensible or however minute, must yet remain something: then an infinity of unextended substances, or the same substance having no dimensions, repeated an infinity of times, would constitute a substance that has extent: this cannot be what they mean, because according to this principle, the human soul would then be as infinite as the Author of Nature; seeing that they have stated this to be a being without extent, who is an infinity of times whole in each part of the universe. But when there shall appear as much solidity in the answer as there is a want of it, it must be acknowledged that in whatever manner the spirit or the soul finds itself in its extent, when the body moves forward the soul does not remain behind; if so, it has a quality in common with the body, peculiar to matter; since it is conveyed from place to place jointly with the body. Thus, when even the soul should be admitted to be immaterial, what conclusion must be drawn? Entirely submitted to the motion of the body, without this body it would remain dead and inert. This soul would only be part of a two-fold machine, necessarily impelled forward by a concatenation, or connection with the whole. It would resemble a bird, which a child conducts at its pleasure, by the string with which it is bound.

The supporters of spirituality believe they address the issues they've encountered by claiming that "the soul is complete—it's whole in every aspect." If a ridiculous answer can resolve problems, they have certainly accomplished that. But let’s take a closer look at this response: it turns out that this indivisible part known as the soul, no matter how insensible or tiny, must still be something. An infinite number of unextended substances, or the same substance without dimensions repeated endlessly, would create a substance that has physical extent. This can’t be what they intend, because according to this logic, the human soul would then be as infinite as the Creator; they assert that this being exists without extent, yet is infinitely whole in every part of the universe. However, when the response shows as much weakness as it does strength, it has to be recognized that no matter how the spirit or soul exists in its extent, when the body moves forward, the soul does not lag behind; if that were the case, it shares a characteristic with the body that is unique to matter, as it is moved from place to place alongside the body. So, even if the soul is considered immaterial, what conclusion can we draw? Completely reliant on the movement of the body, without this body it would remain lifeless and inactive. This soul would merely be a component of a two-part machine, necessarily driven forward by a connection to the whole. It would be like a bird that a child can control at will, by the string it's attached to.

Thus, it is for want of consulting experience, by not attending to reason, that man has darkened his ideas upon the concealed principle of his motion. If, disentangled from prejudice—if, destitute of gratuitous suppositions—if, throwing aside error, he would contemplate his soul, or the moving principle that acts within him, he would be convinced that it forms a part of its body, that it cannot be distinguished from it, but by abstraction; that it is only the body itself, considered relatively with some of its functions, or with those faculties of which its nature, or its peculiar organization, renders it susceptible:—he will perceive that this soul is obliged to undergo the same changes as the body; that it is born with it; that it expands itself with it; that like the body, it passes through a state of infancy, a period of weakness, a season of inexperience; that it enlarges itself, that it strengthens itself, in the same progression; that like the body, it arrives at an adult age or reaches maturity; that it is then, and not till then, it obtains the faculty of fulfilling certain functions; that it is in this stage, and in no other, that it enjoys reason; that it displays more or less wit, judgment, and manly activity; that like the body, it is subject to those vicissitudes which exterior causes obliges it to undergo by their influence; that, conjointly with the body, it suffers, enjoys, partakes of its pleasures, shares its pains, is sound when the body is healthy, and diseased when the body is oppressed with sickness; that like the body, it is continually modified by the different degrees of density in the atmosphere; by the variety of the seasons, and by the various properties of the aliments received into the stomach: in short, he would be obliged to acknowledge that at some periods it manifests visible signs of torpor, stupefaction, decrepitude, and death.

So, due to a lack of practical experience and ignoring reason, people have complicated their understanding of the hidden force behind their movements. If they could free themselves from biases—if they let go of unfounded assumptions—if they set aside mistakes, and truly reflect on their soul or the driving force within them, they would realize it is part of their body, inseparable from it except in thought. It’s merely the body itself, viewed relatively with some of its functions or with those abilities for which its nature or unique structure allows it: they will see that this soul has to undergo the same changes as the body; that it is born with it; that it grows alongside it; that, like the body, it goes through a phase of childhood, a time of weakness, a period of inexperience; that it expands, that it gets stronger in the same progression; that, like the body, it reaches adulthood or maturity; that it is only at this stage— and not before—that it can perform certain functions; that it is in this phase, and in no other, that it experiences reason; that it shows varying degrees of wit, judgment, and assertiveness; that, like the body, it faces those ups and downs imposed by external factors; that, alongside the body, it suffers, enjoys, shares in its pleasures, feels its pain, is healthy when the body is well, and ill when the body is sick; that, like the body, it constantly changes due to different atmospheric conditions, the changing seasons, and the various properties of the food consumed: in short, they would have to admit that at certain times, it shows clear signs of sluggishness, confusion, frailty, and death.

In despite of this analogy, or rather this continual identity, of the soul with the body, man has been desirous of distinguishing their essence; he has therefore made the soul an inconceivable being: but in order that he might form to himself some idea of it, he was, notwithstanding, obliged to have recourse to material beings, and to their manner of acting. The word spirit, therefore, presents to the mind no other ideas than those of breathing, of respiration, of wind. Thus, when it is said the soul is a spirit, it really means nothing more than that its mode of action is like that of breathing: which though invisible in itself, or acting without being seen, nevertheless produces very visible effects. But breath, it is acknowledged, is a material cause; it is allowed to be air modified; it is not, therefore, a simple or pure substance, such as the moderns designate under the name of SPIRIT.

Despite this analogy, or rather the ongoing connection between the soul and the body, people have been eager to distinguish their essence. Therefore, they have made the soul an incomprehensible entity. However, to form some idea of it, they still had to rely on material things and how they operate. The word spirit brings to mind only concepts like breathing, respiration, and wind. So, when we say the soul is a spirit, it really means that its way of acting is similar to breathing: although it’s invisible in itself or acts without being seen, it still produces very visible effects. But breath is recognized as a material cause; it's understood to be modified air. Therefore, it isn't a simple or pure substance, like what modern thinkers refer to as SPIRIT.

It is rather singular that in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin, the synonymy, or corresponding term for spirit should signify breath. The metaphysicians themselves can best say why they have adopted such a word, to designate the substance they have distinguished from matter: some of them, fearful they should not have distinct beings enough, have gone farther, and compounded man of three substances, BODY, SOUL, and INTELLECT.

It’s quite interesting that in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the term for spirit actually means breath. The philosophers can best explain why they chose this word to represent the substance they see as separate from matter: some of them, worried that they might not have enough distinct beings, have gone further and divided humans into three components: BODY, SOUL, and INTELLECT.

Although the word spirit is so very ancient among men, the sense attached to it by the moderns is quite new: the idea of spirituality, as admitted at this day, is a recent production of the imagination. Neither PYTHAGORAS nor PLATO, however heated their brain, however decided their taste for the marvellous, appear to have understood by spirit an immaterial substance, or one without extent, devoid of parts; such as that of which the moderns have formed the human soul, the concealed author of motion. The ancients, by the word spirit, were desirous to define matter of an extreme subtilty, of a purer quality than that which acted grossly on our senses. In consequence, some have regarded the soul as an ethereal substance; others as igneous matter; others again have compared it to light. DEMOCRITUS made it consist in motion, consequently gave it a manner of existence. ARISTOXENES, who was himself a musician, made it harmony. ARISTOTLE regarded the soul as the moving faculty, upon which depended the motion of living bodies.

Although the term spirit is very old, the meaning that modern people attach to it is quite new: the concept of spirituality, as we understand it today, is a recent creation of the imagination. Neither PYTHAGORAS nor PLATO, no matter how intense their thinking or strong their interest in the extraordinary, seemed to understand spirit as an immaterial substance, or something without physical substance, lacking parts; which is how modern thinkers have conceptualized the human soul, the hidden source of movement. The ancients used the word spirit to describe a matter of extreme subtlety, of a purer quality than what directly affects our senses. As a result, some viewed the soul as an ethereal substance; others saw it as fiery matter; and still others compared it to light. DEMOCRITUS defined it as motion, thus giving it a form of existence. ARISTOXENES, who was a musician, equated it with harmony. ARISTOTLE saw the soul as the driving force that governs the movement of living beings.

The earliest doctors of Christianity had no other idea of the soul, than that it was material. TERTULLIAN, ARNOBIUS, CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN, SAINT JUSTIN, IRENAEUS, have all of them discoursed upon it; but have never spoken of it other than as a corporeal substance—as matter. It was reserved for their successors at a great distance of time, to make the human soul and the soul of the world pure spirits; that is to say, immaterial substances, of which it is impossible they could form any accurate idea: by degrees this incomprehensible doctrine of spirituality, conformable without doubt to the views of those who make it a principle to annihilate reason, prevailed over the others: But it might be fairly asked, if the pretended proofs of this doctrine owe themselves to a man, who on a much more comprehensible point has been proved in error; if, on that which time has shewn was accessible to man's reason, the great champion in support of this dogma was deceived; are we not bound to examine, with the most rigorous investigation, the reasonings, the evidence, of one who was the decided, the proven child of enthusiasm and error? Yet DESCARTES, to whose sublime errors the world is indebted for the Newtonian system, although before him the soul had been considered spiritual, was the first who established that, "that which thinks ought to be distinguished from matter;" from whence he concludes rather hastily, that the soul, or that which thinks in man, is a spirit; or a simple indivisible substance. Perhaps it would have been more logical, more consistent with reason, to have said, since man, who is matter, who has no idea but of matter, enjoys the faculty of thought, matter can think; that is, it is susceptible of that particular modification called thought.

The earliest doctors of Christianity saw the soul as something material. TERTULLIAN, ARNOBIUS, CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN, SAINT JUSTIN, and IRENAEUS all discussed it, but they always referred to the soul as a physical substance—basically, matter. It took their successors a long time to turn the human soul and the world soul into pure spirits; in other words, immaterial substances, which they could hardly comprehend. Gradually, this incomprehensible idea of spirituality, which likely aligns with the beliefs of those who prioritize dismissing reason, began to dominate over other views. However, one might fairly question whether the supposed evidence for this idea comes from someone who has already been proven wrong on a much clearer topic. If the strong advocate for this doctrine was misled on something that time has shown could be understood by human reason, shouldn’t we scrutinize the reasoning and evidence of someone who has clearly been an enthusiastic and misguided thinker? Yet DESCARTES, to whom we owe the Newtonian system thanks to his lofty errors, although before him the soul was viewed as spiritual, was the first to establish that "that which thinks should be distinguished from matter." He too quickly concluded that the soul, or what thinks in humans, is a spirit or a simple, indivisible substance. Perhaps it would have made more sense, and been more reasonable, to suggest since humans, made of matter and only aware of matter, have the ability to think, that matter itself can think; in other words, it has the capacity for that specific adjustment we call thought.

However this may be, this doctrine was believed divine, supernatural, because it was inconceivable to man. Those who dared believe even that which was believed before; namely, that the soul was material, were held as rash inconsiderate madmen, or else treated as enemies to the welfare and happiness of the human race. When man had once renounced experience; when he had abjured his reason; when he had joined the banner of this enthusiastic novelty; he did nothing more, day after day, than subtilize the delirium, the ravings of his imagination: he pleased himself by continually sinking deeper into the most unfathomable depths of error: he felicitated himself on his discoveries; on his pretended knowledge; in an exact ratio as his understanding became enveloped in the mists of darkness, environed with the clouds of ignorance. Thus, in consequence of man's reasoning upon false principles; of having relinquished the evidence of his senses; the moving principle within him, the concealed author of motion, has been made a mere chimera, a mere being of the imagination, because he has divested it of all known properties; because he has attached to it nothing but properties which, from the very nature of his existence, he is incapacitated to comprehend.

However this may be, this belief was considered divine and supernatural because it was beyond human understanding. Those who even dared to believe what had been believed before—namely, that the soul was material—were seen as reckless, thoughtless madmen or treated as enemies of the well-being and happiness of humanity. Once a person rejected experience, abandoned reason, and embraced this enthusiastic novelty, all they did day after day was refine the madness, the fantasies of their imagination. They took pleasure in continually sinking deeper into the most unfathomable errors, congratulating themselves on their discoveries and supposed knowledge, even as their understanding became shrouded in darkness and surrounded by ignorance. Thus, due to man's reasoning based on false principles, and his abandonment of sensory evidence, the driving force within him—the hidden source of motion—has become mere fantasy, simply a product of imagination, because he stripped it of all known properties and attached only those traits which, by the very nature of his existence, he cannot possibly grasp.

The doctrine of spirituality, such as it now exists, offers nothing but vague ideas; or rather is the absense of all ideas. What does it present to the mind, but a substance which possesses nothing of which our senses enable us to have a knowledge? Can it be truth that a man is able to figure to himself a being not material, having neither extent nor parts, which, nevertheless, acts upon matter without having any point of contact, any kind of analogy with it; and which itself receives the impulse of matter by means of material organs, which announce to it the presence of other beings? Is it possible to conceive the union of the soul with the body; to comprehend how this material body can bind, enclose, constrain, determine a fugitive being which escapes all our senses? Is it honest, is it plain dealing, to solve these difficulties, by saying there is a mystery in them; that they are the effects of a power, more inconceivable than the human soul; than its mode of acting, however concealed from our view? When to resolve these problems, man is obliged to have recourse to miracles or to make the Divinity interfere, does he not avow his own ignorance? When, notwithstanding the ignorance he is thus obliged to avow by availing himself of the divine agency, he tells us, this immaterial substance, this soul, shall experience the action of the element of fire, which he allows to be material; when he confidently says this soul shall be burnt; shall suffer in purgatory; have we not a right to believe, that either he has a design to deceive us, or else that he does not himself understand that which he is so anxious we should take upon his word?

The current view of spirituality offers nothing but vague concepts; or rather, it lacks all concepts. What does it present to us except for a substance that our senses cannot grasp? Is it really true that a person can imagine a non-material being that has no size or parts, yet still interacts with matter without any point of contact or analogy to it? And how does this being receive impulses from matter through physical organs that inform it of other beings' presence? Can we really understand the connection between the soul and the body? How can this physical body bind, enclose, or restrict a fleeting being that escapes all our senses? Is it fair or straightforward to resolve these issues by claiming they are a mystery, that they result from a power more incomprehensible than the human soul or its modes of action, even when concealed from us? When people have to rely on miracles or invoke divine intervention to solve these issues, don’t they reveal their own ignorance? And when, despite this ignorance, they assert that this immaterial substance, this soul, will be affected by the material element of fire—and that it will suffer in purgatory—don’t we have a right to believe that they either intend to mislead us or that they themselves don’t fully understand what they insist we should accept on faith?

Let us not then be surprised at those subtile hypotheses, as ingenious as they are unsatisfactory, to which theological prejudice has obliged the most profound modern speculators to recur; when they have undertaken to reconcile the spirituality of the soul, with the physical action of material beings, on this incorporeal substance; its re-action upon these beings; its union with the body. When the human mind permits itself to be guided by authority without proof, to be led forward by enthusiasm; when it renounces the evidence of its senses; what can it do more than sink into error? Let those who doubt this, read the metaphysical romances of LEIBNITZ, DESCARTES, MALEBRANCHE, CUDWORTH, and many others: let them coolly examine the ingenious, but fanciful systems entitled the pre-established harmony of occasional causes; physical pre-motion, &c.

Let's not be surprised by those subtle theories, as clever as they are unsatisfactory, that theological bias has forced the most profound modern thinkers to rely on; when they try to reconcile the spirituality of the soul with the physical actions of material beings, this incorporeal substance; its reaction to these beings; its connection with the body. When the human mind allows itself to be guided by authority without evidence, to be driven by enthusiasm; when it dismisses the evidence of its senses; what else can it do but fall into error? Those who doubt this should read the philosophical works of LEIBNITZ, DESCARTES, MALEBRANCHE, CUDWORTH, and many others: they should calmly examine the clever but fanciful theories titled the pre-established harmony of occasional causes; physical pre-motion, &c.

If man wishes to form to himself clear, perspicuous ideas of his soul, let him throw himself back on his experience—let him renounce his prejudices—let him avoid theological conjecture—let him tear the bandages which he has been taught to think necessary, but with which he has been blind-folded, only to confound his reason. If it be wished to draw man to virtue, let the natural philosopher, let the anatomist, let the physician, unite their experience; let them compare their observations, in order to show what ought to be thought of a substance, so disguised, so hidden by absurdities, as not easily to be known. Their discoveries may perhaps teach moralists the true motive-power that ought to influence the actions of man—legislators, the true motives that should actuate him, that should excite him to labour to the welfare of society—sovereigns, the means of rendering their subjects truly happy; of giving solidity to the power of the nations committed to their charge. Physical souls have physical wants, and demand physical happiness. These are real, are preferable objects, to that variety of fanciful chimeras, each in its turn giving place to the other, with which the mind of man has been fed during so many ages. Let us, then, labour to perfect the morality of man; let us make it agreeable to him; let us excite in him an ardent thirst for its purity: we shall presently see his morals become better, himself become happier; his soul become calm and serene; his will determined to virtue, by the natural, by the palpable motives held out to him. By the diligence, by the care which legislators shall bestow on natural philosophy, they will form citizens of sound understandings; robust and well constituted; who, finding themselves happy, will be themselves accessary to that useful impulse so necessary for their soul. When the body is suffering, when nations are unhappy, the soul cannot be in a proper state. Mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body, will be always able to make a good citizen.

If a person wants to have clear and straightforward ideas about their soul, they should reflect on their own experiences—let them set aside their biases—avoid speculative theology—and remove the blindfolds they’ve been conditioned to think are necessary, which only confuse their reasoning. If the goal is to guide people toward virtue, then philosophers, anatomists, and physicians should collaborate, sharing their knowledge and observations to reveal the truth about a subject that is often obscured by absurdities. Their findings might teach moralists the real driving forces behind human actions—lawmakers the true motivations that should inspire individuals to work for the common good—and rulers the ways to genuinely make their subjects happy, strengthening the foundations of the nations they govern. Physical beings have physical needs and seek physical happiness. These are real, preferable goals compared to the many fanciful illusions that have entertained the human mind for ages. Therefore, let’s strive to improve human morality, make it appealing to individuals, and ignite in them a strong desire for its purity: soon, their morals will improve, they will find happiness, their souls will be calm and peaceful, and their will will be directed towards virtue, guided by the evident motives presented to them. Through the diligence and attention that lawmakers give to natural philosophy, they will cultivate citizens with sound minds; strong and well-rounded individuals who, feeling happy, will contribute to the vital momentum necessary for their souls. When the body is in pain and nations are suffering, the soul cannot be in a good state. Mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body, will always create a good citizen.

The more man reflects, the more he will be convinced that the soul, very far from being distinguished from the body, is only the body itself, considered relatively to some of its functions, or to some of the modes of existing or acting, of which it is susceptible whilst it enjoys life. Thus, the soul is man, considered relatively to the faculty he has of feeling, of thinking, of acting in a mode resulting from his peculiar nature; that is to say, from his properties, from his particular organization: from the modifications, whether durable or transitory, which the beings who act upon him cause his machine to undergo.

The more a person thinks about it, the more they will realize that the soul, far from being separate from the body, is actually just the body itself, viewed in relation to some of its functions or to the ways of existing or acting that it can experience while alive. Thus, the soul is a person, regarded in relation to their ability to feel, think, and act in ways that come from their unique nature; in other words, from their characteristics, from their specific organization: from the changes, whether lasting or temporary, that the beings influencing them cause their body to go through.

Those who have distinguished the soul from the body, appear only to have distinguished their brain from themselves. Indeed, the brain is the common center, where all the nerves, distributed through every part of the body, meet and blend themselves: it is by the aid of this interior organ that all those operations are performed which are attributed to the soul: it is the impulse, or the motion, communicated to the nerve, which modifies the brain: in consequence, it re-acts, or gives play to the bodily organs; or rather it acts upon itself, and becomes capable of producing within itself a great variety of motion, which has been designated intellectual faculties.

Those who have separated the soul from the body seem to have just separated their brain from themselves. In reality, the brain is the central hub where all the nerves throughout the body connect and interact. It’s through this internal organ that all the activities attributed to the soul happen. The impulses or movements sent to the nerve affect the brain, which in turn reacts or activates the body’s organs; or better yet, it acts on itself and is able to create a wide range of movements, which we refer to as intellectual faculties.

From this it may be seen that some philosophers have been desirous to make a spiritual substance of the brain. It is evidently nothing but ignorance that has given birth to and accredited this system, which embraces so little, either of the natural or the rational. It is from not having studied himself, that man has supposed he was compounded with an agent, essentially different from his body: in examining this body, he will find that it is quite useless to recur to hypothesis for the explanation of the various phenomena it presents to his contemplation; that hypothesis can do nothing more than lead him out of the right road to the information after which he seeks. What obscures this question, arises from this, that man cannot see himself: indeed, for this purpose, that would be requisite which is impossible; namely, that he could he at one and the same moment both within and without himself: he may be compared to an Eolian harp, that issues sounds of itself, and should demand what it is that causes it to give them forth? It does not perceive that the sensitive quality of its chords causes the air to brace them; that being so braced, it is rendered sonorous by every gust of wind with which it happens to come in contact.

From this, it’s clear that some philosophers have wanted to turn the brain into a spiritual substance. It’s obviously just ignorance that has led to and supported this idea, which represents so little of either the natural or rational worlds. Because people haven't studied themselves, they've wrongly assumed they consist of an agent that's completely different from their physical body. By looking at this body, they’ll realize that there’s no need to rely on hypotheses to explain the various phenomena that come to their attention; hypotheses can only steer them away from the true answers they’re searching for. The confusion surrounding this issue comes from the fact that people can’t see themselves. For this, it would require something impossible: being able to be both inside and outside oneself at the same time. They can be compared to an Eolian harp that makes sounds on its own but would wonder what causes those sounds. It doesn’t realize that the sensitivity of its strings causes the air to vibrate them; and when they are vibrated, they resonate with every breeze they encounter.

When a theologian, obstinately bent on admitting into man two substances essentially different, is asked why he multiplies beings without necessity? he will reply, because "thought cannot be a property of matter." If, then, it be enquired of him, cannot God give to matter the faculty of thought? he will answer, "no! seeing that God cannot do impossible things!" According to his principles, it is as impossible that spirit or thought can produce matter, as it is impossible that matter can produce spirit or thought: it might, therefore, be concluded against him, that the world was not made by a spirit, any more than a spirit was made by the world. But in this case, does not the theologian, according to his own assertion, acknowledge himself to be the true atheist? Does he not, in fact, circumscribe the attributes of the Deity, and deny his power, to suit his own purpose? Yet these men demand implicit belief in doctrines, which they are obliged to maintain by the most contradictory assertions.

When a theologian, stubbornly insisting that humans are made up of two fundamentally different substances, is asked why he complicates things unnecessarily, he will reply, because "thought cannot be a property of matter." If he is then asked, can't God give matter the ability to think? he will answer, "no! because God cannot do impossible things!" According to his principles, it's just as impossible for spirit or thought to create matter as it is for matter to create spirit or thought. Therefore, one could argue against him that the world wasn't created by a spirit, just as a spirit wasn't created by the world. But in this situation, doesn't the theologian, by his own argument, end up acknowledging himself as the true atheist? Doesn't he limit the attributes of God and deny His power to serve his own agenda? Yet these individuals demand absolute belief in doctrines that they have to support with the most contradictory claims.

The more experience we collect, the more we shall be convinced that the word spirit, in its present received usage, conveys no one sense that is tangible, either to ourselves or to those that invented it; consequently cannot be of the least use, either in physics or morals. What modern metaphysicians believe and understand by the word, is nothing more than an occult power, imagined to explain occult qualities and actions, but which, in fact, explains nothing. Savage nations admit of spirits, to account to themselves for those effects, which to them appear marvellous, as long as their ignorance knows not the cause to which they ought to be attributed. In attributing to spirits the phenomena of Nature, as well as those of the human body, do we, in fact, do any thing more than reason like savages? Man has filled Nature with spirits, because he has almost always been ignorant of the true causes of those effects by which he was astonished. Not being acquainted with the powers of Nature, he has supposed her to be animated by a great spirit: not understanding the energy of the human frame, he has in like manner conjectured it to be animated by a minor spirit: from this it would appear, that whenever he wished to indicate the unknown cause of a phenomena, he knew not how to explain in a natural manner, he had recourse to the word spirit. In short, spirit was a term by which he solved all his doubts, and cleared up his ignorance to himself. It was according to these principles that when the AMERICANS first beheld the terrible effects of gunpowder, they ascribed the cause to wrathful spirits, to their enraged divinities: it was by adopting these principles, that our ancestors believed in a plurality of gods, in ghosts, in genii, &c. Pursuing the same track, we ought to attribute to spirits gravitation, electricity, magnetism, &c. &c. It is somewhat singular, that priests have in all ages so strenuously upheld those systems which time has exploded; that they have appeared to be either the most crafty or the most ignorant of men. Where are now the priests of Apollo, of Juno, of the Sun, and a thousand others? Yet these are the men, who in all times have persecuted those who have been the first to give natural explanations of the phenomena of Nature, as witness ANAXAGORAS, ARISTOTLE, GALLILEO, DESCARTES, &c. &c.

The more experience we gain, the more we will realize that the word spirit, as it is commonly used today, doesn’t really mean anything concrete, either to us or to those who created the term; therefore, it is of no use in physics or morals. What modern philosophers believe and understand by this word is simply an occult power, imagined to explain occult qualities and actions, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Indigenous peoples acknowledge spirits to make sense of effects that seem marvelous to them, as long as their ignorance leaves them unaware of the true cause. By attributing the phenomena of Nature, as well as those of the human body, to spirits, are we really doing anything more than reasoning like primitive people? Humanity has filled Nature with spirits because, throughout history, we have largely been ignorant of the real causes behind the effects that astonished us. Not knowing Nature's powers, we’ve assumed it to be animated by a great spirit; not understanding the energy of the human body, we similarly conjecture it to be animated by a minor spirit. This suggests that whenever we wanted to identify the unknown cause of a phenomenon that we couldn’t explain naturally, we turned to the word spirit. In short, spirit was a term that helped us resolve our doubts and make sense of our ignorance. Following this line of thinking, when the AMERICANS first witnessed the devastating effects of gunpowder, they attributed the cause to vengeful spirits and angry deities. By adopting these principles, our ancestors believed in many gods, ghosts, genies, etc. If we continue this way of thinking, we should also attribute gravitation, electricity, magnetism, etc., to spirits. It's rather strange that priests have always fiercely defended the systems that time has proven false; they seem to be either the most cunning or the most ignorant of people. Where are the priests of Apollo, Juno, the Sun, and countless others now? Yet, these are the individuals who have, throughout history, persecuted those who first provided natural explanations for the phenomena of Nature, like ANAXAGORAS, ARISTOTLE, GALLILEO, DESCARTES, etc. etc.










CHAP. VIII.

The Intellectual Faculties derived from the Faculty of Feeling.

To convince ourselves that the faculties called intellectual, are only certain modes of existence, or determinate manners of acting, which result from the peculiar organization of the body, we have only to analyze them; we shall then see that all the operations which are attributed to the soul, are nothing more than certain modifications of the body; of which a substance that is without extent, that has no parts, that is immaterial, is not susceptible.

To convince ourselves that what's called intellectual abilities are just specific ways of existing or particular ways of acting that come from the unique makeup of the body, we just need to analyze them; we will then realize that all the actions attributed to the soul are simply certain changes in the body, which a substance that is non-physical, has no dimensions, and has no parts, cannot experience.

The first faculty we behold in the living man, and that from which all his others flow, is feeling: however inexplicable this faculty may appear, on a first view, if it be examined closely, it will be found to be a consequence of the essence, or a result of the properties of organized beings; the same as gravity, magnetism, elasticity, electricity, &c. result from the essence or nature of some others. We shall also find these last phenomena are not less inexplicable than that of feeling. Nevertheless, if we wish to define to ourselves a clear and precise idea of it, we shall find that feeling is a particular manner of being moved—a mode of receiving an impulse peculiar to certain organs of animated bodies, which is occasioned by the presence of a material object that acts upon these organs, and transmit the impulse or shock to the brain.

The first ability we see in a living person, and the one from which all others come, is feeling: no matter how mysterious this ability might seem at first glance, when we look at it more closely, we’ll find it’s a result of the essence or properties of organized beings; just like gravity, magnetism, elasticity, electricity, etc., arise from the essence or nature of other things. We’ll also discover that these last phenomena are just as puzzling as the phenomenon of feeling. However, if we want to define it clearly and accurately, we’ll find that feeling is a specific way of being affected—it’s a way of receiving an impulse unique to certain organs in living bodies, caused by the presence of a material object that influences these organs and sends the impulse or shock to the brain.

Man only feels by the aid of nerves dispersed through his body; which is itself, to speak correctly, nothing more than a great nerve; or may be said to resemble a large tree, of which the branches experience the action of the root, communicated through the trunk. In man the nerves unite and lose themselves in the brain; that intestine is the true seat of feeling: like the spider in the centre of his web, it is quickly warned of all the changes that happen to the body, even at the extremities to which it sends its filaments and branches. Experience enables us to ascertain, that man ceases to feel in those parts of his body of which the communication with the brain is intercepted; he feels very little, or not at all, whenever this organ is itself deranged or affected in too lively a manner. A proof of this is afforded in the transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris: they inform us of a man who had his scull taken off, in the room of which his brain was recovered with skin; in proportion as a pressure was made by the hand on his brain, the man fell into a kind of insensibility, which deprived him of all feeling. BARTOLIN says, the brain of a man is twice as big as that of an ox. This observation had been already made by ARISTOTLE. In the dead body of an idiot dissected by WILLIS, the brain was found smaller than ordinary: he says the greatest difference he found between the parts of the body of this idiot, and those of wiser men, was, that the plexus of the intercostal nerves, which is the mediator between the brain and the heart, was extremely small, accompanied by a less number of nerves than usual. According to WILLIS, the ape is, of all animals, that which has the largest brain, relatively to his size: he is also, after man, that which has the most intelligence: this is further confirmed, by the name he bears in the soil, to which he is indigenous, which is ourang outang, or the man beast. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that it is entirely in the brain, that consists the difference, that is found not only between man and beasts, but also between the man of wit, and the fool: between the thinking man, and he who is ignorant; between the man of sound understanding, and the madman: a multitude of experience, serves to prove, that those persons who are most accustomed to use their intellectual faculties, have their brain more extended than others: the same has been remarked of watermen, that they have arms much longer than other men.

Humans only feel thanks to nerves spread throughout their bodies, which, to put it accurately, is really just a big nerve; or you could say it resembles a large tree, with branches responding to the roots’ signals through the trunk. In humans, the nerves come together and connect to the brain; that organ is where true feeling resides: like a spider at the center of its web, it quickly senses all changes happening in the body, even at the tips where it sends out its filaments and branches. Experience shows us that people stop feeling in parts of their bodies when communication with the brain is blocked; they feel very little, or not at all, when the brain itself is disturbed or overly stimulated. A case reported by the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris illustrates this: they tell of a man who had his skull removed, and the brain was covered with skin. As pressure was applied to his brain, he fell into a kind of insensibility that robbed him of all feeling. BARTOLIN notes that a human brain is twice the size of an ox's. This observation was previously made by ARISTOTLE. In the body of an idiot examined by WILLIS, the brain was found to be smaller than usual; he noted that the biggest difference between this idiot's body and those of smarter individuals was that the plexus of intercostal nerves, which connects the brain and heart, was extremely small and had fewer nerves than normal. WILLIS claims that the ape has the largest brain relative to its size of all animals; after humans, it is the most intelligent. This is further supported by its name in its native region, which is *ourang outang*, or "man beast." Therefore, there’s every reason to believe that the brain is where the difference lies, not just between humans and animals, but also between the clever person and the fool, the thinker and the ignorant, the rational person and the madman. A lot of experience shows that those who frequently engage their mental abilities have larger brains than others; the same has been noted with watermen, who have much longer arms than average men.

However this may be, the sensibility of the brain, and all its parts, is a fact: if it be asked, whence comes this property? We shall reply, it is the result of an arrangement, of a combination, peculiar to the animal: it is thus that milk, bread, wine, change themselves in the substance of man, who is a sensible being: this insensible matter becomes sensible, in combining itself with a sensible whole. Some philosophers think that sensibility is a universal quality of matter: in this case, it would be useless to seek from whence this property is derived, as we know it by its effects. If this hypothesis be admitted, in like manner as two kinds of motion are distinguished in Nature, the one called live force, the other dead, or inert force, two sorts of sensibility will be distinguished, the one active or alive, the other inert or dead. Then to animalize a substance, is only to destroy the obstacles that prevent its being active or sensible. In fact, sensibility is either a quality which communicates itself like motion, and which is acquired by combination; or this sensibility is a property inherent in all matter: in both, or either case, an unextended being, without parts, such as the human soul is said to be, can neither be the cause of it nor submitted to its operation; but we may fairly conclude, that all the parts of Nature enjoy the capability to arrive at animation; the obstacle is only in the state, not in the quality. Life is the perfection of Nature: she has no parts which do not tend to it—which do not attain it by the same means. Life in an insect, a dog, a man, has no other difference, than that this act is more perfect, relatively to ourselves in proportion to the structure of the organs: if, therefore, it be asked, what is requisite to animate a body? we reply, it needs no foreign aid; it is sufficient that the power of Nature be joined to its organization.

However this may be, the sensitivity of the brain and all its parts is a fact: if you ask where this property comes from, we would say it is the result of a unique arrangement or combination specific to the animal. This is how milk, bread, and wine transform into the substance of a human, who is a sensitive being: this insensible matter becomes sensitive when it combines with a sensitive whole. Some philosophers believe that sensitivity is a universal quality of matter. In this case, it would be pointless to seek the source of this property since we recognize it by its effects. If we accept this hypothesis, similar to how two kinds of motion are distinguished in Nature—one called "live" force and the other "dead" or "inert" force—we can distinguish between two types of sensitivity: one that is active or alive, and the other that is inert or dead. Thus, to animate a substance is merely to remove the barriers that prevent it from being active or sensitive. In fact, sensitivity is either a quality that transmits itself like motion, acquired through combination, or it is a property inherent in all matter. In either case, an unextended being, without parts, like the human soul is said to be, cannot be the cause of it or subjected to its effects. However, we can reasonably conclude that all parts of Nature have the potential to achieve animation; the barrier lies in the state, not in the quality. Life is the ultimate expression of Nature: she has no parts that do not strive for it, or that do not attain it by the same means. Life in an insect, a dog, or a human is not different in essence, but rather in the perfection of that act as it relates to the structure of the organs. So, if we ask what is needed to animate a body, we can say that it needs no external assistance; it is enough for the power of Nature to align with its organization.

The conformation, the arrangement, the texture, the delicacy of the organs, as well exterior as interior, which compose men and animals, render their parts extremely mobile, or make their machine susceptible of being moved with great facility. In a body, which is only a heap of fibres, a mass of nerves, contiguous one to the other, united in a common center, always ready to act; in a whole, composed of fluids and solids, of which the parts are in equilibrium, the smallest touching each other, are active in their motion, communicating reciprocally, alternately and in succession, the impression, oscillations, and shocks they receive; in such a composition, it is not surprising that the slightest impulse propagates itself with celerity; that the shocks excited in its remotest parts, make themselves quickly felt in the brain, whose delicate texture renders it susceptible of being itself very easily modified. Air, fire, water, agents the most inconstant, possessing the most rapid motion, circulate continually in the fibres, incessantly penetrate the nerves: without doubt these contribute to that incredible celerity with which the brain is acquainted with what passes at the extremities of the body.

The shape, arrangement, texture, and delicacy of the organs, both external and internal, that make up humans and animals, make their parts highly mobile and allow their bodies to move with great ease. In a body that is just a collection of fibers and a mass of nerves, all connected in a common center and always ready to act; in a whole made of fluids and solids, where the parts are balanced and touch each other, they are active in their movements, communicating with each other in turns and succession the impressions, oscillations, and impacts they receive. In such a structure, it’s no surprise that even the slightest push spreads quickly; the shocks that are triggered in its farthest parts are felt rapidly in the brain, which has a delicate structure that makes it very easy to be affected. Air, fire, and water—agents that are highly unstable and move rapidly—constantly flow through the fibers and continuously infiltrate the nerves: undoubtedly, these contribute to the incredible speed with which the brain senses what happens at the outer edges of the body.

Notwithstanding the great mobility with which man's organization renders him susceptible, although exterior as well as interior causes are continually acting upon him, he does not always feel in a distinct, in a decided manner, the impulse given to his senses: indeed, he does not feel it, until it has produced some change, or given some shock to his brain. Thus, although completely environed by air, he does not feel its action, until it is so modified, as to strike with a sufficient degree of force on his organs; to penetrate his skin, through which his brain is warned of its presence. Thus, during a profound and tranquil sleep, undisturbed by any dream, man ceases to feel. In short, notwithstanding the continued motion that agitates his frame, man does not appear to feel, when this motion acts in a convenient order; he does not perceive a state of health, but he discovers a state of grief or sickness; because, in the first, his brain does not receive too lively an impulse, whilst in the others, his nerves are contracted, shocked, and agitated, with violent, with disorderly motion: these communicating with his brain, give notice that some cause acts strongly upon them—impels them in a manner that bears no analogy with their natural habit: this constitutes, in him, that peculiar mode of existing which he calls grief.

Despite the great mobility that makes a person susceptible, and even though both external and internal factors are constantly influencing him, he doesn't always distinctly or decisively feel the impulses affecting his senses. In fact, he only feels them after they lead to a change or deliver a shock to his brain. For instance, even though he is completely surrounded by air, he doesn’t notice its presence until it is altered enough to exert a force on his sensory organs; this force must penetrate his skin to notify his brain of its existence. Similarly, during deep, peaceful sleep, undisturbed by dreams, a person stops feeling. Overall, despite the ongoing movement within his body, a person seems not to feel when that movement is orderly; he doesn't notice a healthy state, but he does recognize feelings of grief or illness. In a healthy state, his brain doesn’t receive overly intense impulses, while in the latter states, his nerves are contracted, shocked, and agitated by strong, chaotic movements. These experiences communicate with his brain, signaling that some force is acting on them—pushing them in a way that doesn’t align with their usual behavior, which creates in him the particular experience he identifies as grief.

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that exterior objects produce very considerable changes on his body, without his perceiving them at the moment. Often, in the heat of battle, the soldier perceives not that he is dangerously wounded, because, at the time, the rapidity, the multiplicity of impetuous motion that assails his brain, does not permit him to distinguish the particular change a part of his body has undergone by the wound. In short, when a great number of causes are simultaneously acting on him with too much vivacity, he sinks under their accumulated pressure,—he swoons—he loses his senses—he is deprived of feeling.

On the other hand, sometimes external factors cause significant changes to his body without him realizing it at the moment. Often, in the heat of battle, a soldier doesn't notice that he is seriously injured because the speed and chaos of the action overwhelm his mind, making it hard for him to identify the specific change caused by the wound. In short, when many different things are happening to him all at once and with too much intensity, he collapses under the strain—he faints—he loses consciousness—he becomes unable to feel.

In general, feeling only obtains, when the brain can distinguish distinctly, the impressions made on the organs with which it has communication; it is the distinct shock, the decided modification man undergoes, that constitutes conscience. Doctor Clarke, says to this effect: "Conscience is the act of reflecting, by means of which I know that I think, and that my thoughts, or my actions belong to me, and not to another." From this it will appear, that feeling is a mode of being, a marked change, produced on our brain, occasioned by the impulse communicated to our organs, whether by interior or exterior agents, by which it is modified either in a durable or transient manner: it is not always requisite that man's organs should be moved by an exterior object, to enable him to feel that he should be conscious of the changes effected in him: he can feel them within himself by means of an interior impulse; his brain is then modified, or rather he renews within himself the anterior modifications. We are not to be astonished that the brain should be necessarily warned of the shocks, of the impediments, of the changes that may happen to so complicated a machine as the human body, in which, notwithstanding all the parts are contiguous to the brain, and concentrate themselves in this brain, and are by their essence in a continual state of action and re-action.

In general, feelings arise when the brain can clearly recognize the impressions made on the organs it communicates with; it’s the clear shock or significant change a person experiences that makes up conscience. Doctor Clarke states, "Conscience is the act of reflecting, through which I know that I think, and that my thoughts or actions belong to me, not to someone else." From this, it’s clear that feeling is a state of being, a noticeable change in our brain caused by impulses transmitted to our organs, whether from internal or external sources, modifying it in either a lasting or temporary way: it’s not always necessary for a person’s organs to be stimulated by an outside object for them to feel aware of changes within themselves; they can also feel these changes through internal impulses; at that point, their brain is modified, or they simply revisit prior changes within themselves. We shouldn’t be surprised that the brain is always aware of shocks, obstacles, or changes that might occur in such a complex system as the human body, where all parts are connected to the brain and continuously interact with it.

When a man experiences the pains of the gout, he is conscious of them; in other words, he feels interiorly, that it has produced very marked, very distinct changes in him, without his perceiving, that he has received an impulse from any exterior cause; nevertheless, if he will recur to the true source of these changes, he will find that they have been wholly produced by exterior agents: they have been the consequence, either of his temperament; of the organization received from his parents; of the aliments with which his frame has been nourished; besides a thousand trivial, inappreciable causes, which congregating themselves by degrees produce in him the gouty humour; the effect of which is to make him feel in an acute and very lively manner. The pain of the gout engenders in his brain an idea, so modifies it that it acquires the faculty of representing to itself, of reiterating as it were, this pain when even he shall be no longer tormented with the gout: his brain, by a series of motion interiorly excited, is again placed in a state analogous to that in which it was when he really experienced this pain: but if he had never felt it, he would never have been in a capacity to form to himself any just idea of its excruciating torments.

When a man suffers from gout, he is acutely aware of the pain; he feels deep down that it has caused significant, noticeable changes in him, without realizing that these changes are due to any external cause. Yet, if he reflects on the real source of these changes, he'll discover that they were entirely brought about by outside factors: they've stemmed from his temperament, his genetic makeup from his parents, the foods that have nourished his body, and countless minor, unnoticeable causes that gradually accumulate and result in the gouty humor, which makes him feel intensely and vividly. The pain of gout triggers a thought in his brain that alters it so that it can recreate that pain, even when he is no longer suffering from gout. His brain, through a series of internally stirred motions, returns to a state similar to when he was actually feeling that pain. However, if he had never experienced it, he would never have been able to form an accurate idea of its agonizing torments.

The visible organs of man's body, by the intervention of which his brain is modified, take the name of senses. The various modifications which his brain receives by the aid of these senses, assumes a variety of names. Sensation, perception, and idea, are terms that designate nothing more than the changes produced in this interior organ, in consequence of impressions made on the exterior organs by bodies acting on them: these changes considered by themselves, are called sensations; they adopt the term perception when the brain is warned of their presence; ideas is that state of them in which the brain is able to ascribe them to the objects by which they have been produced.

The visible organs of the human body, through which the brain is influenced, are called the senses. The different ways in which the brain is affected by these senses go by various names. Sensation, perception, and idea are terms that refer to the changes occurring in this internal organ due to impressions made on the external organs by interacting bodies: these changes by themselves are called sensations; they are termed perception when the brain becomes aware of their presence; ideas refer to the state in which the brain can connect them to the objects that caused them.

Every sensation, then, is nothing more than the shock given to the organs, every perception is this shock propagated to the brain; every idea is the image of the object to which the sensation and the perception is to be ascribed. From whence it will be seen, that if the senses be not moved, there can neither be sensations, perceptions, nor ideas: this will be proved to those, who can yet permit themselves to doubt so demonstrable and striking a truth.

Every sensation is just the impact on our organs, every perception is this impact transmitted to the brain; every idea is the representation of the object related to the sensation and perception. Therefore, it becomes clear that if the senses are not activated, there can be no sensations, perceptions, or ideas. This will be demonstrated to those who still allow themselves to question such an obvious and compelling truth.

It is the extreme mobility of which man is capable, owing to his peculiar organization, that distinguishes him from other beings that are called insensible or inanimate; the different degrees of this mobility, of which the individuals of his species are susceptible, discriminate them from each other; make that incredible variety, that infinity of difference which is to be found, as well in their corporeal faculties, as in those which are mental or intellectual. From this mobility, more or less remarkable in each human being, results wit, sensibility, imagination, taste, &c.: for the present, however, let us follow the operation of the senses; let us examine in what manner they are acted upon, and are modified by exterior objects:—we will afterwards scrutinize the re-action of the interior organ or brain.

It's the extreme mobility that humans have, due to their unique structure, that sets them apart from other beings that are considered insensible or inanimate. The varying degrees of this mobility in individuals of the same species differentiate them from one another, creating that incredible variety and endless differences found in both their physical abilities and their mental or intellectual traits. This mobility, which varies in each person, leads to qualities like wit, sensitivity, imagination, and taste. For now, let’s focus on how the senses work; let’s examine how they are influenced and changed by external objects. Later, we will look into how the internal organ or brain reacts.

The eyes are very delicate, very movable organs, by means of which the sensation of light or colour is experienced: these give to the brain a distinct perception, in consequence of which, man forms an idea, generated by the action of luminous or coloured bodies: as soon as the eyelids are opened, the retina is affected in a peculiar manner; the fluid, the fibres, the nerves, of which they are composed, are excited by shocks which they communicate to the brain; to which they delineate the images of the bodies from which they have received the impulse; by this means, an idea is acquired of the colour, the size, the form, the distance of these bodies: it is thus that may be explained the mechanism of sight.

The eyes are delicate and flexible organs that allow us to experience light and color. They provide the brain with clear perceptions, which lead a person to form ideas based on the stimulation from light or colored objects. As soon as the eyelids open, the retina reacts in a specific way; the fluid, fibers, and nerves within it are triggered by impulses that they send to the brain. This process creates images of the objects that caused the stimulation, allowing us to perceive their color, size, shape, and distance. This is how the mechanism of sight works.

The mobility and the elasticity of which the skin is rendered susceptible, by the fibres and nerves which form its texture, accounts for the rapidity with which this envelope to the human body is affected when applied to any other body; by their agency, the brain has notice of its presence, of its extent, of its roughness, of its smoothness, of its surface, of its pressure of its ponderosity, &c. Qualities from which the brain derives distinct perceptions, which breed in it a diversity of ideas; it is this that constitutes the touch or feeling.

The mobility and flexibility of the skin, which is influenced by the fibers and nerves that make up its structure, explain how quickly this covering of the human body reacts when it comes into contact with another body. Through these fibers and nerves, the brain becomes aware of the skin's presence, its size, its roughness, its smoothness, its texture, its pressure, its weight, etc. These qualities allow the brain to form distinct perceptions, leading to a variety of ideas; this is what makes up the touch or feeling.

The delicacy of the membrane by which the interior of the nostrils is covered, renders them easily susceptible of irritation, even by the invisible and impalpable corpuscles that emanate from odorous bodies: by these means sensations are excited, the brain has perceptions, and generates ideas: it is this that forms the sense of smelling.

The thin membrane that covers the inside of the nostrils makes them very sensitive to irritation, even from the tiny, invisible particles released by fragrant substances: this process triggers sensations, the brain has perceptions, and creates ideas: this is what constitutes the sense of smelling.

The mouth, filled with nervous, sensible, movable, irritable glands, saturated with juices suitable to the dissolution of saline substances, is affected in a very lively manner by the aliments which pass through it for the nourishment of the body; these glands transmit to the brain the impressions received: perceptions are of consequence; ideas follow: it is from this mechanism that results taste.

The mouth, packed with nervous, sensitive, movable, and irritable glands, filled with fluids that help break down salty substances, reacts intensely to the food that goes through it to nourish the body; these glands send signals to the brain based on what they experience: perceptions matter; ideas come afterwards: it's from this process that taste emerges.

The ear, whose conformation fits it to receive the various impulses of air, diversely modified, communicates to the brain the shocks or sensations; these breed the perception of sound, and generate the idea of sonorous bodies: it is this that constitutes hearing.

The ear, shaped to pick up different variations of air waves, sends signals or sensations to the brain; these create the perception of sound and generate the idea of sound-producing objects: this is what makes hearing.

Such are the only means by which man receives sensations, perceptions, and ideas. These successive modifications of his brain are effects produced by objects that give impulse to his senses; they become themselves causes, producing in his soul new modifications, which are denominated thought, reflection, memory, imagination, judgment, will, action; the basis, however, of all these is sensation.

These are the only ways that people experience sensations, perceptions, and ideas. These changes in the brain are caused by objects that stimulate the senses; they then become causes themselves, leading to new changes in the mind known as thought, reflection, memory, imagination, judgment, will, action; however, the foundation of all these is sensation.

To form a precise notion of thought, it will be requisite to examine, step by step, what passes in man during the presence of any object whatever. Suppose for a moment this object to be a peach: this fruit makes, at the first view, two different impressions on his eyes; that is to say, it produces two modifications, which are transmitted to the brain, which on this occasion experiences two new perceptions, or has two new ideas or modes of existence, designated by the terms colour and rotundity; in consequence, he has an idea of a body possessing roundness and colour: if he places his hand on this fruit, the organ of feeling having been set in action, his hand experiences three new impressions, which are called softness, coolness, weight, from whence result three new perceptions in the brain, he has consequently three new ideas: if he approximates this peach to his nose, the organ of smelling receives an impulse, which, communicated to the brain, a new perception arises, by which he acquires a new idea, called odour: if he carries this fruit to his mouth, the organ of taste becomes affected in a very lively manner: this impulse communicated to the brain, is followed by a perception that generates in him the idea of flavour. In re-uniting all these impressions, or these various modifications of his organs, which it have been consequently transmitted to his brain; that is to say, in combining the different sensations, perceptions, and ideas, that result from the impulse he has received, he has an idea of a whole, which he designates by the name of a peach, with which he can then occupy his thoughts.

To understand the concept of thought clearly, we need to look at what happens in a person when they encounter any object. Let’s take a peach as an example: this fruit initially makes two different impressions on their eyes; that is, it creates two modifications that are sent to the brain, which then experiences two new perceptions or has two new ideas, described as color and roundness. As a result, they form the idea of a body that has roundness and color. If they touch the fruit, their sense of touch is activated, and their hand perceives three new impressions known as softness, coolness, and weight, leading to three new perceptions in the brain, resulting in three new ideas. If they bring the peach closer to their nose, the sense of smell is stimulated, sending a signal to the brain and creating a new perception that gives them a new idea called odor. When they bring the fruit to their mouth, the sense of taste is highly stimulated: this signal sent to the brain leads to a perception that generates the idea of flavor. By gathering all these impressions or various changes in their senses that have been sent to their brain, or in other words, by combining the different sensations, perceptions, and ideas that arise from the stimuli they receive, they form the idea of a whole, which they identify as a peach, allowing them to think about it.

From this it is sufficiently proved that thought has a commencement, a duration, an end; or rather a generation, a succession, a dissolution, like all the other modifications of matter; like them, thought is excited, is determined, is increased, is divided, is compounded, is simplified, &c. If, therefore, the soul, or the principle that thinks, be indivisible; how does it happen, that this soul has the faculty of memory, or of forgetfulness; is capacitated to think successively, to divide, to abstract, to combine, to extend its ideas, to retain them, or to lose them? How can it cease to think? If forms appear divisible in matter, it is only in considering them by abstraction, after the method, of geometricians; but this divisibility of form exists not in Nature, in which there is neither a point, an atom, nor form perfectly regular; it must therefore be concluded, that the forms of matter are not less indivisible than thought.

From this, it is clearly shown that thought has a beginning, a duration, and an end; or rather a creation, a sequence, and a dissolution, just like all other forms of matter. Like them, thought can be sparked, influenced, increased, divided, combined, simplified, etc. If, therefore, the soul, or the principle that thinks, is indivisible, then how is it that this soul has the ability to remember or forget? How can it think in sequence, divide, abstract, combine, expand its ideas, retain them, or lose them? How can it stop thinking? While forms may appear divisible in matter, this is only when we consider them abstractly, similar to how geometricians do; however, this divisibility of form does not exist in Nature, where there is neither a point, an atom, nor a perfectly regular form. It must, therefore, be concluded that the forms of matter are no less indivisible than thought.

What has been said is sufficient to show the generation of sensations, of perceptions, of ideas, with their association, or connection in the brain: it will be seen that these various modifications are nothing more than the consequence of successive impulses, which the exterior organs transmit to the interior organ, which enjoys the faculty of thought, that is to say, to feel in itself the different modifications it has received, or to perceive the various ideas which it has generated; to combine them, to separate them, to extend them, to abridge them, to compare them, to renew them, &c. From whence it will be seen, that thought is nothing more than the perception of certain modifications, which the brain either gives to itself, or has received from exterior objects.

What has been said is enough to demonstrate how sensations, perceptions, and ideas are generated and connected in the brain. It becomes clear that these various changes are simply the result of successive impulses that external organs send to the internal organ capable of thought. This means it can feel the different changes it has experienced or perceive the various ideas it has created; it can combine them, separate them, expand them, shorten them, compare them, and refresh them, etc. Therefore, it can be understood that thought is nothing more than the perception of certain modifications that the brain either creates itself or receives from external objects.

Indeed, not only the interior organ perceives the modifications it receives from without, but again it has the faculty of modifying itself; of considering the changes which take place in it, the motion by which it is agitated in its peculiar operations, from which it imbibes new perceptions and new ideas. It is the exercise of this power to fall back upon itself, that is called reflection.

Indeed, not only does the internal organ sense the changes it experiences from the outside, but it also has the ability to change itself; to reflect on the alterations happening within it, the movement it undergoes in its specific functions, from which it gains new insights and ideas. This ability to turn inward and examine itself is what we call reflection.

From this it will appear, that for man to think and to reflect, is to feel, or perceive within himself the impressions, the sensations, the ideas, which have been furnished to his brain by those objects which give impulse to his senses, with the various changes which his brain produced on itself in consequence.

From this, it becomes clear that for a person to think and reflect is to feel or perceive the impressions, sensations, and ideas that have been supplied to their brain by the objects that stimulate their senses, along with the various changes that their brain makes as a result.

Memory is the faculty which the brain has of renewing in itself the modifications it has received, or rather, to restore itself to a state similar to that in which it has been placed by the sensations, the perceptions, the ideas, produced by exterior objects, in the exact order it received them, without any new action on the part of these objects, or even when these objects are absent; the brain perceives that these modifications assimilate with those it formerly experienced in the presence of the objects to which it relates, or attributes them. Memory is faithful, when these modifications are precisely the same; it is treacherous, when they differ from those which the organs have exteriorly experienced.

Memory is the ability of the brain to recreate the changes it has undergone, or rather, to bring itself back to a state similar to the one it was in based on the sensations, perceptions, and ideas produced by external objects, in the exact order it received them, without any new action from those objects, or even when those objects are not present; the brain recognizes that these changes connect with those it previously experienced in the presence of the objects it relates to or associates with. Memory is reliable when these changes are exactly the same; it is misleading when they differ from what the senses have experienced externally.

Imagination in man is only the faculty which the brain has of modifying itself, or of forming to itself new perceptions, upon the model of those which it has anteriorly received through the action of exterior objects on the senses. The brain, then, does nothing more than combine ideas which it has already formed, which it recalls to itself, from which it forms a whole, or a collection of modifications, which it has not received, which exists no-where but in itself, although the individual ideas, or the parts of which this ideal whole is composed, have been previously communicated to it, in consequence of the impulse given to the senses by exterior objects: it is thus man forms to himself the idea of centaurs, or a being composed of a man and a horse, of hyppogriffs, or a being composed of a horse with wings and a griffin, besides a thousand other objects, equally ridiculous. By memory, the brain renews in itself the sensations, the perceptions, and the ideas which it has received or generated; represents to itself the objects which have actually moved its organs. By imagination it combines them variously: forms objects in their place which have not moved its organs, although it is perfectly acquainted with the elements or ideas of which it composes them. It is thus that man, by combining a great number of ideas borrowed from himself, such as justice, wisdom, goodness, intelligence, &c. by the aid of imagination, has formed various ideal beings, or imaginary wholes, which he has called JUPITER, JUNO, BRAMAH, SATURN, &c.

Imagination in humans is simply the brain's ability to change itself or create new perceptions based on what it has previously experienced through the influence of outside objects on the senses. The brain doesn't do anything more than combine ideas it already has, pulling them back from memory to form a whole, or a collection of variations that it hasn't directly encountered, which exists only within itself, even though the individual ideas, or the components of this ideal whole, were initially acquired through sensory experiences prompted by outside objects. This is how humans create the idea of centaurs, or beings made of a man and a horse, or hippogriffs, or creatures that are a horse with wings and a griffin, along with countless other equally absurd objects. Through memory, the brain reinstates the sensations, perceptions, and ideas it has received or generated; it conjures up the objects that have actually stimulated its senses. With imagination, it combines these elements in various ways: it creates objects in place of those that did not stimulate its senses, even though it is fully aware of the individual ideas from which it constructs them. This is how humans, by combining numerous ideas drawn from their own thoughts, such as justice, wisdom, goodness, intelligence, etc., with the help of imagination, have crafted various ideal beings or imaginary constructs, which they have named JUPITER, JUNO, BRAMAH, SATURN, etc.

Judgment is the faculty which the brain possesses of comparing with each other the modifications it receives, the ideas it engenders, or which it has the power of awakening within itself, to the end that it may discover their relations, or their effects.

Judgment is the ability of the brain to compare different impressions, ideas it produces, or those it can recall from within itself, in order to understand their relationships or impacts.

Will is a modification of the brain, by which it is disposed to action, that is to say, to give such an impulse to the organs of the body, as can induce to act in a manner, that will procure for itself what is requisite to modify it in a mode analogous to its own existence, or to enable it to avoid that by which it can be injured. To will is to be disposed to action. The exterior objects, or the interior ideas, which give birth to this disposition are called motives, because they are the springs or movements which determine it to act, that is to say, which give play to the organs of the body. Thus, voluntary actions are the motion of the body, determined by the modification of the brain. Fruit hanging on a tree, through the agency of the visual organs, modifies the brain in such a manner as to dispose the arm to stretch itself forth to cull it; again, it modifies it in another manner, by which it excites the hand to carry it to the mouth.

Will is a change in the brain that makes us inclined to take action, meaning it triggers the body's organs to act in ways that provide what we need to adjust ourselves in a way that relates to our existence or helps us avoid harm. To will is to be inclined to action. The external objects or internal ideas that create this inclination are called motives, as they are the forces or triggers that lead us to act, meaning they activate the body's organs. Thus, voluntary actions are movements of the body driven by changes in the brain. Fruit hanging on a tree, through the use of our visual organs, alters the brain in such a way that it makes the arm want to reach out and pick it; similarly, it changes the brain in another way that prompts the hand to bring it to the mouth.

All the modifications which the interior organ or the brain receives, all the sensations, all the perceptions, all the ideas that are generated by the objects which give impulse to the senses, or which it renews within itself by its own peculiar faculties, are either favourable or prejudicial to man's mode of existence, whether that be transitory or habitual: they dispose the interior organ to action, which it exercises by reason of its own peculiar energy: this action is not, however, the same in all the individuals of the human species, depending much on their respective temperaments. From hence the PASSIONS have their birth: these are more or less violent; they are, however, nothing more than the motion of the will, determined by the objects which give it activity; consequently composed of the analogy or of the discordance which is found between these objects, man's peculiar mode of existence, and the force of his temperament. From this it results, that the passions are modes of existence or modifications of the brain; which either attract or repel those objects by which man is surrounded; that consequently they are submitted in their action to the physical laws of attraction and repulsion.

All the changes that the internal organs or the brain undergo, all the sensations, perceptions, and ideas generated by objects that stimulate the senses, or those that arise within the mind through its unique abilities, either support or hinder a person's way of living, whether that is temporary or permanent. They prepare the internal organs for action, driven by their own unique energy. However, this action varies among individuals in the human species, largely based on their individual temperaments. Thus, PASSIONS are born: they can be more or less intense; however, they are merely the movement of the will, shaped by the objects that energize it. Consequently, they consist of the harmony or discord found between these objects, a person's specific way of living, and the strength of their temperament. As a result, passions are modes of existence or modifications of the brain that either attract or repel the objects around a person, and thus, their actions are subject to the physical laws of attraction and repulsion.

The faculty of perceiving or of being modified, as well by itself as exterior objects which the brain enjoys is sometimes designated by the term understanding. To the assemblage of the various faculties of which this interior organ is susceptible, is applied the name of intelligence. To a determined mode in which the brain exercises the faculties peculiar to itself, is given the appellation of reason. The dispositions or the modifications of the brain, some of them constant, others transitory, which give impulse to the beings of the human species, causing them to act, are styled wit, wisdom, goodness, prudence, virtue, &c.

The ability to perceive or be changed, both by itself and by external objects that the brain processes, is sometimes referred to as understanding. The collection of different abilities that this internal organ can develop is called intelligence. The specific way in which the brain uses its unique abilities is known as reason. The tendencies or changes in the brain, some lasting and others temporary, that drive humans to act are labeled wit, wisdom, goodness, prudence, virtue, etc.

In short, as there will be an opportunity presently to prove, all the intellectual faculties—that is to say, all the modes of action attributed to the soul, may be reduced to the modifications, to the qualities, to the modes of existence, to the changes produced by the motion of the brain; which is visibly in man the seat of feeling, the principle of all his actions. These modifications are to be attributed to the objects that strike on his senses; of which the impression is transmitted to the brain, or rather to the ideas, which the perceptions caused by the action of these objects on his senses have there generated, and which it has the faculty to re-produce. This brain moves itself in its turn, re-acts upon itself, gives play to the organs, which concentrate themselves in it, or which are rather nothing more than an extension of its own peculiar substance. It is thus the concealed motion of the interior organ, renders itself sensible by outward and visible signs. The brain, affected by a modification which is called FEAR, diffuses a paleness over the countenance, excites a tremulous motion in the limbs called trembling. The brain, affected by a sensation of GRIEF, causes tears to flow from the eyes, even without being moved by any exterior object; an idea which it retraces with great strength, suffices to give it very little modifications, which visibly have an influence on the whole frame.

In short, as we will soon have the chance to demonstrate, all the intellectual abilities—meaning all the actions associated with the soul—can be linked to the changes, qualities, and states of existence produced by the brain's activity; which is clearly in humans the center of feeling and the driving force behind all their actions. These changes are related to the objects that engage their senses; the impressions are sent to the brain, or more accurately to the ideas generated by the perceptions triggered by these objects acting on their senses, which the brain can recreate. This brain then moves in response, reacts upon itself, and activates the organs that are focused within it, or which are really just extensions of its own unique substance. Thus, the hidden activity of the internal organ becomes evident through external and visible signs. When the brain experiences a modification known as FEAR, it causes the face to pale and triggers a tremor in the limbs called trembling. When the brain feels GRIEF, it can lead to tears streaming from the eyes, even without an external trigger; a strongly reinforced idea alone can create slight changes that visibly affect the entire body.

In all this, nothing more is to be perceived than the same substance which acts diversely on the various parts of the body. If it be objected that this mechanism does not sufficiently explain the principles of the motion or the faculties of the soul; we reply, that it is in the same situation as all the other bodies of Nature, in which the most simple motion, the most ordinary phenomena, the most common modes of action are inexplicable mysteries, of which we shall never be able to fathom the first principles. Indeed, how can we flatter ourselves we shall ever be enabled to compass the true principle of that gravity by which a stone falls? Are we acquainted with the mechanism which produces attraction in some substances, repulsion in others? Are we in a condition to explain the communication of motion from one body to another? But it may be fairly asked,—Are the difficulties that occur, when attempting to explain the manner in which the soul acts, removed by making it a spiritual being, a substance of which we have not, nor cannot form one idea, which consequently must bewilder all the notions we are capable of forming to ourselves of this being? Let us then be contented to know that the soul moves itself, modifies itself, in consequence of material causes, which act upon it which give it activity: from whence the conclusion may be said to flow consecutively, that all its operations, all its faculties, prove that it is itself material.

In all this, there's nothing more to see than the same substance that behaves differently across various parts of the body. If someone argues that this explanation doesn't adequately clarify the principles of motion or the abilities of the soul, we respond that it's in the same position as all other natural bodies, where even the simplest motion, the most ordinary phenomena, and the most common actions are inexplicable mysteries that we will never fully understand. Indeed, how can we think we will ever grasp the true principle of gravity that causes a stone to fall? Do we understand the mechanism that creates attraction in some substances and repulsion in others? Are we able to explain how motion transfers from one body to another? But it can be fairly asked—Do the challenges we face in explaining how the soul operates disappear if we consider it a spiritual being, a substance of which we have no idea, nor can we ever form one, which ultimately confuses all the concepts we can imagine about this being? So, let us be satisfied to know that the soul moves and modifies itself due to material causes that act upon it and give it activity: from this, we can reasonably conclude that all its operations and faculties demonstrate that it is itself material.










CHAP. IX.

The Diversity of the Intellectual Faculties: they depend on Physical Causes, as do their Moral Qualities.—The Natural Principles of Society.—Morals.—Politics.

The Variety of Intellectual Abilities: they are influenced by Physical Factors, just like their Moral Traits.—The Fundamental Principles of Society.—Morality.—Politics.

Nature is under the necessity of diversifying all her works. Elementary matter, different in its essence, must necessarily form different beings, various in their combinations, in their properties, in their modes of action, in their manner of existence. There is not, neither can there be, two beings, two combinations, which are mathematically and rigorously the same; because the place, the circumstances, the relations; the proportions, the modifications, never being exactly alike, the beings that result can never bear a perfect resemblance to each other: their modes of action must of necessity vary in something, even when we believe we find between them the greatest conformity.

Nature has to diversify all her creations. Basic matter, which is different in its essence, must form different beings, each unique in their combinations, properties, ways of acting, and means of existing. There is no way for two beings or combinations to be mathematically and completely identical; because the setting, circumstances, relationships, proportions, and changes are never exactly the same, the beings that result can never perfectly resemble each other: their ways of acting must vary in some way, even when we think we see the greatest similarity between them.

In consequence of this principle, which every thing we see conspires to prove to be a truth, there are not two individuals of the human species who have precisely the same traits—who think exactly in the same manner—who view things under the same identical point of sight—who have decidedly the same ideas; consequently no two of them have uniformly the same system of conduct. The visible organs of man, as well as his concealed organs, have indeed some analogy, some common points of resemblance, some general conformity; which makes them appear, when viewed in the gross, to be affected in the same manner by certain causes: but the difference is infinite in the detail. The human soul may be compared to those instruments, of which the chords, already diversified in themselves, by the manner in which they have been spun, are also strung upon different notes: struck by the same impulse, each chord gives forth the sound that is peculiar to itself; that is to say, that which depends on its texture, its tension, its volume, on the momentary state in which it is placed by the circumambient air. It is this that produces the diversified spectacle, the varied scene, which the moral world offers to our view: it is from this that results the striking contrariety that is to be found in the minds, in the faculties, in the passions, in the energies, in the taste, in the imagination, in the ideas, in the opinions of man. This diversity is as great as that of his physical powers: like them it depends on his temperament, which is as much varied as his physiognomy. This variety gives birth to that continual series of action and reaction, which constitutes the life of the moral world: from this discordance results the harmony which at once maintains and preserves the human race.

As a result of this principle, which everything around us seems to confirm as true, no two people are exactly alike—no one thinks in the same way, sees things from the exact same perspective, or has the same ideas; therefore, no two individuals have a consistently identical way of behaving. The visible and hidden parts of humans do share some similarities, some common features, and some general resemblances; this makes it seem, at first glance, that they are affected similarly by certain causes. However, the differences are vast when you look closely. The human soul can be compared to instruments whose strings, already unique in themselves due to how they were made, are also tuned to different notes: when struck by the same force, each string produces a sound that is distinctive to it, depending on its material, tension, size, and the current state created by the surrounding air. This results in the varied spectacle and scenes presented to us in the moral world: it is from this that we see the striking contrasts found in people’s minds, abilities, passions, energies, tastes, imaginations, ideas, and opinions. This diversity is as significant as the variations in physical abilities: like them, it depends on individual temperament, which is just as diverse as physical appearance. This variety leads to the ongoing cycle of action and reaction that creates the essence of moral life: from this discord, harmony emerges, sustaining and preserving humanity.

The diversity found among the individuals of the human species, causes inequalities between man and man: this inequality constitutes the support of society. If all men were equal in their bodily powers, in their mental talents, they would not have any occasion for each other: it is the variation of his faculties, the inequality which this places him in, with regard to his fellows, that renders morals necessary to man: without these, he would live by himself, he would remain an isolated being. From whence it may be perceived, that this inequality of which man so often complains without cause—this impossibility which each man finds when in an isolated state, when left to himself, when unassociated with his fellow men, to labour efficaciously to his own welfare, to make his own security, to ensure his own conservation; places him in the happy situation of associating with his like, of depending on his fellow associates, of meriting their succour, of propitiating them to his views, of attracting their regard, of calling in their aid to chase away, by common and united efforts, that which would have the power to trouble or derange the order of his existence. In consequence of man's diversity, of the inequality that results, the weaker is obliged to seek the protection of the stronger; this, in his turn, recurs to the understanding, to the talents, to the industry of the weaker, whenever his judgment points out he can be useful to him: this natural inequality furnishes the reason why nations distinguish those citizens who have rendered their country eminent services. It is in consequence of his exigencies that man honors and recompenses those whose understanding, good deeds, assistance, or virtues, have procured for him real or supposed advantages, pleasures, or agreeable sensations of any sort: it is by this means that genius gains an ascendancy over the mind of man, and obliges a whole people to acknowledge its powers. Thus, the diversity and inequality of the faculties, as well corporeal as mental or intellectual, renders man necessary to his fellow man, makes him a social being, and incontestibly proves to him the necessity of morals.

The diversity among people causes inequalities between individuals, and this inequality supports society. If everyone were equal in physical abilities and mental talents, they wouldn’t need each other. It’s the variation in individual skills and the resulting inequality that makes morals necessary for humans. Without them, a person would live in isolation. This shows that the inequality humans often complain about is not without reason; when anyone is left alone, without the help of others, they struggle to achieve their own well-being, security, or survival. This situation encourages connections with others, reliance on peers, earning their support, winning their favor, attracting their attention, and calling for their assistance to collectively tackle challenges that could disrupt their lives. Because of human diversity and the resulting inequality, the weaker seek protection from the stronger, who in turn rely on the intelligence, talents, and efforts of the weaker when it benefits them. This natural inequality explains why nations honor citizens who have provided significant service to their country. People recognize and reward those whose intellect, good deeds, help, or virtues have brought them real or perceived benefits, joy, or satisfaction. This is how brilliance establishes influence over people's minds and compels society to acknowledge its power. Therefore, the diversity and inequality of both physical and mental abilities make humans necessary to one another, shape them into social beings, and clearly demonstrate the need for morals.

According to this diversity of faculties, the individuals of the human species are divided into different classes, each in proportion to the effects produced, or the different qualities that may be remarked: all these varieties in man flow from the individual properties of his soul, or from the particular modification of his brain. It is thus, that wit, imagination, sensibility, talents, &c. diversify to infinity the differences that are to be found in man. It is thus, that some are called good, others wicked; some are denominated virtuous, others vicious; some are ranked as learned, others as ignorant; some are considered reasonable, others unreasonable, &c.

Based on this range of abilities, people are categorized into different groups, each reflecting the effects they produce or the distinct qualities that can be observed. All these variations in humanity come from the unique traits of an individual's soul or the specific ways their brain is organized. This is how qualities like wit, imagination, sensitivity, and talents create endless differences among people. Some are seen as good, while others are viewed as wicked; some are labeled virtuous, while others are called vicious; some are recognized as knowledgeable, while others are seen as ignorant; some are considered reasonable, while others are deemed unreasonable, and so on.

If all the various faculties attributed to the soul are examined, it will be found that like those of the body they are to be ascribed to physical causes, to which it will be very easy to recur. It will be found that the powers of the soul are the same as those of the body; that they always depend on the organization of this body, on its peculiar properties, on the permanent or transitory modifications that it undergoes; in a word, on its temperament.

If we look closely at all the different abilities assigned to the soul, we'll see that, similar to the body, they can be traced back to physical causes, which will be easy to revisit. The strengths of the soul are the same as those of the body; they always depend on how this body is organized, its unique characteristics, and the lasting or temporary changes it goes through; in short, on its temperament.

Temperament is, in each individual, the habitual state in which he finds the fluids and the solids of which his body is composed. This temperament varies, by reason of the elements or matter that predominate in him, in consequence of the different combinations, of the various modifications, which this matter, diversified in itself, undergoes in his machine. Thus, in one, the blood is superabundant; in another, the bile; in a third, phlegm, &c.

Temperament is, for each individual, the usual condition of the fluids and solids that make up their body. This temperament changes based on which elements or substances are dominant within them, resulting from the different combinations and variations that these substances, which are distinct in their own right, experience within their system. So, in one person, there may be an excess of blood; in another, an excess of bile; in yet another, phlegm, etc.

It is from Nature—from his parents—from causes, which from the first moment of his existence have unceasingly modified him, that man derives his temperament. It is in his mother's womb that he has attracted the matter which, during his whole life, shall have an influence on his intellectual faculties—on his energies—on his passions—on his conduct. The very nourishment he takes, the quality of the air he respires, the climate he inhabits, the education he receives, the ideas that are presented to him, the opinions he imbibes, modify this temperament. As these circumstances can never be rigorously the same in every point for any two men, it is by no means surprising that such an amazing variety, so great a contrariety, should be found in man; or that there should exist as many different temperaments, as there are individuals in the human species.

It’s from nature—from his parents—from factors that have continuously shaped him since the very moment he was born, that a person gets his temperament. It’s in his mother’s womb that he attracts the elements that will influence his intellectual abilities, his energy, his passions, and his behavior throughout his life. The food he eats, the quality of the air he breathes, the climate he lives in, the education he gets, the ideas that are presented to him, and the opinions he absorbs all change this temperament. Since these conditions can never be exactly the same for any two people, it’s not surprising that there’s such an incredible variety and contradiction found among humans; or that there are as many different temperaments as there are individuals in the human race.

Thus, although man may bear a general resemblance, he differs essentially, as well by the texture of his fibres and the disposition of his nerves, as by the nature, the quality, the quantity of matter that gives them play, that sets his organs in motion. Man, already different from his fellow, by the elasticity of his fibres, the tension of his nerves, becomes still more distinguished by a variety of other circumstances: he is more active, more robust, when he receives nourishing aliments, when he drinks wine, when he takes exercise: whilst another, who drinks nothing but water, who takes less juicy nourishment, who languishes in idleness, shall be sluggish and feeble.

So, while people may look somewhat alike, they differ fundamentally, both in the structure of their fibers and how their nerves are arranged, as well as in the type, quality, and amount of matter that makes them function and moves their organs. A person, already set apart from others by the flexibility of their fibers and the tension of their nerves, becomes even more unique due to a variety of other factors: they are more energetic and stronger when they consume nutritious food, drink wine, and stay active. In contrast, another person who only drinks water, eats less nourishing food, and sits around will be slow and weak.

All these causes have necessarily an influence on the mind, on the passions, on the will; in a word, on what are called the intellectual faculties. Thus, it may be observed, that a man of a sanguine constitution, is commonly lively, ingenious, full of imagination, passionate, voluptuous, enterprising; whilst the phlegmatic man is dull, of a heavy understanding, slow of conception, inactive, difficult to be moved, pusillanimous, without imagination, or possessing it in a less lively degree, incapable of taking any strong measures, or of willing resolutely.

All these factors definitely impact the mind, emotions, and will; in other words, they affect what we refer to as intellectual faculties. For example, a person with a sanguine temperament is usually lively, creative, full of imagination, passionate, indulgent, and adventurous, while a phlegmatic person tends to be dull, slow to understand, inactive, hard to motivate, timid, lacking imagination, or having it to a much lesser extent, and is incapable of taking decisive actions or making strong choices.

If experience was consulted, in the room of prejudice, the physician would collect from morals, the key to the human heart: in curing the body, he would sometimes be assured of curing the mind. Man, in making a spiritual substance of his soul, has contented himself with administering to it spiritual remedies, which either have no influence over his temperament, or do it an injury. The doctrine of the spirituality of the soul has rendered morals a conjectural science, that does not furnish a knowledge of the true motives which ought to be put in activity, in order to influence man to his welfare. If, calling experience to his assistance, man sought out the elements which form the basis of his temperament, or of the greater number of the individuals composing a nation, he would then discover what would be most proper for him,—that which could be most convenient to his mode of existence—which could most conduce to his true interest—what laws would be necessary to his happiness—what institutions would be most useful for him—what regulations would be most beneficial. In short, morals and politics would be equally enabled to draw from materialism, advantages which the dogma of spirituality can never supply, of which it even precludes the idea. Man will ever remain a mystery, to those who shall obstinately persist in viewing him with eyes prepossessed by metaphysics; he will always be an enigma to those who shall pertinaciously attribute his actions to a principle, of which it is impossible to form to themselves any distinct idea. When man shall be seriously inclined to understand himself, let him sedulously endeavour to discover the matter that enters into his combination, which constitutes his temperament; these discoveries will furnish him with the clue to the nature of his desires, to the quality of his passions, to the bent of his inclinations—will enable him to foresee his conduct on given occasions—will indicate the remedies that may be successfully employed to correct the defects of a vicious organization, of a temperament, as injurious to himself as to the society of which he is a member.

If we consider experience, in the realm of bias, the doctor would gather insights from ethics, revealing the keys to understanding the human heart. In treating the body, he might also be sure of healing the mind. Humans, in developing a spiritual concept of their souls, often settle for spiritual solutions that either don't affect their temperament or harm it. The belief in the spirituality of the soul has turned morals into an uncertain science that fails to provide true insight into the motivations that should be activated to lead people toward their well-being. If people, with experience as their guide, explored the components that shape their temperament or that of most individuals in a nation, they would discover what is most suitable for them—what aligns with their way of living—what truly benefits their interests—what laws are essential for their happiness—what institutions would be most advantageous for them—and what regulations would be most helpful. In short, both ethics and politics would find benefits in materialism that the belief in spirituality cannot offer and that even discourages the idea of. People will always remain a mystery to those who stubbornly insist on seeing them through a metaphysical lens; they'll be an enigma to those who tenaciously attribute their actions to a principle they can’t clearly define. When individuals genuinely seek to understand themselves, they should diligently work to uncover the components that form their temperament; these findings will provide them with insights into their desires, the nature of their passions, and the direction of their inclinations—allowing them to predict their behavior in various situations—identifying remedies that can effectively address the flaws of a harmful nature, which is detrimental both to themselves and to the society they belong to.

Indeed, it is not to be doubted that man's temperament is capable of being corrected, of being modified, of being changed, by causes as physical as the matter of which it is constituted. We are all in some measure capable of forming our own temperament: a man of a sanguine constitution, by taking less juicy nourishment, by abating its quantity, by abstaining from strong liquor, &c. may achieve the correction of the nature, the quality, the quantity, the tendency, the motion of the fluids, which predominate in his machine. A bilious man, or one who is melancholy, may, by the aid of certain remedies, diminish the mass of this bilious fluid; he may correct the blemish of his humours, by the assistance of exercise; he may dissipate his gloom, by the gaiety which results from increased motion. An European transplanted into Hindostan, will, by degrees, become quite a different man in his humours, in his ideas, in his temperament, in his character.

Indeed, there's no doubt that a person's temperament can be adjusted, modified, or changed by physical factors, including the very substances that make up their body. We all have the ability to shape our own temperament to some extent: a person with a sanguine temperament can manage this by eating less rich food, reducing portion sizes, avoiding strong alcohol, etc., which can help correct the nature, quality, quantity, and movement of the fluids dominating their system. A person who is bilious or melancholic can, with certain remedies, reduce the amount of this bilious fluid; they can improve their mood through exercise; they can lift their spirits with the joy that comes from increased activity. An European who moves to Hindostan will gradually become a very different person in terms of their temperament, ideas, and character.

Although but few experiments have been made with a view to learn what constitutes the temperament of man, there are still enough if he would but deign to make use of them—if he would vouchsafe to apply to useful purposes the little experience he has gleaned. It would appear, speaking generally, that the igneous principle which chemists designate under the name of phlogiston, or inflammable matter, is that which in man yields him the most active life, furnishes him with the greatest energy, affords the greatest mobility to his frame, supplies the greatest spring to his organs, gives the greatest elasticity to his fibres, the greatest tension to his nerves, the greatest rapidity to his fluids. From these causes, which are entirely material, commonly result the dispositions or faculties called sensibility, wit, imagination, genius, vivacity, &c. which give the tone to the passions, to the will, to the moral actions of man. In this sense, it is with great justice we apply the expressions, 'warmth of soul,' 'ardency of imagination,' 'fire of genius,' &c.

Although not many experiments have been conducted to understand what makes up human temperament, there are still enough if we would just take the time to use them—if we would be willing to apply the little experience we have gained to practical purposes. Generally speaking, it seems that the fiery principle which chemists refer to as phlogiston, or inflammable matter, is what gives humans the most active life, provides the greatest energy, allows for the most movement in our bodies, supplies the greatest drive to our organs, gives the most flexibility to our fibers, the most tension to our nerves, and the fastest flow to our fluids. From these purely physical factors typically arise the traits or abilities known as sensibility, wit, imagination, genius, liveliness, etc., which influence our passions, will, and moral actions. In this way, it is very appropriate for us to use expressions like 'warmth of soul,' 'ardency of imagination,' 'fire of genius,' etc.

It is this fiery element, diffused unequally, distributed in various proportions through the beings of the human species, that sets man in motion, gives him activity, supplies him with animal heat, and which, if we may be allowed the expression, renders him more or less alive. This igneous matter, so active, so subtle, dissipates itself with great facility, then requires to be reinstated in his system by means of aliments that contain it, which thereby become proper to restore his machine, to lend new warmth to the brain, to furnish it with the elasticity requisite to the performance of those functions which are called intellectual. It is this ardent matter contained in wine, in strong liquor, that gives to the most torpid, to the dullest, to the most sluggish man, a vivacity of which, without it, he would be incapable—which urges even the coward on to battle. When this fiery element is too abundant in man, whilst he is labouring under certain diseases, it plunges him into delirium; when it is in too weak or in too small a quantity, he swoons, he sinks to the earth. This igneous matter diminishes in his old age—it totally dissipates at his death. It would not be unreasonable to suppose, that what physicians call the nervous fluid, which so promptly gives notice to the brain of all that happens to the body, is nothing more than electric matter; that the various proportions of this matter diffused through his system, is the cause of that great diversity to be discovered in the human being, and in the faculties he possesses.

It’s this fiery element, unevenly spread and found in different amounts throughout humanity, that gets people moving, gives them energy, provides body heat, and, if we can put it that way, makes them more or less alive. This active, subtle matter dissipates easily and needs to be replenished in the body through food that contains it, which helps restore the system, gives new warmth to the brain, and provides the necessary elasticity to perform what we call intellectual functions. It’s this intense substance in wine and strong drinks that brings even the most lethargic, dull, and lazy person to life — something they couldn’t do without it — and pushes even cowards to fight. When this fiery element is too abundant in someone, especially if they're suffering from certain diseases, it can cause delirium; when it’s too weak or in very small amounts, they faint and collapse. This fiery matter decreases in old age and completely disappears with death. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that what doctors refer to as the nervous fluid, which quickly alerts the brain about everything happening in the body, is simply electric matter; that the varying amounts of this matter dispersed throughout the body are what lead to the great diversity seen in humans and their abilities.

If the intellectual faculties of man, or his moral qualities, be examined according to the principles here laid down, the conviction must be complete that they are to be attributed to material causes, which have an influence more or less marked, either transitory or durable, over his peculiar organization. But where does he derive this organization, except it be from the parents from whom he receives the elements of a machine necessarily analogous to their own? From whence does he derive the greater or less quantity of igneous matter, or vivifying heat, that decides upon, that gives the tone to his mental qualities? It is from the mother who bore him in her womb, who has communicated to him a portion of that fire with which she was herself animated, which circulated through her veins with her blood;—it is from the aliments that have nourished him,—it is from the climate he inhabits,—it is from the atmosphere that surrounds: all these causes have an influence over his fluids, over his solids, and decide on his natural dispositions. In examining these dispositions, from whence his faculties depend, it will ever be found, that they are corporeal, that they are material.

If we look at human intellect and moral qualities based on the principles presented here, it becomes clear that they stem from material causes, which have varying degrees of influence, whether temporary or lasting, on his unique make-up. But where does this make-up come from, other than from the parents who provide the basic elements of a machine similar to their own? From where does he gain the varying amounts of fiery substance or life-giving heat that shape his mental qualities? It comes from the mother who carried him in her womb, who shared a part of the fire that fueled her own spirit, which flowed through her veins with her blood; it comes from the food that nourished him; it comes from the climate he lives in; it comes from the atmosphere around him. All these factors influence his bodily fluids and solids, determining his natural tendencies. When we examine these tendencies that his faculties depend on, it will always be found that they are corporeal, that they are material.

The most prominent of these dispositions in man, is that physical sensibility from which flows all his intellectual or moral qualities. To feel, according to what has been said, is to receive an impulse, to be moved, to have a consciousness of the changes operated on his system. To have sensibility is nothing more than to be so constituted as to feel promptly, and in a very lively manner, the impressions of those objects which act upon him. A sensible soul is only man's brain, disposed in a mode to receive the motion communicated to it with facility, to re-act with promptness, by giving an instantaneous impulse to the organs. Thus the man is called sensible, whom the sight of the distressed, the contemplation of the unhappy, the recital of a melancholy tale, the witnessing of an afflicting catastrophe, or the idea of a dreadful spectacle, touches in so lively a manner as to enable the brain to give play to his lachrymal organs, which cause him to shed tears; a sign by which we recognize the effect of great grief, of extreme anguish in the human being. The man in whom musical sounds excite a degree of pleasure, or produce very remarkable effects, is said to have a sensible or a fine ear. In short, when it is perceived that eloquence—the beauty of the arts—the various objects that strike his senses, excite in him very lively emotions, he is said to possess a soul full of sensibility.

The most notable trait in humans is their physical sensitivity, which is the source of all their intellectual and moral qualities. To feel, as mentioned, means to receive an impulse, to be moved, and to recognize the changes taking place in one’s system. Having sensitivity simply means being built in such a way that one can quickly and intensely respond to the impressions from the surrounding objects. A sensitive soul is just a person’s brain, arranged to easily receive and react to the motions communicated to it, instantly triggering responses in the body. Thus, a person is called sensitive when they are deeply affected by the sight of those in distress, the contemplation of the unfortunate, the telling of a sad story, the witnessing of a tragic event, or the idea of something horrifying, to the point where their brain prompts their tear ducts to produce tears; this is a sign of profound sorrow and anguish in a person. Someone who feels pleasure or is notably affected by musical sounds is said to have a sensible or fine ear. In summary, when it is observed that eloquence—the beauty of the arts—the various sensory experiences evoke strong emotions in someone, they are said to have a soul filled with sensitivity.

Wit, is a consequence of this physical sensibility; indeed, wit is nothing more than the facility which some beings, of the human species possess, of seizing with promptitude, of developing with quickness, a whole, with its different relations to other objects. Genius, is the facility with which some men comprehend this whole, and its various relations when they are difficult to be known, but useful to forward great and mighty projects. Wit may be compared to a piercing eye which perceives things quickly. Genius is an eye that comprehends at one view, all the points of an extended horizon: or what the French term coup d'oeil. True wit is that which perceives objects with their relations such as they really are. False wit is that which catches at relations, which do not apply to the object, or which arises from some blemish in the organization. True wit resembles the direction on a hand-post.

Wit is a result of this physical sensitivity; in fact, wit is just the ability some people have to quickly grasp and rapidly develop a complete picture along with its different connections to other things. Genius is the ability some individuals have to understand this whole and its various relationships when they are hard to recognize but crucial for advancing significant and powerful projects. Wit can be likened to a sharp eye that notices things quickly. Genius is like an eye that can see all the details at once across a wide landscape, or what the French call coup d'oeil. True wit is the ability to perceive objects with their actual relationships as they really are. False wit is when someone focuses on connections that don’t apply to the object or arises from some flaw in the understanding. True wit is similar to the direction provided on a signpost.

Imagination is the faculty of combining with promptitude ideas or images; it consists in the power man possesses of re-producing with ease the modifications of his brain: of connecting them, of attaching them to the objects to which they are suitable. When imagination does this, it gives pleasure; its fictions are approved, it embellishes Nature, it is a proof of the soundness of the mind, it aids truth: when on the contrary, it combines ideas, not formed to associate themselves with each other—when it paints nothing but disagreeable phantoms, it disgusts, its fictions are censured, it distorts Nature, it advocates falsehood, it is the proof of a disordered, of a deranged mind: thus poetry, calculated to render Nature more pathetic, more touching, pleases when it creates ideal beings, but which move us agreeably: we, therefore, forgive the illusions it has held forth, on account of the pleasure we have reaped from them. The hideous chimeras of superstition displease, because they are nothing more than the productions of a distempered imagination, that can only awaken the most afflicting sensations, fills us with the most disagreeable ideas.

Imagination is the ability to quickly combine ideas or images; it's the power we have to easily recreate the thoughts in our minds: to connect them and link them to the things they relate to. When imagination does this well, it brings joy; its creations are welcomed, it enhances Nature, it shows a healthy mind, and it supports truth. On the other hand, when it mixes ideas that shouldn't go together—when it creates nothing but unpleasant visions—it causes discomfort, its creations are criticized, it distorts Nature, it promotes falsehood, and it reflects a disorganized, troubled mind. Thus, poetry, which aims to make Nature more emotional and poignant, is enjoyable when it creates ideal beings that resonate with us positively. We forgive the deceptions it presents because of the pleasure they bring. The awful monsters of superstition are disturbing because they are just the products of a sick imagination, stirring up the most painful feelings and filling us with the most unpleasant thoughts.

Imagination, when it wanders, produces fanaticism, superstitious terrors, inconsiderate zeal, phrenzy, and the most enormous crimes: when it is well regulated, it gives birth to a strong predilection for useful objects, an energetic passion for virtue, an enthusiastic love of our country, and the most ardent friendship: the man who is divested of imagination, is commonly one in whose torpid constitution phlegm predominates over the igneous fluid, over that sacred fire, which is the great principle of his mobility, of that warmth of sentiment, which vivifies all his intellectual faculties. There must be enthusiasm for transcendent virtues as well as for atrocious crimes; enthusiasm places the soul in a state similar to that of drunkenness; both the one and the other excite in man that rapidity of motion which is approved, when good results, when its effects are beneficial; but which is censured, is called folly, delirium, crime, fury; when it produces nothing but disorder and confusion.

When imagination wanders, it can lead to fanaticism, superstitious fears, reckless zeal, frenzy, and terrible crimes. However, when it's well-regulated, it fosters a strong inclination for useful pursuits, a passionate commitment to virtue, a deep love for our country, and sincere friendships. A person lacking imagination is often someone whose dull nature has coldness overpowering the fiery spirit, the essential force that drives them and ignites their feelings, enlivening all their intellectual abilities. There needs to be enthusiasm for both great virtues and horrific crimes; enthusiasm puts the soul in a state similar to drunkenness. Both can provoke a quickened pace in people that is admired when it leads to good outcomes but is condemned as foolishness, madness, crime, or rage when it results in chaos and disorder.

The mind is out of order, it is incapable of judging sanely—the imagination is badly regulated, whenever man's organization is not so modified, as to perform its functions with precision. At each moment of his existence, man gathers experience; every sensation he has, furnishes a fact that deposits in his brain an idea which his memory recalls with more or less fidelity: these facts connect themselves, these ideas are associated; their chain constitutes experience; this lays the foundation of science. Knowledge is that consciousness which arises from reiterated experience—from experiments made with precision of the sensations, of the ideas, of the effects which an object is capable of producing, either in ourselves or in others. All science, to be just, must be founded on truth. Truth itself rests on the constant, the faithful relation of our senses. Thus, truth is that conformity, that perpetual affinity, which man's senses, when well constituted, when aided by experience, discover to him, between the objects of which he has a knowledge, and the qualities with which he clothes them. In short, truth is nothing more than the just, the precise association of his ideas. But how can he, without experience, assure himself of the accuracy, of the justness of this association? How, if he does not reiterate this experience, can he compare it? how prove its truth? If his senses are vitiated, how is it possible they can convey to him with precision, the sensations, the facts, with which they store his brain? It is only by multiplied, by diversified, by repeated experience, that he is enabled to rectify the errors of his first conceptions.

The mind is out of whack; it can't judge clearly. The imagination is poorly regulated whenever a person's system isn't adjusted to function correctly. At every moment of his life, a person gathers experiences; every sensation provides a fact that stores an idea in his brain, which his memory recalls with varying accuracy. These facts connect, and these ideas associate; their chain makes up experience; this lays the groundwork for science. Knowledge is the awareness that comes from repeated experience—experiments done precisely with sensations, ideas, and the effects an object can produce, either in ourselves or in others. All science must be based on truth to be valid. Truth itself relies on the consistent, accurate relationship of our senses. Thus, truth is the alignment, the continual connection that a person’s well-functioning senses, when supported by experience, reveal between the things he knows and the qualities he ascribes to them. In short, truth is simply the correct, precise association of his ideas. But how can he, without experience, trust the accuracy of this association? How can he compare or prove its truth if he doesn't repeat the experience? If his senses are flawed, how can they accurately convey the sensations and facts that fill his mind? It is only through diverse, repeated experiences that he can correct the mistakes of his initial perceptions.

Man is in error every time his organs, either originally defective in their nature, or vitiated by the durable or transitory modifications which they undergo, render him incapable of judging soundly of objects. Error consists in the false association of ideas, by which qualities are attributed to objects which they do not possess. Man is in error, when he supposes those beings really to have existence, which have no local habitation but in his own imagination: he is in error, when he associates the idea of happiness with objects capable of injuring him, whether immediately or by remote consequences which he cannot foresee.

A person is mistaken whenever their senses, whether flawed from the start or negatively affected by long-lasting or temporary changes, prevent them from accurately judging things. Mistakes happen when ideas are wrongly linked, leading to qualities being assigned to objects that they don’t actually have. A person is mistaken when they believe that certain beings actually exist when they only exist in their imagination: they are mistaken when they connect the idea of happiness with things that can harm them, either directly or through unforeseen consequences.

But how can he foresee effects of which he has not yet any knowledge? It is by the aid of experience: by the assistance which this experience affords, it is known that analogous, that like causes, produce analogous, produce like effects. Memory, by recalling these effects, enables him to form a judgment of those he may expect, whether it be from the same causes, or from causes that bear a relation to those of which he has already experienced the action. From this it will appear, that prudence, foresight, are faculties that are ascribable to, that grow out of experience. If he has felt that fire excited in his organs painful sensation, this experience suffices him to know, to foresee, that fire so applied, will consequently excite the same sensations. If he has discovered that certain actions, on his part, stirred up the hatred, elicited the contempt of others, this experience sufficiently enables him to foresee, that every time he shall act in a similar manner, he will be either hated or despised.

But how can he predict outcomes that he doesn’t yet understand? It’s through experience: this experience shows that similar causes lead to similar effects. Memory, by bringing these effects to mind, helps him judge what to expect, whether it comes from the same causes or from ones related to those he has already dealt with. This shows that prudence and foresight are abilities that come from experience. If he has felt a painful sensation from fire, this experience is enough for him to know and anticipate that fire will cause the same sensations again. If he has found that certain actions make others hate or look down on him, this experience is enough for him to expect that every time he acts similarly, he will be either hated or despised.

The faculty man has of gathering experience, of recalling it to himself, of foreseeing effects by which he is enabled to avoid whatever may have the power to injure him, to procure that which may be useful to the conservation of his existence, which may contribute to that which is the sole end of all his actions, whether corporeal or mental,—his felicity—constitutes that, which, in one word, is designated under the name of Reason. Sentiment, imagination, temperament, may be capable of leading him astray—may have the power to deceive him; but experience and reflection will rectify his errors, point out his mistakes, place him in the right road, teach him what can really conduce to, what can truly conduct him to happiness. From this, it will appear, that reason is man's nature, modified by experience, moulded by judgment, regulated by reflection: it supposes a moderate, sober temperament; a just, a sound mind; a well-regulated, orderly imagination; a knowledge of truth, grounded upon tried, upon reiterated experience; in fact, prudence and foresight: this will serve to prove, that although nothing is more commonly asserted, although the phrase is repeated daily, nay, hourly, that man is a reasonable being, yet there are but a very small number of the individuals who compose the human species, of whom it can with truth be said; who really enjoy the faculty of reason, or who combine the dispositions, the experience, by which it is constituted. It ought not, then to excite surprise, that the individuals of the human race, who are in a capacity to make true experience, are so few in number. Man, when he is born, brings with him into the world organs susceptible of receiving impulse, amassing ideas, of collecting experience; but whether it be from the vice of his system, the imperfection of his organization, or from those causes by which it is modified, his experience is false, his ideas are confused, his images are badly associated, his judgment is erroneous, his brain is saturated with vicious, with wicked systems, which necessarily have an influence over his conduct, which are continually disturbing his mind, and confounding his reason.

The ability to gather experience, reflect on it, and anticipate outcomes allows a person to avoid harm and seek what is beneficial for their survival, ultimately contributing to their happiness—this is what we call Reason. While feelings, imagination, and temperament can lead someone astray and deceive them, experience and reflection can correct those mistakes, guide them along the right path, and teach them what truly leads to happiness. Thus, it’s clear that reason is part of human nature, shaped by experience, molded by judgment, and controlled by reflection. It requires a balanced and sensible temperament, a fair and sound mind, an orderly imagination, and a knowledge of truth based on tested experience—essentially, it involves prudence and foresight. This shows that, despite the common claim that man is a reasonable being, very few individuals can truly be said to possess real reason or the qualities and experiences that support it. It's not surprising, then, that there are so few people who can make genuine experiences. When a person is born, they come into the world with the potential to sense, gather ideas, and collect experiences, but due to flaws in their system, the imperfections of their organization, or the influences that shape them, their experiences are often misguided, their ideas are muddled, their images poorly connected, their judgments are flawed, and their minds can be filled with harmful beliefs that disrupt their thinking and confuse their reasoning.

Man's senses, as it has been shewn, are the only means by which he is enabled to ascertain whether his opinions are true or false, whether his conduct is useful to himself and beneficial to others, whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous. But that his senses may be competent to make a faithful relation—that they may be in a capacity to impress true ideas on his brain, it is requisite they should be sound; that is to say, in the state necessary to maintain his existence; in that order which is suitable to his preservation—that condition which is calculated to ensure his permanent felicity. It is also indispensable that his brain itself should be healthy, or in the proper circumstances to enable it to fulfil its functions with precision, to exercise its faculties with vigour. It is necessary that memory should faithfully delineate its anterior sensations, should accurately retrace its former ideas; to the end, that he may be competent to judge, to foresee the effects he may have to hope, the consequences he may have to fear, from those actions to which he may be determined by his will. If his organic system be vicious, if his interior or exterior organs be defective, whether by their natural conformation or from those causes by which they are regulated, he feels but imperfectly—in a manner less distinct than is requisite; his ideas are either false or suspicious, he judges badly, he is in a delusion, in a state of ebriety, in a sort of intoxication that prevents his grasping the true relation of things. In short, if his memory is faulty, if it is treacherous, his reflection is void, his imagination leads him astray, his mind deceives him, whilst the sensibility of his organs, simultaneously assailed by a crowd of impressions, shocked by a variety of impulsions, oppose him to prudence, to foresight, to the exercise of his reason. On the other hand, if the conformation of his organs, as it happens with those of a phlegmatic temperament, of a dull habit, does not permit him to move, except with feebleness, in a sluggish manner, his experience is slow, frequently unprofitable. The tortoise and the butterfly are alike incapable of preventing their destruction. The stupid man, equally with him who is intoxicated, are in that state which renders it impossible for them to arrive at or attain the end they have in view.

A person's senses, as has been shown, are the only way they can figure out whether their opinions are true or false, whether their actions are beneficial to themselves and others, and whether they are advantageous or disadvantageous. However, for their senses to reliably provide accurate information—so they can create true ideas in the mind—it’s essential that they are functioning properly; meaning, they must be in a state that supports their survival and is conducive to their well-being. It’s also crucial that their brain is healthy or in the right conditions to perform its functions accurately and with energy. Memory needs to clearly recall past sensations and correctly retrace former ideas so that they can judge effectively, anticipate hopeful outcomes, and understand the consequences they might fear from the actions driven by their will. If their body is impaired, if their internal or external organs are defective, due to their natural structure or any other regulating factors, they experience things imperfectly—less clearly than necessary; their ideas may be false or questionable, their judgment may be poor, putting them in a state of confusion, akin to intoxication, that hinders their ability to grasp reality. In summary, if their memory is flawed or unreliable, their thoughts are empty, their imagination misleads them, and their mind deceives them, while the sensitivity of their organs, bombarded by numerous impressions and overwhelmed by various impulses, hinders their ability to be prudent, to foresee consequences, and to use reason. Conversely, if the structure of their organs—like those with a sluggish nature—limits their ability to act, they move only weakly and their experiences are often slow and unproductive. Just like a tortoise and a butterfly cannot avoid their destruction, a foolish person, much like someone who is intoxicated, is in a state that makes it impossible for them to reach their goals.

But what is the end? What is the aim of man in the sphere he occupies? It is to preserve himself; to render his existence happy. It becomes then of the utmost importance, that he should understand the true means which reason points out, which prudence teaches him to use, in order that he may with certainty, that he may constantly arrive at the end which he proposes to himself. These he will find are his natural faculties—his mind—his talents—his industry—his actions, determined by those passions of which his nature renders him susceptible, which give more or less activity to his will. Experience and reason again shew him, that the men with whom he is associated are necessary to him, are capable of contributing to his happiness, are in a capacity to administer to his pleasures, are competent to assist him by those faculties which are peculiar to them; experience teaches him the mode he must adopt to induce them to concur in his designs, to determine them to will and incline them to act in his favour. This points out to him the actions they approve—those which displease them—the conduct which attracts them—that which repels them—the judgment by which they are swayed—the advantages that occur—the prejudicial effects that result to him from their various modes of existence and from their diverse manner of acting. This experience furnishes him with the ideas of virtue and of vice, of justice and of injustice, of goodness and of wickedness, of decency and of indecency, of probity and of knavery: In short, he learns to form a judgment of men—to estimate their actions—to distinguish the various sentiments excited in them, according to the diversity of those effects which they make him experience. It is upon the necessary diversity of these effects that is founded the discrimination between good and evil—between virtue and vice; distinctions which do not rest, as some thinkers have believed, on the conventions made between men; still less, as some metaphysicians have asserted, upon the chimerical will of supernatural beings: but upon the solid, the invariable, the eternal relations that subsist between beings of the human species congregated together, and living in society: which relations will have existence as long as man shall remain, as long as society shall continue to exist.

But what is the end goal? What is the purpose of a person in the world they live in? It is to take care of themselves and make their life enjoyable. It's crucial for them to understand the real methods that reason suggests and what wisdom teaches them to use, so they can reliably and consistently achieve their personal goals. These methods include their natural abilities— their intellect— their skills— their hard work— their actions, shaped by the passions their nature makes them sensitive to, which drive their will to act. Experience and reason further show them that the people they interact with are essential to them, able to contribute to their happiness, provide pleasure, and assist them with their own unique abilities. Experience also teaches them how to get these people to support their plans, motivate them to want to help, and guide them to act in their favor. This reveals to them the actions that others approve of, those they find displeasing, the behavior that attracts them, and that which pushes them away, the reasoning their decisions are based on, the benefits that come up, and the harmful effects arising from others' different ways of living and acting. This experience gives them an understanding of virtue and vice, justice and injustice, goodness and evil, decency and indecency, integrity and dishonesty. In short, they learn to judge people, evaluate their actions, and recognize the different feelings those actions evoke in them based on the variety of outcomes they experience. The necessary differences in these outcomes form the basis for distinguishing between good and evil—between virtue and vice; distinctions that do not rely, as some have thought, on the agreements made between people; nor, as some philosophers have claimed, on the imaginary will of supernatural beings: but on the solid, consistent, and eternal relationships that exist between human beings living in society—relationships that will persist as long as humanity exists, and as long as society continues to thrive.

Thus virtue is every thing that is truly beneficial, every thing that is constantly useful to the individuals of the human race, living together in society; vice every thing that is really prejudicial, every thing that is permanently injurious to them. The greatest virtues are those which procure for man the most durable advantages, from which he derives the most solid happiness, which preserves the greatest degree of order in his association: the greatest vices, are those which most disturb his tendency to happiness, which perpetuate error, which most interrupt the necessary order of society.

So, virtue is everything that is genuinely beneficial, everything that is consistently useful to people living together in society; vice is everything that is truly harmful, everything that is permanently damaging to them. The greatest virtues are those that provide the most lasting benefits, from which a person gains the most genuine happiness, and that maintain the highest level of order in their community: the greatest vices are those that most disrupt a person's pursuit of happiness, that perpetuate mistakes, and that most interfere with the essential order of society.

The virtuous man, is he whose actions tend uniformly to the welfare, constantly to the happiness, of his fellow creatures. The vicious man, is he whose conduct tends to the misery, whose propensities form the unhappiness of those with whom he lives; from whence his own peculiar misery most commonly results.

The virtuous man is someone whose actions consistently aim for the well-being and happiness of others. The vicious man is someone whose behavior leads to the suffering and unhappiness of those around him; as a result, he usually experiences his own unique misery.

Every thing that procures for a man true and permanent happiness is reasonable; every thing that disturbs his individual felicity, or that of the beings necessary to his happiness, is foolish and unreasonable. The man who injures others, is wicked; the man who injures himself, is an imprudent being, who neither has a knowledge of reason, of his own peculiar interests, nor of truth.

Everything that brings a person true and lasting happiness is reasonable; anything that disrupts their personal joy or the happiness of those essential to it is foolish and unreasonable. A person who harms others is wicked; a person who harms themselves is imprudent and lacks an understanding of reason, their own interests, and the truth.

Man's duties are the means pointed out to him by experience, the circle which reason describes for him, by which he is to arrive at that goal he proposes to himself; these duties are the necessary consequence of the relations subsisting between mortals, who equally desire happiness, who are equally anxious to preserve their existence. When it is said these duties compel him, it signifies nothing more than that, without taking these means, he could not reach the end proposed to him by his nature. Thus, moral obligation is the necessity of employing the natural means to render the beings with whom he lives happy; to the end that he may determine them in turn to contribute to his own individual happiness: his obligation toward himself, is the necessity he is under to take those means, without which he would be incapable to conserve himself, or render his existence solidly and permanently happy. Morals, like the universe, is founded upon necessity, or upon the eternal relation of things.

A person's responsibilities are the actions highlighted by experience, the framework that reason outlines for him, which he needs to reach the goals he sets for himself; these responsibilities are the natural outcomes of the relationships among individuals who all seek happiness and are equally eager to preserve their lives. When it is said that these responsibilities require him, it simply means that without following these actions, he cannot achieve the objective set by his nature. Therefore, moral responsibility is the necessity of using natural means to make those around him happy; so that they, in turn, will help contribute to his own happiness. His responsibility to himself is the need to take those actions, without which he would be unable to maintain himself or ensure that his existence is solid and permanently fulfilling. Morality, like the universe, is based on necessity, or on the eternal relationships of things.

Happiness is a mode of existence of which man naturally wishes the duration, or in which he is willing to continue. It is measured by its duration, by its vivacity. The greatest happiness is that which has the longest continuance: transient happiness, or that which has only a short duration, is called Pleasure; the more lively it is, the more fugitive, because man's senses are only susceptible of a certain quantum of motion. When pleasure exceeds this given quantity, it is changed into anguish, or into that painful mode of existence, of which he ardently desires the cessation: this is the reason why pleasure and pain frequently so closely approximate each other as scarcely to be discriminated. Immoderate pleasure is the forerunner of regret. It is succeeded by ennui, it is followed by weariness, it ends in disgust: transient happiness frequently converts itself into durable misfortune. According to these principles it will be seen that man, who in each moment of his duration seeks necessarily after happiness, ought, when he is reasonable, to manage, to husband, to regulate his pleasures; to refuse himself to all those of which the indulgence would be succeeded by regret; to avoid those which can convert themselves into pain; in order that he may procure for himself the most permanent felicity.

Happiness is a way of life that people naturally want to last, or in which they want to keep going. Its value is measured by how long it lasts and how lively it feels. The greatest happiness is the one that endures the longest: fleeting happiness, or that which lasts only a short time, is called Pleasure; the more intense it is, the more short-lived it becomes, because human senses can only handle a certain amount of stimulation. When pleasure exceeds this limit, it turns into anguish or that painful state of being that one desperately wants to end: this is why pleasure and pain often feel so similar that they can hardly be distinguished. Excessive pleasure leads to regret. It is followed by boredom, then fatigue, and eventually disgust: temporary happiness often morphs into lasting misfortune. Based on these ideas, it’s clear that a person, who is constantly seeking happiness in every moment, should, when being reasonable, manage, conserve, and control their pleasures; deny themselves those that would lead to regret; and steer clear of those that could turn into pain, so they can achieve the most lasting happiness.

Happiness cannot be the same for all the beings of the human species; the same pleasures cannot equally affect men whose conformation is different, whose modification is diverse. This no doubt, is the true reason why the greater number of moral philosophers are so little in accord upon those objects in which they have made man's happiness consist, as well as on the means by which it may be obtained. Nevertheless, in general, happiness appears to be a state, whether momentary or durable, in which man readily acquiesces, because he finds it conformable to his being. This state results from the accord, springs out of the conformity, which is found between himself and those circumstances in which he has been placed by Nature; or, if it be preferred, happiness is the co-ordination of man, with the causes that give him impulse.

Happiness can't be the same for everyone; the same pleasures don't affect people equally because we all have different makeups and experiences. This is likely why most moral philosophers disagree so much on what constitutes happiness and the ways to achieve it. However, happiness generally seems to be a state, whether temporary or lasting, in which a person easily accepts their situation because it feels right for them. This state comes from the harmony that exists between an individual and the circumstances they've been given by nature; or, to put it another way, happiness is the alignment of a person with the factors that motivate them.

The ideas which man forms to himself of happiness depend not only on his temperament, on his individual conformation, but also upon the habits he has contracted. Habit is, in man, a mode of existence—of thinking—of acting, which his organs, as well interior as exterior, contract, by the frequent reiteration of the same motion; from whence results the faculty of performing these actions with promptitude, of executing them with facility.

The ideas that people have about happiness depend not just on their personality and individual traits, but also on the habits they've developed. Habit is a way of living—of thinking—of acting that our bodies, both inside and out, adopt through the repeated practice of the same actions; as a result, we become capable of doing these actions quickly and easily.

If things be attentively considered, it will be found that almost the whole conduct of man—the entire system of his actions—his occupations—his connexions—his studies—his amusements—his manners—his customs—his very garments—even his aliments, are the effect of habit. He owes equally to habit, the facility with which he exercises his mental faculties of thought—of judgment—of wit—of reason—of taste, &c. It is to habit he owes the greater part of his inclinations—of his desires—of his opinions—of his prejudices—of the ideas, true or false, he forms to himself of his welfare. In short, it is to habit, consecrated by time, that he owes those errors into which everything strives to precipitate him; from which every thing is calculated to prevent him emancipating himself. It is habit that attaches him either to virtue or to vice: experience proves this: observation teaches incontrovertibly that the first crime is always accompanied by more pangs of remorse than the second; this again, by more than the third; so on to those that follow. A first action is the commencement of a habit; those which succeed confirm it: by force of combatting the obstacles that prevent the commission of criminal actions, man arrives at the power of vanquishing them with ease; of conquering them with facility. Thus he frequently becomes wicked from habit.

If you take a close look at things, you'll see that almost everything about how we act—our entire array of activities—our jobs—our relationships—our studies—our hobbies—our behaviors—our customs—even our clothing and food, are all shaped by habit. We owe to habit the ease with which we use our mental abilities like thinking—judging—being witty—reasoning—having taste, etc. It's habit that largely determines our inclinations—our desires—our opinions—our biases—and the ideas, whether true or false, that we form about our well-being. In short, it’s to habit, established over time, that we owe the mistakes that everything tries to lead us into; from which everything aims to prevent us from breaking free. It’s habit that binds us to either virtue or vice: experience shows this; observation clearly demonstrates that the first crime always brings more guilt than the second; which in turn brings more than the third; and so forth. A first action marks the beginning of a habit; subsequent actions reinforce it: by fighting against the barriers that stop him from committing crimes, a person gains the ability to overcome them effortlessly; to conquer them with ease. Thus, he often becomes wicked through habit.

Man is so much modified by habit, that it is frequently confounded with his nature: from hence results, as will presently be seen, those opinions or those ideas, which he has called innate: because he has been unwilling to recur back to the source from whence they sprung: which has, as it were, identified itself with his brain. However this may be, he adheres with great strength of attachment to all those things to which he is habituated; his mind experiences a sort of violence, an incommodious revulsion, a troublesome distaste, when it is endeavoured to make him change the course of his ideas: a fatal predilection frequently conducts him back to the old track in despite of reason.

People are so shaped by habit that it's often mistaken for their true nature. This leads to the beliefs or ideas that they refer to as innate, because they refuse to trace them back to their origin, which has, in a way, become part of their thinking. Regardless of this, they cling strongly to everything they are used to; their minds feel a kind of discomfort, an unpleasant resistance, when someone tries to make them change their way of thinking. A stubborn preference often pulls them back to their old beliefs, regardless of logic.

It is by a pure mechanism that may be explained the phenomena of habit, as well physical as moral; the soul, notwithstanding its spirituality, is modified exactly in the same manner as the body. Habit, in man, causes the organs of voice to learn the mode of expressing quickly the ideas consigned to his brain, by means of certain motion, which, during his infancy, the tongue acquires the power of executing with facility: his tongue, once habituated to move itself in a certain manner, finds much trouble, has great pain, to move itself after another mode; the throat yields with difficulty to those inflections which are exacted by a language different from that to which he has, been accustomed. It is the same with regard to his ideas; his brain, his interior organ, his soul, inured to a given manner of modification, accustomed to attach certain ideas to certain objects, long used to form to itself a system connected with certain opinions, whether true or false, experiences a painful sensation, whenever he undertakes to give it a new impulse, or alter the direction of its habitual motion. It is nearly as difficult to make him change his opinions as his language.

Habits can be explained purely through a mechanism that affects both physical and moral aspects. Even though the soul is spiritual, it changes in the same way the body does. In humans, habit teaches the vocal organs to quickly express the ideas stored in the brain through specific movements. During childhood, the tongue learns to move easily in a particular way; once it becomes accustomed to one way of moving, it struggles and suffers to move differently. The throat also finds it hard to adapt to the sounds required by a new language if it has only known a different one. The same applies to thoughts; the brain, the inner organ, the soul, gets used to a certain way of processing information, linking specific ideas to particular objects, and forming a system based on certain beliefs, whether they are true or false. This leads to discomfort whenever there’s an attempt to change its usual patterns or shift its habitual direction. Changing someone's opinions is almost as challenging as altering their language.

Here, then, without doubt, is the cause of that almost invincible attachment which man displays to those customs—those prejudices—those institutions of which it is in vain that reason, experience, good sense prove to him the inutility, or even the danger. Habit opposes itself to the clearest, the most evident demonstrations; these can avail nothing against those passions, those vices, which time has rooted in him—against the most ridiculous systems—against the most absurd notions—against the most extravagant hypotheses—against the strangest customs: above all, when he has learned to attach to them the ideas of utility, of common interest, of the welfare of society. Such is the source of that obstinacy, of that stubbornness, which man evinces for his religion, for ancient usages, for unreasonable customs, for laws so little accordant with justice, for abuses, which so frequently make him suffer, for prejudices of which he sometimes acknowledges the absurdity, yet is unwilling to divest himself of them. Here is the reason why nations contemplate the most useful novelties as mischievous innovations—why they believe they would be lost, if they were to remedy those evils to which they have become habituated; which they have learned to consider as necessary to their repose; which they have been taught to consider dangerous to be cured.

Here, then, without a doubt, is the reason for the almost unbreakable attachment that people have to their customs—those biases—those institutions that reason, experience, and common sense fail to convince them are useless or even harmful. Habits resist even the clearest, most evident demonstrations; they hold no power against the passions and vices that have been ingrained in them over time—against the most ridiculous beliefs—against the most absurd ideas—against the most outrageous theories—against the strangest practices: especially when they've learned to associate them with concepts like utility, common interest, and the welfare of society. This is the source of the stubbornness people show for their religion, for ancient traditions, for unreasonable customs, for laws that are often unjust, for abuses that frequently cause them suffering, and for prejudices they sometimes admit are absurd but still refuse to let go of. This explains why nations see the most beneficial innovations as harmful changes—why they think they would be lost if they tried to fix the problems they’ve gotten used to; problems they've learned to view as essential for their peace, which they've been led to believe are dangerous to address.

Education is only the art of making man contract, in early life, that is to say, when his organs are extremely flexible, the habits, the opinions, the modes of existence, adopted by the society in which he is placed. The first moments of his infancy are employed in collecting experience; those who are charged with the care of rearing him, or who are entrusted to bring him up, teach him how to apply it: it is they who develope reason in him: the first impulse they give him commonly decides upon his condition, upon his passions, upon the ideas he forms to himself of happiness, upon the means he shall employ to procure it, upon his virtues, and upon his vices. Under the eyes of his masters, the infant acquires ideas: under their tuition he learns to associate them,—to think in a certain manner,—to judge well or ill. They point out to him various objects, which they accustom him either to love or to hate, to desire or to avoid, to esteem or to despise. It is thus opinions are transmitted from fathers, mothers, nurses, and masters, to man in his infantine state. It is thus, that his mind by degrees saturates itself with truth, or fills itself with error; after which he regulates his conduct, which renders him either happy or miserable, virtuous or vicious, estimable or hateful. It is thus he becomes either contented or discontented with his destiny, according to the objects towards which they have directed his passions—towards which they have bent the energies of his mind; that is to say, in which they have shewn him his interest, in which they have taught him to place his felicity: in consequence, he loves and searches after that which they have taught him to revere—that which they have made the object of his research; he has those tastes, those inclinations, those phantasms, which, during the whole course of his life, he is forward to indulge, which he is eager to satisfy, in proportion to the activity they have excited in him, and the capacity with which he has been provided by Nature.

Education is essentially about helping a person form habits, opinions, and lifestyles that align with the society they're part of, especially during childhood when their minds are very impressionable. The early stages of life are spent gathering experiences, while caregivers show them how to apply what they've learned. These caregivers help develop a child's reasoning. The initial guidance they provide often shapes the child's future, impacting their emotions, beliefs about happiness, methods for achieving it, and their virtues and vices. Under the supervision of mentors, children gain knowledge and learn to connect ideas, think in specific ways, and make sound judgments. They are introduced to various things that they come to love or hate, desire or avoid, admire or scorn. This is how beliefs are passed down from parents, guardians, and teachers to young individuals. Gradually, their minds fill with either truths or misconceptions, influencing their behavior, which determines whether they live happily or unhappily, morally or immorally, and whether they're respected or despised. This process influences their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life based on what their passions have been directed toward—and what interests they’ve been taught to pursue. Consequently, they seek and cherish what they’ve been trained to value and strive to fulfill those desires, which they will pursue throughout their lives in line with the enthusiasm instilled in them and their natural abilities.

Politics ought to be the art of regulating the passions of man—of directing them to the welfare of society—of diverting them into a genial current of happiness—of making them flow gently to the general benefit of all: but too frequently it is nothing more than the detestible art of arming the passions of the various members of society against each other,—of making them the engines to accomplish their mutual destruction,—of converting them into agents which embitter their existence, create jealousies among them, and fill with rancorous animosities that association from which, if properly managed, man ought to derive his felicity. Society is commonly so vicious because it is not founded upon Nature, upon experience, and upon general utility; but on the contrary, upon the passions, upon the caprices, and upon the particular interests of those by whom it is governed. In short, it is for the most part the advantage of the few opposed to the prosperity of the many.

Politics should be about managing human emotions—guiding them for the good of society—channeling them into a positive flow of happiness—helping them benefit everyone: but too often it is just the awful practice of pitting people's emotions against one another,—using them as tools for mutual destruction,—turning them into forces that spoil their lives, breed jealousy, and fill their relationships with bitterness that, if handled properly, should bring happiness. Society is usually so flawed because it isn’t based on Nature, experience, and overall usefulness; instead, it’s built on emotions, whims, and the specific interests of those in power. In short, it mostly serves the few at the expense of the many.

Politics, to be useful, should found its principles upon Nature; that is to say, should conform itself to the essence of man, should mould itself to the great end of society: but what is society? and what is its end? It is a whole, formed by the union of a great number of families, or by a collection of individuals, assembled from a reciprocity of interest, in order that they may satisfy with greater facility their reciprocal wants—that they may, with more certainty, procure the advantages they desire—that they may obtain mutual succours—above all, that they may gain the faculty of enjoying, in security, those benefits with which Nature and industry may furnish them: it follows, of course, that politics, which are intended to maintain society, and to consolidate the interests of this congregation, ought to enter into its views, to facilitate the means of giving them efficiency, to remove all those obstacles that have a tendency to counteract the intention with which man entered into association.

Politics, to be effective, should base its principles on Nature; in other words, it should align with the essence of humanity and shape itself around the main purpose of society. But what is society? And what is its purpose? It is a whole made up of numerous families or a group of individuals brought together by shared interests to more easily meet their mutual needs—to more reliably obtain the benefits they seek—to provide each other with support—and, most importantly, to enjoy, safely, the advantages that Nature and human effort can offer them. Therefore, politics, which aims to sustain society and strengthen the interests of this group, should align with its goals, enhance the means to achieve them, and eliminate any barriers that might hinder the purpose for which people came together.

Man, in approximating to his fellow man, to live with him in society, has made, either formally or tacitly, a covenant; by which he engages to render mutual services, to do nothing that can be prejudicial to his neighbour. But as the nature of each individual impels him each instant to seek after his own welfare, which he has mistaken to consist in the gratification of his passions, and the indulgence of his transitory caprices, without any regard to the convenience of his fellows; there needed a power to conduct him back to his duty, to oblige him to conform himself to his obligations, and to recall him to his engagements, which the hurry of his passions frequently make him forget. This power is the law; it is, or ought to be, the collection of the will of society, reunited to fix the conduct of its members, to direct their action in such a mode, that it may concur to the great end of his association—the general good.

In trying to connect with other people and live in society, individuals have made a pact, whether officially or unofficially, agreeing to provide help to one another and to avoid actions that could harm their neighbors. However, since each person is driven to pursue their own interests—often mistakenly thinking that this means satisfying their desires and indulging in fleeting whims without considering the impact on others—they needed something to remind them of their responsibilities. This force is the law; it should be a reflection of the collective will of society, established to guide the behavior of its members and to direct their actions in a way that contributes to the ultimate goal of the community—the common good.

But as society, more especially when very numerous, is incapable of assembling itself, unless with great difficulty, as it cannot with tumult make known its intentions, it is obliged to choose citizens in whom it places a confidence, whom it makes the interpreter of its will, whom it constitutes the depositaries of the power requisite to carry it into execution. Such is the origin of all government, which to be legitimate can only be founded on the free consent of society. Those who are charged with the care of governing, call themselves sovereigns, chiefs, legislators: according to the form which society has been willing to give to its government: these sovereigns are styled monarchs, magistrates, representatives, &c. Government only borrows its power from society: being established for no other purpose than its welfare, it is evident society can revoke this power whenever its interest shall exact it; change the form of its government; extend or limit the power which it has confided to its chiefs, over whom, by the immutable laws of Nature, it always conserves a supreme authority: because these laws enjoin, that the part shall always remain subordinate to the whole.

But as society, especially when large, struggles to come together without significant challenges, and cannot express its intentions through chaos, it must select citizens it trusts to interpret its will and act on its behalf. This is the foundation of all government, which is legitimate only when based on the free consent of society. Those who are responsible for governing call themselves sovereigns, leaders, or legislators, depending on the structure society has chosen for its government. These sovereigns may be referred to as monarchs, magistrates, representatives, etc. Government derives its power from society: it exists solely for the welfare of society, which means that it can take back this power whenever its interests demand it; change its governmental structure; or modify the authority it has granted to its leaders, over whom it always maintains ultimate control according to the unchangeable laws of Nature, because these laws dictate that the part must always be subordinate to the whole.

Thus sovereigns are the ministers of society, its interpreters, the depositaries of a greater or of a less portion of its power; but they are not its absolute masters, neither are they the proprietors of nations. By a covenant, either expressed or implied, they engage themselves to watch over the maintenance, to occupy themselves with the welfare of society; it is only upon these conditions society consents to obey them. The price of obedience is protection. There is or ought to be a reciprocity of interest between the governed and the governor: whenever this reciprocity is wanting, society is in that state of confusion of which we spoke in the fifth chapter: it is verging on destruction. No society upon earth was ever willing or competent to confer irrevocably upon its chiefs the power, the right, of doing it injury. Such a concession, such a compact, would be annulled, would be rendered void by Nature; because she wills that each society, the same as each individual of the human species shall tend to its own conservation; it has not therefore the capacity to consent to its permanent unhappiness. Laws, in order that they may be just, ought invariably to have for their end, the general interest of society; that is to say, to assure to the greater number of citizens those advantages for which man originally associated. These advantages are liberty, property, security.

Sovereigns are the leaders of society, its interpreters, and hold varying degrees of its power; however, they are not its absolute rulers, nor are they the owners of nations. Through a covenant, whether explicit or implied, they commit to overseeing the well-being of society; it is only under these conditions that society agrees to follow them. The cost of obedience is protection. There should be a mutual interest between the governed and the governor: whenever this mutuality is lacking, society falls into the kind of chaos we mentioned in the fifth chapter and is on the brink of collapse. No society on earth has ever been willing or able to permanently give its leaders the power or authority to harm it. Such a concession or agreement would be nullified by Nature, as she intends for each society, just like each individual, to work towards its own survival; therefore, it cannot agree to its own lasting misery. Laws must always aim for the general good of society to be just; that is, they should ensure the majority of citizens receive the benefits for which people originally came together. These benefits are liberty, property, security.

Liberty, to man, is the faculty of doing, for his own peculiar happiness, every thing which does not injure or diminish the happiness of his associates: in associating, each individual renounced the exercise of that portion of his natural liberty which would be able to prejudice or injure the liberty of his fellows. The exercise of that liberty which is injurious to society is called licentiousness.

Liberty is the ability for a person to pursue their own happiness in any way that doesn't harm or lessen the happiness of others. In coming together as a society, each person gives up the use of their natural liberty that could negatively affect the freedom of others. When this liberty is used in a way that harms society, it is referred to as licentiousness.

Property, to man, is the faculty of enjoying those advantages which spring from labour; those benefits which industry or talent has procured to each member of society.

Property, for a person, is the ability to enjoy the advantages that come from work; those benefits that hard work or skill have provided to each member of society.

Security, to man, is the certitude, the assurance, that each individual ought to have, of enjoying in his person, of finding for his property the protection of the laws, as long as he shall faithfully observe, as long as he shall punctually perform, his engagements with society.

Security means, for a person, the certainty and assurance that everyone should have—knowing that their well-being is protected by the laws, as long as they faithfully uphold and fulfill their commitments to society.

Justice, to man, assures to all the members of society, the possession of these advantages, the enjoyment of those rights, which belong to them. From this, it will appear, that without justice, society is not in a condition to procure the happiness of any man. Justice is also called equity, because by the assistance of the laws made to command the whole, she reduces all its members to a state of equality; that is to say, she prevents them from prevailing one over the other, by the inequality which Nature or industry may have made between their respective powers.

Justice ensures that everyone in society has access to the benefits and rights that are theirs by right. This shows that without justice, society can't provide happiness for anyone. Justice is also referred to as equity because, through laws designed to govern everyone, it brings all its members to a state of equality; in other words, it stops some from dominating others due to the natural or industrial inequalities in their respective abilities.

Rights, to man, are every thing which society, by equitable laws, permits each individual to do for his own peculiar felicity. These rights are evidently limited by the invariable end of all association: society has, on its part, rights over all its members, by virtue of the advantages which it procures for them; all its members, in turn, have a right to claim, to exact from society, or secure from its ministers those advantages for the procuring of which they congregated, in favour of which they renounced a portion of their natural liberty. A society, of which the chiefs, aided by the laws, do not procure any good for its members, evidently loses its right over them: those chiefs who injure society lose the right of commanding. It is not our country, without it secures the welfare of its inhabitants; a society without equity contains only enemies; a society oppressed is composed only of tyrants and slaves; slaves are incapable of being citizens; it is liberty, property, and security, that render our country dear to us; it is the true love of his country that forms the citizen.

Rights are everything that society, through fair laws, allows each person to pursue for their own happiness. These rights are clearly limited by the fundamental purpose of all social groups: society has rights over all its members because of the benefits it provides for them; in return, all members have the right to demand or secure those benefits from society’s leaders. When a society, led by its officials and supported by the laws, fails to provide any good for its members, it clearly loses its authority over them: leaders who harm society forfeit their right to command. A country is not worth anything if it does not ensure the well-being of its people; a society lacking fairness is made up only of enemies; an oppressed society consists solely of tyrants and slaves; slaves cannot be citizens; it is liberty, property, and security that make our country precious to us; true love for one’s country is what creates a citizen.

For want of having a proper knowledge of these truths, or for want of applying them when known, some nations have become unhappy—have contained nothing but a vile heap of slaves, separated from each other, detached from society, which neither procures for them any good, nor secures to them any one advantage. In consequence of the imprudence of some nations, or of the craft, cunning, and violence of those to whom they have confided the power of making laws, and carrying them into execution, their sovereigns have rendered themselves absolute masters of society. These, mistaking the true source of their power, pretended to hold it from heaven, to be accountable for their actions to God alone, to owe nothing, not to have any obligation to society, in a word, to be gods upon earth, to possess the right of governing arbitrarily. From thence politics became corrupted: they were only a mockery. Such nations, disgraced and grown contemptible, did not dare resist the will of their chiefs; their laws were nothing more than the expression of the caprice of these chiefs; public welfare was sacrificed to their peculiar interests; the force of society was turned against itself; its members withdrew to attach themselves to its oppressors, to its tyrants; these to seduce them, permitted them to injure it with impunity and to profit by its misfortunes. Thus liberty, justice, security, and virtue, were banished from many nations; politics was no longer any thing more than the art of availing itself of the forces of a people and of the treasure of society; of dividing it on the subject of its interest, in order to subjugate it by itself; at length a stupid, a mechanical habit, made them cherish their oppressors, and love their chains.

Due to a lack of proper understanding of these truths, or a failure to apply them when known, some nations have become unhappy—filled only with a wretched group of slaves, isolated from one another and disconnected from society, which offers them no benefits or advantages. Because of the foolishness of certain nations, or the deceit, cunning, and force of those they entrusted with the power to make and enforce laws, their rulers have made themselves absolute masters of society. These rulers, misunderstanding the true source of their authority, claimed to derive it from heaven, believing they were accountable only to God for their actions, that they owed nothing to anyone, and that they had no obligations to society—in short, they acted like gods on earth, possessing the right to govern without restraint. As a result, politics became corrupted: it became a farce. Such nations, disgraced and diminished, did not dare to oppose the will of their leaders; their laws became mere reflections of these leaders' whims; the public good was sacrificed for their personal interests; the strength of society turned against itself; its members aligned with their oppressors, their tyrants; these tyrants, seeking to seduce them, allowed them to harm society without consequences and to benefit from its misfortunes. Thus liberty, justice, security, and virtue were expelled from many nations; politics became nothing more than the art of exploiting a people's strength and society's wealth; it involved dividing society based on its interests to subjugate it using its own forces; ultimately, a mindless, mechanical habit developed where they started to cherish their oppressors and love their chains.

Man when he has nothing to fear, presently becomes wicked; he who believes he has not occasion for his fellow, persuades himself he may follow the inclinations of his heart without caution or discretion. Thus fear is the only obstacle society can effectually oppose to the passions of its chiefs; without it they will quickly become corrupt, and will not scruple to avail themselves of the means society has placed in their hands, to make them accomplices in their iniquity. To prevent these abuses, it is requisite society should set bounds to its confidence; should limit the power which it delegates to its chiefs; should reserve to itself a sufficient portion of authority to prevent them from injuring it; it must establish prudent checks: it must cautiously divide the power it confers, because re-united, it will by such reunion be infallibly oppressed. The slightest reflection, the most scanty review, will make men feel that the burthen of governing and weight of administration, is too ponderous and overpowering to be borne by an individual; that the scope of his jurisdiction, that the range of his surveillance, and multiplicity of his duties must always render him negligent; that the extent of his power has ever a tendency to render him mischievous. In short, the experience of all ages will convince nations that man is continually tempted to the abuse of power: that as an abundance of strong liquor intoxicates his brain, so unlimited power corrupts his heart; that therefore the sovereign ought to be subject to the law, not the law to the sovereign.

When a person has nothing to fear, they quickly become wicked; someone who thinks they have no need for others convinces themselves they can follow their heart's desires without caution or restraint. Fear is the only real barrier society can effectively place against the passions of its leaders; without it, they will soon become corrupt and will not hesitate to use the means society has given them to draw others into their wrongdoing. To prevent these abuses, society must set limits on its trust; it should restrict the power it grants to its leaders; it should keep enough authority for itself to protect against harm; it needs to establish careful checks: it must thoughtfully distribute the power it assigns, because if it becomes concentrated, it will inevitably lead to oppression. A little reflection and the slightest review will make people recognize that the burden of governing and the weight of administration are too heavy for one individual to bear; that the scope of their authority, the breadth of their oversight, and the multitude of their responsibilities will always make them negligent; that the extent of their power always tends to make them dangerous. In short, the experience of all ages will show nations that people are constantly tempted to abuse power: that just as an excess of strong drink clouds their judgment, unlimited power corrupts their heart; therefore, the sovereign should be subject to the law, not the law to the sovereign.

Government has necessarily an equal influence over the philosophy, as over the morals of nations. In the same manner that its care produces labour, activity, abundance, salubrity and justice; its negligence induces idleness, sloth, discouragement, penury, contagion, injustice, vices and crimes. It depends upon government either to foster industry, mature genius, give a spring to talents, or stifle them. Indeed government, the disturber of dignities, of riches, of rewards, and punishments; the master of those objects in which man from his infancy has learned to place his felicity, and contemplate as the means of his happiness; acquires a necessary influence over his conduct: it kindles his passions; gives them direction; makes him instrumental to whatever purpose it pleases; it modifies him; determines his manners; which in a whole people, as in the individual, is nothing more than the conduct, the general system of wills, of actions that necessarily result from his education, government, laws, and religious opinions—his institutions, whether rational or irrational. In short, manners are the habits of a people: these are good whenever society draws from them true felicity and solid happiness; they are bad, they are detestable in the eye of reason, when the happiness of society does not spring from them; they are unwholesome when they have nothing more in their favour than the suffrage of time, and the countenance of prejudice which rarely consults experience, which is almost ever at variance with good sense: notwithstanding they may have the sanction of the law, custom, religion, public opinion, or example, they may be unworthy and may be disgraceful, provided society is in disorder; that crime abounds; that virtue shrinks beneath the basilisk eye of triumphant vice; they may then be said to resemble the UPAS, whose luxuriant yet poisonous foliage, the produce of a rank soil, becomes more baneful to those who are submitted to its vortex, in proportion as it extends its branches. If experience he consulted, it will be found there is no action, however abominable, that has not received the applause, that has not obtained the approbation of some people. Parricide, the sacrifice of children, robbery, usurpation, cruelty, intolerance, and prostitution, have all in their turn been licensed actions; have been advocated; have been deemed laudable and meritorious deeds with some nations of the earth. Above all, superstition has consecrated the most unreasonable, the most revolting customs.

Government inevitably has an equal impact on the philosophy and morals of nations. Just as its oversight encourages labor, activity, abundance, health, and justice; its neglect leads to idleness, laziness, discouragement, poverty, disease, injustice, vices, and crimes. It’s up to government to either promote industry, develop genius, boost talents, or suppress them. In fact, government disrupts the values, wealth, rewards, and punishments that people have learned to rely on for happiness since childhood, gaining significant influence over their behavior: it ignites their passions, provides direction, makes them serve whatever goal it chooses, shapes them, and determines their manners. This applies to entire societies as well as individuals, which consist of the combined behavior, general intentions, and actions that arise from education, government, laws, and religious beliefs—whether those institutions are rational or irrational. In short, manners are the habits of a society: they are positive whenever society generates true joy and lasting happiness from them; they are negative and detestable from a rational perspective when societal happiness doesn’t come from them; they are unhealthy when all that supports them is the passage of time and the influence of prejudice, which rarely consults experience and usually conflicts with common sense. Even if they have the backing of law, custom, religion, public opinion, or example, they can still be shameful and unworthy if society is disordered, if crime is rampant, and if virtue cowers under the harsh scrutiny of dominant vice. They can be likened to the UPAS tree, whose lush but toxic leaves, nourished by a rich soil, become increasingly harmful to those caught in its grasp as it spreads its branches. If one considers experience, it becomes clear that there is no despicable action that hasn’t received approval, that hasn’t been applauded by some people. Parricide, child sacrifice, theft, usurpation, cruelty, intolerance, and prostitution have all, at different times, been accepted, promoted, and deemed praiseworthy by certain cultures. Above all, superstition has sanctified the most unreasonable and repulsive customs.

Man's passions result from and depend on the motion of attraction or repulsion, of which he is rendered susceptible by Nature; who enables him, by his peculiar essence, to be attracted by those objects which appear useful to him, to be repelled by those which he considers prejudicial; it follows that government, by holding the magnet, can put these passions into activity, has the power either of restraining them, or of giving them a favorable or an unfavorable direction. All his passions are constantly limited by either loving or hating, seeking or avoiding, desiring or fearing. These passions, so necessary to the conservation of man, are a consequence of his organization; they display themselves with more or less energy, according to his temperament; education and habit develope them; government gives them play, conducts them towards those objects, which it believes itself interested in making desirable to its subjects. The various names which have been given to these passions, are relative to the different objects by which they are excited, such as pleasure, grandeur, or riches, which produce voluptuousness, ambition, vanity and avarice. If the source of those passions which predominate in nations be attentively examined it will be commonly found in their governments. It is the impulse received from their chiefs that renders them sometimes warlike, sometimes superstitious, sometimes aspiring after glory, sometimes greedy after wealth, sometimes rational, and sometimes unreasonable; if sovereigns, in order to enlighten and render happy their dominions, were to employ only the tenth part of the vast expenditures which they lavish, only a tythe of the pains which they employ to render them brutish, to stupify them, to deceive them, and to afflict them; their subjects would presently be as wise, would quickly be as happy, as they are now remarkable for being blind, ignorant, and miserable.

A person’s passions arise from and rely on the forces of attraction and repulsion, which Nature makes him sensitive to; she allows him, through his unique nature, to be drawn to things that seem beneficial to him and to be pushed away from those he views as harmful. This means that the government, by holding the power to influence these forces, can activate these passions, control them, or steer them in a positive or negative direction. All of his passions are constantly shaped by love or hate, pursuit or avoidance, desire or fear. These passions, essential for humanity’s survival, come from his physical makeup; they manifest with varying intensity depending on his temperament. Education and habit develop them; the government facilitates them, guiding them toward the things it believes are beneficial to its people. The different names given to these passions relate to the various objects that trigger them, such as pleasure, power, or wealth, which lead to lust, ambition, vanity, and greed. If you closely examine the root of the dominant passions in societies, you'll often find them tied to their governments. It is the influence from their leaders that makes people sometimes aggressive, sometimes superstitious, sometimes striving for glory, sometimes obsessed with wealth, sometimes rational, and sometimes irrational; if rulers were to use even just a fraction of the immense resources they waste, and a small portion of the effort they put into making people ignorant, dull, deceived, and miserable, their subjects would quickly become as wise and happy as they are now known for being blind, ignorant, and unhappy.

Let the vain project of destroying, the delusive attempt at rooting his passions from the heart of man, he abandoned; let an effort be made to direct them towards objects that may be useful to himself, beneficial to his associates. Let education, let government, let the laws, habituate him to restrain his passions within those just bounds that experience fixes and reason prescribes. Let the ambitious have honours, titles, distinctions, and power, when they shall have usefully served their country; let riches be given to those who covet them, when they shall have rendered themselves necessary to their fellow citizens; let commendations, let eulogies, encourage those who shall be actuated by the love of glory. In short, let the passions of man have a free, an uninterrupted course, whenever there shall result from their exercise, real, substantial, and durable advantages to society. Let education kindle only those, which are truly beneficial to the human species; let it favour those alone which are really necessary to the maintenance of society. The passions of man are dangerous, only because every thing conspires to give them an evil direction.

Let go of the futile idea of destroying and the misguided attempt to eliminate passions from the human heart. Instead, let's focus on channeling them toward goals that are useful for oneself and beneficial to others. Education, government, and laws should help individuals learn to control their passions within the reasonable limits set by experience and reason. Ambitious people should receive honors, titles, distinctions, and power when they have positively contributed to their country; wealth should go to those who desire it, but only after they have proven themselves valuable to their fellow citizens. Praise and recognition should encourage those motivated by the pursuit of glory. In short, let human passions flow freely and uninterruptedly when their expression leads to real, meaningful, and lasting benefits for society. Education should only ignite passions that are truly advantageous to humanity and support those that are essential for the stability of society. The dangers of human passions arise only because everything seems to push them in a negative direction.

Nature does not make man either good or wicked: she combines machines more or less active, mobile, and energetic; she furnishes him with organs and temperament, of which his passions, more or less impetuous, are the necessary consequence; these passions have always his happiness for their object, his welfare for their end: in consequence they are legitimate, they are natural, they can only be called bad or good, relatively, to the influence they have on the beings of his species. Nature gives man legs proper to sustain his weight, and necessary to transport him from one place to another; the care of those who rear them strengthens them, habituates him to avail himself of him, accustoms him to make either a good or a bad use of them. The arm which he has received from Nature is neither good nor bad; it is necessary to a great number of the actions of life; nevertheless, the use of this arm becomes criminal, if he has contracted the habit of using it to rob, to assassinate, with a view to obtain that money which he has been taught from his infancy to desire, and which the society in which he lives renders necessary to him, but which his industry will enable him to obtain without doing injury to his fellow man.

Nature doesn’t make people good or evil; she combines different machines that are more or less active, mobile, and energetic. She gives them organs and temperaments, from which their passions—more or less intense—naturally arise. These passions aim for their happiness and welfare, so they are legitimate and natural. They can only be considered good or bad based on the impact they have on others of their kind. Nature provides people with legs strong enough to support their weight and necessary for moving from one place to another; those who raise them help strengthen these legs, training them to make good or bad use of them. The arm given to them by Nature is neither good nor bad; it is essential for many life actions. However, the use of this arm can become criminal if a person learns to use it to steal or kill in pursuit of money, something they’ve been taught to crave since childhood, which their society deems necessary, but that they can earn through honest work without harming anyone.

The heart of man is a soil which Nature has made equally suitable to the production of brambles, or of useful grain—of deleterous poison, or of refreshing fruit, by virtue of the seeds which may be sown in it—by the cultivation that may be bestowed upon it, In his infancy, those objects are pointed out to him which he is to estimate or to despise, to seek after or to avoid, to love or to hate. It is his parents, his instructors, who render him either virtuous or wicked, wise or unreasonable, studious or dissipated, steady or trifling, solid or vain. Their example, their discourse, modify him through his whole life, teaching him what are the things he ought either to desire or to avoid; what the objects he ought to fear or to love: he desires them, in consequence; and he imposes on himself the task of obtaining them, according to the energy of his temperament, which ever decides the force of his passions. It is thus that education, by inspiring him with opinions, by infusing into him ideas, whether true or false, gives him those primitive impulsions after which he acts, in a manner either advantageous or prejudicial both to himself and to others. Man, at his birth, brings with him into the world nothing but the necessity of conserving himself, of rendering his existence happy: instruction, example, the customs of the world, present him with the means, either real or imaginary, of achieving it; habit procures for him the facility of employing these means: he attaches himself strongly to those he judges best calculated, most proper to secure to him the possession of those objects which they have taught him, which he has learned to desire as the preferable good attached to his existence. Whenever his education—whenever the examples which have been afforded him—whenever the means with which he has been provided, are approved by reason, are the result of experience, every thing concurs to render him virtuous; habit strengthens these dispositions in him; he becomes, in consequence, a useful member of society; to the interests of which, every thing ought to prove to him his own permanent well-being, his own durable felicity, is necessarily allied. If, on the contrary, his education—his institutions—the examples which are set before him—the opinions which are suggested to him in his infancy, are of a nature to exhibit to his mind virtue as useless and repugnant—vice as useful and congenial to his own individual happiness, he will become vicious; he will believe himself interested in injuring society, in rendering his associates unhappy; he will be carried along by the general current: he will renounce virtue, which to him will no longer be any thing more than a vain idol, without attractions to induce him to follow it; without charms to tempt his adoration; because it will appear to exact, that he should immolate at its shrine, that he should sacrifice at its altar all those objects which he has been constantly taught to consider the most dear to himself; to contemplate as benefits the most desirable.

The human heart is like soil that Nature has made capable of growing both thorns and valuable crops—poison and nourishing fruits—depending on the seeds planted in it and the care given to it. In childhood, there are things pointed out to him that he should value or look down upon, pursue or evade, love or hate. His parents and teachers shape him into someone virtuous or wicked, wise or foolish, diligent or careless, serious or frivolous, substantial or superficial. Their example and words influence him throughout his life, teaching him what he should desire or avoid, what he should fear or love. As a result, he yearns for those things and works to obtain them, influenced by his temperament, which determines the strength of his passions. Education, by instilling beliefs and ideas—whether true or false—gives him the fundamental impulses that guide his actions, either benefiting or harming himself and others. At birth, a person comes into the world with only the need to survive and to be happy; the teachings, examples, and customs of society present him with both real and imagined ways to achieve this. Habits help him easily use these means, and he strongly connects with what he believes will best secure the things he has been taught to seek as the greatest good in his life. Whenever his education, the examples set for him, and the resources available to him are supported by reason and experience, everything helps him become virtuous; habits reinforce these tendencies in him, making him a valuable member of society, where everything should help him see that his own lasting well-being and happiness are closely linked. On the other hand, if his education, institutions, examples, and early ideas suggest that virtue is useless and unpleasant, while vice seems beneficial and aligned with his happiness, he will become immoral; he will think he's better off harming society and making those around him unhappy. He will go with the flow of negativity, rejecting virtue, which will seem to him like a hollow idol with no allure to follow or adore, demanding sacrifices of everything he has been taught to cherish as most valuable.

In order that man may become virtuous, it is absolutely requisite that he should have an interest, that he should find advantages in practising virtue. For this end, it is necessary that education should implant in him reasonable ideas; that public opinion should lean towards virtue, as the most desirable good; that example should point it out as the object most worthy esteem; that government should faithfully recompense, should regularly reward it; that honor should always accompany its practice; that vice should constantly be despised; that crime should invariably be punished. Is virtue in this situation amongst men? does the education of man infuse into him just, faithful ideas of happiness—true notions of virtue—dispositions really favourable to the beings with whom he is to live? The examples spread before him, are they suitable to innocence and manners? are they calculated to make him respect decency—to cause him to love probity—to practice honesty—to value good faith—to esteem equity—to revere conjugal fidelity—to observe exactitude in fulfilling his duties? Religion, which alone pretends to regulate his manners, does it render him sociable—does it make him pacific—does it teach him to be humane? The arbiters, the sovereigns of society, are they faithful in recompensing, punctual in rewarding, those who have best served their country? in punishing those who have pillaged, who have robbed, who have plundered, who have divided, who have ruined it? Justice, does she hold her scales with a firm, with an even hand, between all the citizens of the state? The laws, do they never support the strong against the weak—favor the rich against the poor—uphold the happy against the miserable? In short, is it an uncommon spectacle to behold crime frequently justified, often applauded, sometimes crowned with success, insolently triumphing, arrogantly striding over that merit which it disdains, over that virtue which it outrages? Well then, in societies thus constituted, virtue can only be heard by a very small number of peaceable citizens, a few generous souls, who know how to estimate its value, who enjoy it in secret. For the others, it is only a disgusting object; they see in it nothing but the supposed enemy to their happiness, or the censor of their individual conduct.

For a person to become virtuous, it’s essential that they have a stake in it, that they see benefits in practicing virtue. To achieve this, education must instill rational ideas in them; public opinion should support virtue as the highest good; examples should highlight it as the most worthy pursuit; the government should consistently reward it; honor should always accompany its practice; vice should be looked down upon; and crime should always be punished. Is virtue in this position among people? Does a person’s education provide them with fair and accurate ideas about happiness—true concepts of virtue—traits that genuinely benefit those they will share their lives with? Are the examples set for them appropriate for innocence and good behavior? Do they encourage him to respect decency—to love integrity—to practice honesty—to value good faith—to appreciate fairness—to honor marital fidelity—to fulfill his obligations faithfully? Does religion, which claims to guide his behavior, make him friendly—teach him to be peaceful—teach him to be kind? Are the leaders of society fair in rewarding those who have served their country well? Are they prompt to punish those who have stolen, robbed, plundered, divided, or destroyed it? Does justice keep her scales balanced and fair for all citizens? Do the laws always protect the weak against the strong—support the poor against the rich—uphold the unfortunate against the fortunate? In short, is it rare to witness crime often justified, frequently celebrated, and occasionally rewarded with success, arrogantly trampling over the merit it disdains and the virtue it violates? In societies structured like this, virtue can only be recognized by a small number of peaceful citizens, a few noble individuals who can appreciate its worth, who enjoy it in secret. For everyone else, it is merely an unpleasant notion; they view it only as a supposed threat to their happiness or a judge of their individual behavior.

If man, according to his nature, is necessitated to desire his welfare, he is equally obliged to love and cherish the means by which he believes it is to be acquired: it would be useless, it would perhaps be unjust, to demand that a man should be virtuous, if he could not be so without rendering himself miserable. Whenever he thinks vice renders him happy, he must necessarily love vice; whenever he sees inutility recompensed, crime rewarded—whenever he witnesses either or both of them honored,—what interest will he find in occupying himself with the happiness of his fellow-creatures? what advantage will he discover in restraining the fury of his passions? Whenever his mind is saturated with false ideas, filled with dangerous opinions, it follows, of course, that his whole conduct will become nothing more than a long chain of errors, a tissue of mistakes, a series of depraved actions.

If a person, by their nature, is driven to seek their own well-being, they are equally compelled to love and value the means they believe will help them achieve it: it would be pointless, and perhaps even unfair, to expect someone to be virtuous if doing so would only make them unhappy. Whenever they think that wrongdoing makes them happy, they will naturally be drawn to that wrongdoing; whenever they see that uselessness is rewarded or crime is celebrated—whenever they witness either or both of them being admired—what interest will they have in caring about the happiness of others? What benefit will they see in controlling their own urges? When their mind is filled with false beliefs and dangerous opinions, it’s only natural that their behavior will become a long series of mistakes, a pattern of errors, and a stream of immoral actions.

We are informed, that the savages, in order to flatten the heads of their children, squeeze them between two boards, by that means preventing them from taking the shape designed for them by Nature. It is pretty nearly the same thing with the institutions of man; they commonly conspire to counteract Nature, to constrain and divert, to extinguish the impulse Nature has given him, to substitute others which are the source of all his misfortunes. In almost all the countries of the earth, man is bereft of truth, is fed with falsehoods, and amused with marvellous chimeras: he is treated like those children whose members are, by the imprudent care of their nurses, swathed with little fillets, bound up with rollers, which deprive them of the free use of their limbs, obstruct their growth, prevent their activity, and oppose themselves to their health.

We’ve learned that some tribes flatten their children's heads by squeezing them between two boards, which keeps their skulls from developing the way nature intended. It's pretty much the same with human institutions, which often work against nature, restricting and redirecting human instincts and replacing them with others that lead to all sorts of problems. In nearly every country, people are deprived of truth, fed lies, and entertained by fantastical illusions. They’re treated like children who are excessively swaddled by their caregivers, wrapped too tightly with bandages that limit their movement, hinder their growth, interfere with their activity, and harm their health.

Most of the superstitious opinions of man have for their object only to display to him his supreme felicity in those illusions for which they kindle his passions: but as the phantoms which are presented to his imagination are incapable of being considered in the same light by all who contemplate them, he is perpetually in dispute concerning these objects; he hates his fellow, he persecutes his neighbour, his neighbour in turn persecutes him, and he believes that in doing this he is doing well: that in committing the greatest crimes to sustain his opinions he is acting right. It is thus superstition infatuates man from his infancy, fills him with vanity, and enslaves him with fanaticism: if he has a heated imagination, it drives him on to fury; if he has activity, it makes him a madman, who is frequently as cruel himself, as he is dangerous to his fellow-creatures, as he is incommodious to others: if, on the contrary, he be phlegmatic, and of a slothful habit, he becomes melancholy and useless to society.

Most superstitious beliefs only serve to show people their ultimate happiness in the illusions that ignite their passions. However, since the images that appear in their minds can't be seen in the same way by everyone who looks at them, they are constantly arguing about these beliefs. They hate one another, they mistreat their neighbors, and in turn, those neighbors mistreat them, all while believing they’re doing the right thing. They think that by committing terrible acts to uphold their opinions, they are justified. This is how superstition captivates people from a young age, fills them with pride, and enslaves them with fanaticism. If someone has a fiery imagination, it drives them to rage; if they’re active, it can turn them into a mad person, just as cruel as they are dangerous to others and inconvenient to those around them. Conversely, if they are calm and lazy, they become sad and useless to society.

Public opinion every instant offers to man's contemplation false ideas of honor, and wrong notions of glory: it attaches his esteem not only to frivolous advantages, but also to prejudicial interests and injurious actions; which example authorizes, which prejudice consecrates, which habit precludes him from viewing with the disgust and horror which they merit. Indeed, habit familiarizes his mind with the most absurd ideas, the most unreasonable customs, the most blameable actions; with prejudices the most contrary to his own interests, and detrimental to the society in which he lives. He finds nothing strange, nothing singular, nothing despicable, nothing ridiculous, except those opinions and objects to which he is himself unaccustomed. There are countries in which the most laudable actions appear very blameable and ridiculous—where the foulest and most diabolical actions pass for very honest and perfectly rational conduct. In some nations they kill the old men; in some the children strangle their fathers. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians immolated their children to their gods. Europeans approve duels; he who refuses to cut the throat of another, or to blow out the brains of his neighbour, is contemplated by them as dishonoured. The Spaniards and Portuguese think it meritorious to burn an heretic. In some countries women prostitute themselves without dishonour; in others it is the height of hospitality for a man to present his wife to the embraces of the stranger: the refusal to accept this, excites his scorn and calls forth his resentment.

Public opinion constantly presents people with misleading ideas of honor and distorted views of glory. It ties their respect not only to trivial gains but also to harmful interests and wrongful actions; which example legitimizes, which prejudice sanctifies, and which habit prevents them from seeing with the disgust and horror they deserve. In fact, habits make their minds accustomed to the most absurd ideas, the most unreasonable customs, and the most blameworthy actions; with biases that are most contrary to their own interests and harmful to the society in which they live. They find nothing strange, nothing exceptional, nothing despicable, nothing ridiculous, except for those opinions and things they are not familiar with. There are countries where the most commendable actions are viewed as very blameworthy and laughable—where the foulest and most wicked actions are seen as quite honorable and perfectly rational. In some nations, they kill old men; in others, children strangle their fathers. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed their children to their gods. Europeans endorse duels; someone who refuses to slit another's throat or shoot their neighbor is seen as dishonorable. The Spaniards and Portuguese consider it admirable to burn a heretic. In some countries, women sell themselves without shame; in others, it is the height of hospitality for a man to offer his wife to a stranger. Refusing this gesture provokes his scorn and triggers his anger.

Authority commonly believes itself interested in maintaining the received opinions: those prejudices and errors which it considers requisite to the maintenance of its power and the consolidation of its interests, are sustained by force, which is never rational. Princes themselves, filled with deceptive images of happiness, mistaken notions of power, erroneous opinions of grandeur, and false ideas of glory, are surrounded with flattering courtiers, who are interested in keeping up the delusion of their masters: these contemptible men have acquired ideas of virtue, only that they may outrage it: by degrees they corrupt the people, these become depraved, lend themselves to their debaucheries, pander to the vices of the great, then make a merit of imitating them in their irregularities. A court is too frequently the true focus of the corruption of a people.

Authority often thinks it’s in its best interest to uphold accepted beliefs: those biases and mistakes it sees as necessary for maintaining its power and reinforcing its interests are upheld by force, which is never logical. Rulers themselves, filled with misleading images of happiness, flawed notions of power, incorrect ideas of greatness, and false concepts of glory, are surrounded by flattering courtiers, who are eager to maintain the illusions of their leaders. These despicable individuals have picked up ideas of virtue just to violate them. Gradually, they corrupt the populace; people become debased, indulge in their excesses, cater to the vices of the powerful, and then take pride in mimicking their irregularities. A royal court is often the main source of a nation’s corruption.

This is the true source of moral evil. It is thus that every thing conspires to render man vicious, and give a fatal impulse to his soul: from whence results the general confusion of society, which becomes unhappy, from the misery of almost every one of its members. The strongest motive-powers are put in action to inspire man with a passion for futile objects which are indifferent to him; which make him become dangerous to his fellow man, by the means which he is compelled to employ, in order to obtain them. Those who have the charge of guiding his steps, either impostors themselves, or the dupes to their own prejudices, forbid him to hearken to reason; they make truth appear dangerous to him; they exhibit error as requisite to his welfare, not only in this world, but in the next. In short, habit strongly attaches him to his irrational opinions, to his perilous inclinations, and to his blind passion for objects either useless or dangerous. Here, then, is the reason why for the most part man finds himself necessarily determined to evil; the reason why the passions, inherent in his Nature and necessary to his conservation, become the instruments of his destruction, and the bane of that society, which properly conducted, they ought to preserve; the reason why society becomes a state of warfare; why it does nothing but assemble enemies, who are envious of each other, and are always rivals for the prize. If some virtuous beings are to be found in these societies, they must be sought for in the very small number of those, who born with a phlegmatic temperament have moderate passions, who therefore, either do not desire at all, or desire very feebly, those objects with which their associates are continually inebriated.

This is the real source of moral evil. Everything conspires to make humans vicious and give a fatal push to their souls, leading to the overall chaos in society, which suffers because almost every member is unhappy. The strongest motivations are set in motion to inspire people with a passion for meaningless things that don’t really matter to them; this makes them dangerous to one another because of the lengths they go to obtain these things. Those who are supposed to guide them are either frauds themselves or victims of their own biases, preventing them from listening to reason; they make truth seem dangerous and present falsehoods as essential for their well-being, not just in this life but the next. In short, habitual behavior strongly ties them to irrational beliefs, perilous urges, and blind cravings for things that are either useless or harmful. This is why, for the most part, people find themselves inevitably drawn to evil; it explains why the passions that are part of human nature and necessary for survival become tools of self-destruction and threats to the very society they should help preserve; it's why society ends up in a state of conflict, filled with enemies who envy each other and are constantly competing for the same rewards. If any virtuous individuals exist within these societies, they can only be found among the very few who, having a calm temperament, possess moderate desires and either don’t want at all or only weakly desire the things that their peers obsess over.

Man's nature, diversely cultivated, decides upon his faculties, as well corporeal as intellectual; upon his qualities, as well moral as physical. The man who is of a sanguine, robust constitution, must necessarily have strong passions; he who is of a bilious, melancholy habit, will as necessarily have fantastical and gloomy passions; the man of a gay turn, of a sprightly imagination, will have cheerful passions; while the man in whom phlegm abounds, will have those which are gentle, or which have a very slight degree of violence. It appears to be upon the equilibrium of the humours, that depends the state of the man who is called virtuous; his temperament seems to be the result of a combination, in which the elements or principles are balanced with such precision that no one passion predominates over another, or carries into his machine more disorder than its neighbour.

A person's nature, shaped by different experiences, influences both their physical and mental abilities, as well as their moral and physical traits. Someone with a strong, lively constitution is likely to have intense emotions; someone with a more somber, melancholic nature will have imaginative and dark feelings. A cheerful person with a lively imagination will have joyful emotions, while a person with a calm demeanor will have more gentle emotions or ones that are only mildly intense. The state of a person deemed virtuous seems to depend on a balance of these qualities; their temperament appears to result from a combination where the elements are so well-balanced that no single emotion dominates or disrupts them more than any other.

Habit, as we have seen, is man's nature modified: this latter furnishes the matter; education, domestic example, national manners, give it the form: these, acting on his temperament, make him either reasonable, or irrational—enlightened, or stupid—a fanatic, or a hero—an enthusiast for the public good, or an unbridled criminal—a wise man, smitten with the advantages of virtue, or a libertine, plunged into every kind of vice. All the varieties of the moral man, depend on the diversity of his ideas; which are themselves arranged and combined in his brain by the intervention of his senses. His temperament is the produce of physical substances, his habits are the effect of physical modifications; the opinions, whether good or bad, injurious or beneficial, true or false, which form themselves in his mind, are never more than the effect of those physical impulsions which the brain receives by the medium of the senses.

Habit, as we’ve seen, is how human nature is shaped: nature provides the substance; education, home environment, and cultural customs give it structure. These factors, combined with a person’s temperament, can make someone reasonable or irrational, enlightened or ignorant, a fanatic or a hero, someone passionate about the public good or an uncontrollable criminal, a wise individual aware of the benefits of virtue or a libertine caught up in every kind of vice. All the variations of a moral person depend on the different ideas they hold, which are organized and combined in their minds through their senses. Their temperament is influenced by physical substances, while their habits result from physical changes; the opinions they form—whether good or bad, harmful or helpful, true or false—are ultimately just the result of the physical stimuli that the brain receives through the senses.










CHAP. X.

The Soul does not derive its ideas from itself—It has no innate Ideas.

The soul doesn't get its ideas from within—It has no inherent ideas.

What has preceded suffices to prove, that the interior organ of man, which is called his soul, is purely material. He will be enabled to convince himself of this truth, by the manner in which he acquires his ideas,—from those impressions which material objects successively make on his organs, which are themselves acknowledged to be material. It has been seen, that the faculties which are called intellectual, are to be ascribed to that of feeling; the different qualities of those faculties which are called moral, have been explained after the necessary laws of a very simple mechanism: it now remains, to reply to those who still obstinately persist in making the soul a substance distinguished from the body, or who insist on giving it an essence totally distinct. They seem to found their distinction upon this, that this interior organ has the faculty of drawing its ideas from within itself; they will have it, that man, at his birth, brings with him ideas into the world, which, according to this wonderful notion, they have called innate. The Jews have a similar doctrine which they borrowed from the Chaldeans: their rabbins taught, that each soul, before it was united to the seed that must form an infant in the womb of a woman, is confided to the care of an angel, which causes him to behold heaven, earth, and hell: this, they pretend, is done by the assistance of a lamp, which extinguishes itself as soon as the infant comes into the world. Some ancient philosophers have held, that the soul originally contains the principles of several notions or doctrines: the Stoics designated this by the term PROLEPSIS, anticipated opinions; the Greek mathematicians, KOINAS ENNOIAS, universal ideas. They have believed that the soul, by a special privilege, in a nature where every thing is connected, enjoyed the faculty of moving itself without receiving any impulse; of creating to itself ideas, of thinking on a subject, without being determined to such action, by any exterior object; which by moving its organs should furnish it with an image of the subject of its thoughts. In consequence of these gratuitous suppositions, of these extraordinary pretensions, which it is only requisite to expose, in order to confute some very able speculators, who were prepossessed by their superstitious prejudices; have ventured the length to assert, that without model, without prototype to act on the senses, the soul is competent to delineate to itself, the whole universe with all the beings it contains. DESCARTES and his disciples have assured us, that the body went absolutely for nothing, in the sensations, in the perceptions, in the ideas of the soul; that it can feel, that it can perceive, that it can understand, that it can taste, that it can touch, even when there should exist nothing that is corporeal or material exterior to ourselves. But what shall be said of a BERKELEY, who has endeavoured, who has laboured to prove to man, that every thing in this world is nothing more than a chimerical illusion; that the universe exists nowhere but in himself; that it has no identity but in his imagination; who has rendered the existence of all things problematical by the aid of sophisms, insolvable even to those who maintain the doctrine of the spirituality of the soul.

What has come before is enough to prove that the inner part of a person, referred to as their soul, is entirely material. One can realize this truth by how they form their ideas—from the impressions that physical objects make on their senses, which are also recognized to be material. It has been shown that the faculties called intellectual can be traced back to the sense of feeling; the different qualities of the faculties labeled moral have been explained according to simple mechanical laws. Now, it remains to respond to those who stubbornly insist on considering the soul as a substance separate from the body or who argue for a completely distinct essence. They seem to base their distinction on the idea that this inner organ can generate ideas from within itself; they believe that a person is born with ideas that they label as innate. The Jews have a similar belief that they borrowed from the Chaldeans: their rabbis taught that each soul, before merging with the seed that forms a fetus in a woman's womb, is entrusted to an angel, who allows it to see heaven, earth, and hell. They claim this happens with the help of a lamp that goes out as soon as the baby enters the world. Some ancient philosophers believed that the soul originally contains the core principles of various ideas or doctrines: the Stoics referred to this as PROLEPSIS, or anticipated opinions, while Greek mathematicians called it KOINAS ENNOIAS, meaning universal ideas. They believed that the soul had a unique privilege, in a world where everything is interconnected, allowing it to move itself without any outside stimulus; to create its own ideas and think about a topic without being prompted by any external object that might provide an image related to its thoughts. As a result of these unfounded assumptions and extraordinary claims, which only need to be exposed to refute some very clever theorists influenced by their superstitions, it has been asserted that the soul can represent the entire universe with all its beings without any model or prototype acting on the senses. DESCARTES and his followers have claimed that the body plays no role in sensations, perceptions, or ideas of the soul; that it can feel, perceive, understand, taste, and touch even when nothing material exists outside of ourselves. But what can be said about a BERKELEY, who has tried to prove to humanity that everything in this world is merely an illusion; that the universe exists only within oneself; that it has no existence outside of one's imagination; who has made the existence of all things questionable through arguments that even those who believe in the soul's spirituality cannot solve?

Extravagant as this doctrine of the BISHOP OF CLOYNE may appear, it cannot well be more so than that of MALEBRANCHE, the champion of innate ideas; who makes the divinity the common bond between the soul and the body: or than that of those metaphysicians, who maintain that the soul is a substance heterogeneous to the body; who by ascribing to this soul the thoughts of man, have in fact rendered the body superfluous. They have not perceived they were liable to one solid objection, which is, that if the ideas of man are innate, if he derives them from a superior being, independent of exterior causes, if he sees every thing in God; how comes it that so many false ideas are afloat, that so many errors prevail, with which the human mind is saturated? From whence comes these opinions, which according to the theologians are so displeasing to God? Might it not be a question to the Malebranchists, was it in the Divinity that SPINOZA beheld his system?

As extravagant as this belief of the BISHOP OF CLOYNE may seem, it can't be more so than that of MALEBRANCHE, who stands for innate ideas; he claims that God is the common link between the soul and the body. It's also no more extreme than what those metaphysicians argue, who insist that the soul is a substance completely different from the body; by attributing human thoughts to this soul, they have, in fact, made the body unnecessary. They haven't realized they are vulnerable to a strong objection: if human ideas are innate, if they come from a higher being that's independent of outside influences, if we see everything in God, then why are there so many false ideas out there and why do so many errors exist that the human mind is filled with? Where do these beliefs come from that, according to theologians, are so offensive to God? Isn't it worth asking the Malebranchists whether SPINOZA found his system within the Divine?

Nevertheless, to justify such monstrous opinions, they assert that ideas are only the objects of thought. But according to the last analysis, these ideas can only reach man from exterior objects, which in giving impulse to his senses modify his brain; or from the material beings contained within the interior of his machine, who make some parts of his body experience those sensations which he perceives, which furnish him with ideas, which he relates, faithfully or otherwise, to the cause that moves him. Each idea is an effect, but however difficult it may be to recur to the cause, can we possibly suppose it is not ascribable to a cause? If we can only form ideas of material substances, how can we suppose the cause of our ideas can possibly be immaterial? To pretend that man without the aid of exterior objects, without the intervention of his senses, is competent to form ideas of the universe, is to assert, that a blind man is in a capacity to form a true idea of a picture, that represents some fact of which he has never heard any one speak.

Still, to justify such extreme opinions, they claim that ideas are merely objects of thought. However, when we analyze it closely, these ideas can only come to a person from external objects, which, by stimulating his senses, alter his brain; or from the physical beings inside his body that make certain parts of him feel those sensations he perceives, providing him with ideas that he connects, accurately or not, to the cause that influences him. Each idea is an effect, but no matter how hard it may be to trace back to the cause, can we truly think it’s not linked to one? If we can only form ideas of tangible substances, how can we assume the cause of our ideas could be immaterial? To suggest that a person can form ideas about the universe without the help of external objects and the use of his senses is like claiming that a blind person can create a true idea of a painting depicting a fact they've never heard anyone talk about.

It is very easy to perceive the source of those errors, into which men, otherwise extremely profound and very enlightened have fallen, when they have been desirous to speak of the soul: to describe its operations. Obliged either by their own prejudices, or by the fear of combatting the opinions of some imperious theologian, they have become the advocates of the principle, that the soul was a pure spirit: an immaterial substance; of an essence directly different from that of the body; from every thing we behold: this granted, they have been incompetent to conceive how material objects could operate, in what manner gross and corporeal organs were enabled to act on a substance, that had no kind of analogy with them; how they were in a capacity to modify it by conveying its ideas; in the impossibility of explaining this phenomenon, at the same time perceiving that the soul had ideas, they concluded that it must draw them from itself, and not from those beings, which according to their own hypothesis, were incapable of acting on it, or rather, of which they could not conceive the manner of action; they therefore imagined that all the modifications, all the actions of this soul, sprung from its own peculiar energy, were imprinted on it from its first formation, by the Author of Nature: that these did not in any manner depend upon the beings of which we have a knowledge, or which act upon it, by the gross means of our senses.

It’s easy to see where the errors come from that even highly intelligent and enlightened people have made when trying to discuss the soul and its functions. Driven either by their own biases or by the fear of contradicting a powerful theologian, they have supported the idea that the soul is a pure spirit—an immaterial substance with a nature completely different from that of the body and everything we see. Once they accepted this, they struggled to understand how material objects could interact with something that had no similarity to them, or how physical organs could influence a substance so dissimilar. Faced with the challenge of explaining this phenomenon, yet aware that the soul has ideas, they concluded those ideas must come from within the soul itself, not from the beings that, according to their own theory, couldn’t affect it or, rather, that they couldn’t grasp how such an influence could work. Thus, they believed that all the changes and actions of the soul originated from its unique energy, instilled in it from the moment it was created by Nature’s Author, and that these did not rely on the beings we know or those that interact with it through our physical senses.

There are, however, some phenomena, which, considered superficially, appear to support the opinion of these philosophers; to announce a faculty in the human soul of producing ideas within itself, without any exterior aid; these are dreams, in which the interior organ of man, deprived of objects that move it visibly, does not, however, cease to have ideas—to be set in activity—to be modified in a manner that is sufficiently sensible—to have an influence upon his body. But if a little reflection be called in, the solution to this difficulty will be found: it will be perceived that, even during sleep, his brain is supplied with a multitude of ideas, with which the eye or time before has stocked it; these ideas were communicated to it by exterior or corporeal objects, by which they have been modified: it will be found that these modifications renew themselves, not by any spontaneous, not by any voluntary motion on its part, but by a chain of involuntary movements which take place in his machine, which determine, which excite those that give play to the brain; these modifications renew themselves with more or less fidelity, with a greater or lesser degree of conformity to those which it has anteriorly experienced. Sometimes in dreaming, he has memory, then he retraces to himself the objects which have struck him faithfully;—at other times, these modifications renew themselves without order, and without connection, very differently from those, which real objects have before excited in his interior organ. If in a dream he believes he sees a friend, his brain renews in itself the modifications or the ideas which this friend had formerly excited—in the same order that they arranged themselves when his eyes really beheld him—this is nothing more than an effect of memory. If in his dream he fancies he sees a monster which has no model in nature, his brain is then modified in the same manner that it was by the particular, by the detached ideas, with which it then does nothing more than compose an ideal whole; by assembling, and associating, in a ridiculous manner, the scattered ideas that were consigned to its keeping; it is then, that in dreaming he has imagination.

There are, however, some phenomena that, on the surface, seem to support these philosophers' views; they suggest that the human soul has a faculty for generating ideas on its own, without any external help. These are dreams, where, even without visible stimuli, the inner workings of a person don't stop creating ideas—they remain active and modified in a noticeable way, impacting the body. But with a bit of reflection, we can find the solution to this puzzle: it becomes clear that even during sleep, the brain is filled with a multitude of ideas that it previously received through sight or experience; these ideas were shaped by external or physical objects. It turns out that these modifications aren’t renewed through any spontaneous or voluntary action, but through a chain of involuntary movements happening in the body that trigger activities in the brain. These modifications can repeat themselves with varying degrees of accuracy and alignment to prior experiences. Sometimes in dreams, a person has memories and accurately recalls the objects that have previously impressed them; other times, these modifications come back chaotically and unconnected, quite differently from what real objects had previously stimulated in their inner workings. If in a dream someone thinks they see a friend, their brain recalls the modifications or ideas that this friend had previously sparked, reassembling them in the same order as when their eyes truly first saw them—this is simply a memory effect. If in a dream they imagine seeing a monster that doesn’t exist in nature, their brain is then altered in the same way it was by specific, isolated ideas, merely piecing together an ideal creation. It is then, while dreaming, that they exercise their imagination.

Those dreams that are troublesome, extravagant, whimsical, or unconnected, are commonly the effect of some confusion in his machine; such as painful indigestion—an overheated blood—a prejudicial fermentation, &c.—these material causes excite in his body a disorderly motion, which precludes the brain from being modified in the same manner it was on the day before; in consequence of this irregular motion the brain is disturbed, it only represents to itself confused ideas that want connection. When in a dream, he believes he sees a Sphinx, a being supposed by the poets to have a head and face like a woman, a body like a dog, wings like a bird, and claws like a lion, who put forth riddles and killed those who could not expound them; either, he has seen the representation of one when he was awake, or else the disorderly motion of the brain is such that it causes it to combine ideas, to connect parts, from which there results a whole without model, of which the parts were not formed to be united. It is thus, that his brain combines the head of a woman, of which it already has the idea, with the body of a lioness, of which it also has the image. In this his head acts in the same manner, as when by any defect in the interior organ, his disordered imagination paints to him some objects, notwithstanding he is awake. He frequently dreams, without being asleep: his dreams never produce any thing so strange but that they have some resemblance, with the objects which have anteriorly acted on his senses; which have already communicated ideas to his brain. The watchful theologians have composed, at their leisure, in their waking hours, those phantoms, of which they avail themselves, to terrify or frighten man; they have done nothing more than assemble the scattered traits which they have found in the most terrible beings of their own species; by exaggerating the powers, by enlarging the rights claimed by tyrants, they have formed ideal beings, before whom man trembles, and is afraid.

Those dreams that are troubling, extravagant, whimsical, or disconnected are often the result of some confusion in his system, like painful indigestion, an overheated body, or harmful fermentation. These physical causes create a chaotic motion in his body, preventing his brain from working the same way it did the day before. Because of this irregular motion, the brain becomes disturbed and can only generate confused ideas that lack coherence. When dreaming, he might believe he sees a Sphinx, a creature imagined by poets to have a head and face like a woman, a body like a dog, wings like a bird, and claws like a lion, which posed riddles and killed those who couldn’t answer them. Either he has seen an image of one while awake, or the chaotic movement in his brain causes it to mix ideas and connect parts, resulting in a whole that has no real model, with parts not meant to be combined. So, his brain merges the head of a woman, of which it already has the idea, with the body of a lioness, of which it also holds an image. This reflects how his mind works similarly when, due to a flaw in his internal organs, his disordered imagination presents him with some images, even while he is awake. He often dreams without being asleep; his dreams never produce anything so bizarre that it doesn't bear some resemblance to objects that have previously engaged his senses and have already given ideas to his brain. The attentive theologians have crafted, over time, in their waking hours, those phantoms they use to scare or intimidate people; they have simply pieced together the scattered traits they’ve observed in the most frightening aspects of their own kind. By exaggerating the powers and expanding the claims of tyrants, they have created fictional beings before whom humanity trembles and fears.

Thus, it is seen, that dreams, far from proving that the soul acts by its own peculiar energy, that it draws its ideas from its own recesses; prove, on the contrary, that in sleep it is intirely passive, that it does not even renew its modifications, but according to the involuntary confusion, which physical causes produce in the body, of which every thing tends to shew the identity, the consubstantiality with the soul. What appears to have led those into a mistake, who maintained that the soul drew its ideas from itself, is this, they have contemplated these ideas, as if they were real beings, when, in point of fact, they are nothing more than the modifications produced in the brain of man, by objects to which this brain is a stranger; they are these objects, who are the true models, who are the real archetypes to which it is necessary to recur: here is the source of all their errors.

Thus, it is evident that dreams, far from demonstrating that the soul operates with its own unique energy or draws ideas from within itself, actually show that the soul is entirely passive during sleep. It does not even recreate its own thoughts, but rather follows the involuntary chaos created by physical factors affecting the body, which all point to a shared nature with the soul. The misunderstanding of those who believed the soul sourced its ideas from itself arises from viewing these ideas as if they were real entities, when in reality, they are merely the changes occurring in the human brain due to unfamiliar external objects. These objects are the true models and real archetypes that must be referenced, and this is where their mistakes originate.

In the individual who dreams, the soul does not act more from itself, than it does in the man who is drunk, that is to say, who is modified by some spirituous liquor: or than it does in the sick man, when he is delirious, that is to say, when he is modified by those physical causes which disturb his machine, which obstruct it in the performance of its functions; or than it, does in him, whose brain is disordered: dreams, like these various states, announce nothing more than a physical confusion in the human machine, under the influence of which the brain ceases to act, after a precise and regular manner: this disorder may be traced to physical causes, such as the aliments—the humours—the combinations—the fermentations, which are but little analogous to the salutary state of man; from hence it will appear, that his brain is necessarily confused, whenever his body is agitated in an extraordinary manner.

In a person who is dreaming, the soul doesn't act any differently than it does in someone who is drunk, meaning someone affected by alcohol: or in a sick person when they are delirious, meaning when they are affected by physical conditions that disrupt their body, which interfere with its functions; or in someone whose brain is disordered: dreams, like these various states, reveal nothing more than a physical confusion in the human body, under the influence of which the brain stops functioning in a precise and regular way: this disorder can be traced to physical causes, such as food—the bodily fluids—the combinations—the fermentations, which are not very similar to a healthy state of a person; thus, it becomes clear that their brain is inevitably confused whenever their body is unusually disturbed.

Do not let him, therefore, believe that his soul acts by itself, or without a cause, in any one moment of his existence; it is, conjointly with the body, submitted to the impulse of beings, who act on him necessarily, according to their various properties. Wine taken in too great a quantity, necessarily disturbs his ideas, causes confusion in his corporeal functions, occasions disorder in his mental faculties.

Don't let him think that his soul acts on its own, or without a reason, at any moment in his life; it works together with the body and is influenced by other beings that act on him based on their different properties. Drinking too much wine inevitably disrupts his thoughts, creates confusion in his physical functions, and causes disarray in his mental abilities.

If there really existed a being in Nature, with the capability of moving itself by its own peculiar energies, that is to say, able to produce motion, independent of all other causes, such a being would have the power of arresting itself, or of suspending the motion of the universe; which is nothing more than an immense chain of causes linked one to another, acting and re-acting by necessary immutable laws, and which cannot be changed, which are incapable of being suspended, unless the essences of every thing in it were changed, without the properties of every thing were annihilated. In the general system of the world, nothing more can be perceived than a long series of motion, received and communicated in succession, by beings capacitated to give impulse to each other: it is thus, that each body is moved by the collision of some other body. The invisible motion of some soul is to be attributed to causes concealed within himself; he believes that it is moved by itself, because he does not see the springs which put it in motion, or because he conceives those powers are incapable of producing the effects he so much admires: but, does he more clearly conceive, how a spark in exploding gunpowder, is capable of producing the terrible effects he witnesses? The source of his errors arise from this, that he regards his body as gross and inert, whilst this body is a sensible machine, which has necessarily an instantaneous conscience the moment it receives an impression; which is conscious of its own existence by the recollection of impressions successively experienced; memory by resuscitating an impression anteriorly received, by detaining it, or by causing an impression which it receives to remain, whilst it associates it with another, then with a third, gives all the mechanism of reasoning.

If there really were a being in nature that could move itself using its own unique energies, meaning it could create motion independently of any other causes, such a being would have the power to stop itself or halt the motion of the universe. The universe is just a massive chain of causes linked together, acting and reacting based on necessary, unchangeable laws, which can't be altered or suspended unless the essence of everything in it changed, without annihilating the properties of everything. In the grand system of the world, all we can see is a long series of motion that is received and passed on in succession by beings capable of influencing one another; that's how each body moves when it collides with another body. The unseen motion of a soul is attributed to hidden causes within itself; it believes it moves on its own because it doesn't see the mechanisms that set it in motion or because it thinks those powers can't create the effects it admires. But does it understand how a spark from exploding gunpowder can lead to the terrible effects it witnesses? The root of its misunderstandings comes from seeing its body as solid and lifeless when in fact, this body is a sensitive machine that instantly becomes aware the moment it experiences an impression; it recognizes its own existence through the memory of impressions it has experienced over time. Memory brings back a previously received impression, holds onto it, or connects an impression it just received with another, then a third, which forms the entire mechanism of reasoning.

An idea, which is only an imperceptible modification of the brain, gives play to the organ of speech, which displays itself by the motion it excites in the tongue: this, in its turn, breeds ideas, thoughts, and passions, in those beings who are provided with organs susceptible of receiving analagous motion; in consequence of which, the wills of a great number of men are influenced, who, combining their efforts, produce a revolution in a state, or even have an influence over the entire globe. It is thus, that an ALEXANDER decided the fate of Asia, it is thus, that a MAHOMET changed the face of the earth; it is thus, that imperceptible causes produce the most terrible, the most extended effects, by a series of necessary motion imprinted on the brain of man.

An idea, which is just a subtle change in the brain, triggers the speech mechanism, which shows itself through the movement of the tongue. This, in turn, generates ideas, thoughts, and emotions in those with organs capable of responding to similar movement. As a result, the wills of many people are influenced, who, by working together, can create a revolution in a society or even affect the entire world. This is how an ALEXANDER determined the fate of Asia; this is how a MAHOMET transformed the planet; this is how subtle causes can lead to the most devastating and widespread effects through a series of necessary movements within the human brain.

The difficulty of comprehending the effects produced on the soul of man, has made him attribute to it those incomprehensible qualities which have been examined. By the aid of imagination, by the power of thought, this soul appears to quit his body, to carry itself with the greatest ease, to transport itself with the utmost facility towards the most distant objects; to run over, to approximate in the twinkling of an eye, all the points of the universe: he has therefore believed, that a being who is susceptible of such rapid motion, must be of a nature very distinguished from all others; he has persuaded himself that this soul in reality does travel, that it actually springs over the immense space necessary to meet these various objects; he did not perceive, that to do it in an instant, it had only to run over itself to approximate the ideas consigned to its keeping, by means of the senses.

The challenge of understanding the effects on the human soul has led people to attribute it with those mysterious qualities that have been discussed. With the help of imagination and the power of thought, the soul seems to leave the body, moving with ease and quickly transporting itself to far-off places. It appears to cover all corners of the universe in the blink of an eye. Therefore, people believe that a being capable of such swift movement must be fundamentally different from everything else. They've convinced themselves that this soul truly travels, leaping across the vast distances required to connect with these various objects. They fail to realize that to do this in an instant, it simply needs to navigate through its own inner thoughts in order to bring together the ideas that the senses have gathered.

Indeed, it is never by any other means than by his senses, that beings become known to man, or furnish him with ideas; it is only in consequence of the impulse given to his body, that his brain is modified, or that his soul thinks, wills, and acts. If, as ARISTOTLE asserted more than two thousand years ago,—"nothing enters the mind of man but through the medium of his senses,"—it follows as a consequence, that every thing that issues from it must find some sensible object to which it can attach its ideas, whether immediately, as a man, a tree, a bird, &c. or in the last analysis or decomposition, such as pleasure, happiness, vice, virtue, &c. This principle, so true, so luminous, so important in its consequence, has been set forth in all its lustre, by a great number of philosophers; among the rest, by the great LOCKE. Whenever, therefore, a word or its idea does not connect itself with some sensible object to which it can be related, this word or this idea is unmeaning, and void of sense; it were better for man that the idea was banished from his mind, struck out of his language: this principle is only the converse of the axiom of ARISTOTLE,—"if the direct be evident, the inverse must be so likewise." How has it happened, that the profound LOCKE, who, to the great mortification of the metaphysicians, has placed this principle of ARISTOTLE in the clearest point of view? how is it, that all those who, like him, have recognized the absurdity of the system of innate ideas, have not drawn the immediate, the necessary consequences? How has it come to pass, that they have not had sufficient courage to apply so clear a principle to all those fanciful chimeras with which the human mind has for such a length of time been so vainly occupied? did they not perceive that their principle sapped the very foundations of those metaphysical speculations, which never occupy man but with those objects of which, as they are inaccessible to his senses, he consequently can never form to himself any accurate idea? But prejudice, when it is generally held sacred, prevents him from seeing the most simple application of the most self-evident principles. In metaphysical researches, the greatest men are frequently nothing more than children, who are incapable of either foreseeing or deducing the consequence of their own data.

Indeed, beings are known to humans only through their senses, which provide ideas. It’s the physical impulses on the body that modify the brain, enabling the soul to think, will, and act. As Aristotle stated over two thousand years ago, “nothing enters the mind of man but through the medium of his senses,” it follows that everything arising from the mind must connect to a tangible object to which it can relate its ideas, whether immediately, like a person, a tree, or a bird, or in a more abstract sense, like pleasure, happiness, vice, or virtue. This principle, which is so true, clear, and significant in its implications, has been articulated brightly by many philosophers, including the great Locke. Therefore, when a word or its idea fails to connect with a sensible object, it becomes meaningless and devoid of sense; it would be better for humans if that idea were erased from their minds and language. This principle is merely the opposite of Aristotle's axiom: “if the direct is evident, the inverse must be so likewise.” How is it that the insightful Locke, who notably challenged metaphysicians by clarifying Aristotle’s principle, and others like him, who see the absurdity of the innate ideas system, have not drawn the necessary conclusions? Why haven’t they mustered the courage to apply such a clear principle to all the fantastical concepts that have occupied human thought for so long? Did they not realize that their principle undermines the very foundations of the metaphysical speculations that only engage humans with objects inaccessible to their senses, preventing them from forming any accurate ideas? Yet, when deeply held prejudices are sacred, they obscure the simplest application of the most obvious principles. In metaphysical inquiries, even the greatest minds often behave like children, incapable of foreseeing or deducing the consequences of their own premises.

LOCKE, as well as all those who have adopted his system, which is so demonstrable,—or to the axiom of ARISTOTLE, which is so clear, ought to have concluded from it that all those wonderful things with which metaphysicians have amused themselves, are mere chimeras; mere wanderings of the imagination; that an immaterial spirit or substance, without extent, without parts, is, in fact, nothing more than an absence of ideas; in short, they ought to have felt that the ineffable intelligence which they have supposed to preside at the helm of the world, is after all nothing more than a being of their own imagination, on which man has never been in accord, whom he has pictured under all the variety of forms, to which he has at different periods, in different climes, ascribed every kind of attribute, good or bad; but of which it is impossible his senses can ever prove either the existence or the qualities.

LOCKE, along with everyone else who has embraced his clearly demonstrable system—or Aristotle’s obvious axiom—should have concluded that all the amazing things metaphysicians have pondered over are just illusions; mere flights of fancy. An immaterial spirit or substance, without size or parts, is actually nothing more than a lack of ideas. In short, they should have realized that the indescribable intelligence they believe governs the world is really just a construct of their imagination, one that humanity has never agreed upon, which has been imagined in countless forms, and to which different cultures have attributed various qualities, both good and bad. Yet, no matter what, our senses can never prove its existence or any of its qualities.

For the same reason, moral philosophers ought to have concluded, that what is called moral sentiment, moral instinct, that is, innate ideas of virtue, anterior to all experience of the good or bad effects resulting from its practice, are mere chimerical notions, which, like a great many others, have for their guarantee and base only metaphysical speculation. Before man can judge, he must feel; before he can distinguish good from evil, he must compare. Morals, is a science of facts: to found them, therefore, on an hypothesis inaccessible to his senses, of which he has no means of proving the reality, is to render them uncertain; it is to cast the log of discord into his lap, to cause him unceasingly to dispute upon that which he can never understand. To assert that the ideas of morals are innate, or the effect of instinct, is to pretend that man knows how to read before he has learned the letters of the alphabet; that he is acquainted with the laws of society before they are either made or promulgated.

For the same reason, moral philosophers should have concluded that what we call moral sentiment, or moral instinct—innate ideas of virtue that exist before any experience of the good or bad outcomes from practicing them—are just fanciful ideas, which, like many others, are based only on metaphysical speculation. Before a person can judge, they must feel; before they can tell good from evil, they must compare. Morality is a science of facts: therefore, to base it on a hypothesis that's beyond their senses and that they have no way of proving is to make it uncertain; it's like throwing a log of discord into their laps, making them endlessly argue about something they can never truly grasp. To claim that moral ideas are innate or a result of instinct is to suggest that a person knows how to read before they’ve learned the alphabet; that they understand the laws of society before those laws even exist or are announced.

To undeceive him, with respect to innate ideas or modifications, imprinted on his soul, at the moment of his birth, it is simply requisite to recur to their source; he will then see that those with which he is familiar, which have, as it were, identified themselves with his existence, have all come to him through the medium of some of his senses; that they are sometimes engraven on his brain with great difficulty,—that they have never been permanent,—that they have perpetually varied in him: he will see that these pretended inherent ideas of his soul, are the effect of education, of example, above all, of habit, which by reiterated motion has taught his brain to associate his ideas either in a confused or a perspicuous manner; to familiarize itself with systems either rational or absurd. In short, he takes those for innate ideas of which he has forgotten the origin; he no longer recals to himself, either the precise epoch, or the successive circumstances when these ideas were first consigned to his brain: arrived at a certain age he believes he has always had the same notions; his memory, crowded with experience, loaded with a multitude of facts, is no longer able to distinguish the particular circumstances which have contributed to give his brain its present modifications; its instantaneous mode of thinking; its actual opinions. For example, not one of his race, perhaps, recollects the first time the word God struck his ears—the first ideas that it formed in him—the first thoughts that it produced in him; nevertheless, it is certain that from thence he has searched for some being with whom to connect the idea which he has either formed to himself, or which has been suggested to him: accustomed to hear God continually spoken of, he has, when in other respects, the most enlightened, regarded this idea as if it were infused into him by Nature; whilst it is visibly to be attributed to those delineations of it, which his parents or his instructors have made to him; which he has, in consequence, modified according to his own particular organization, and the circumstances in which he has been placed; it is thus, that each individual forms to himself a God, of which he is himself the model, or which he modifies after his own fashion.

To clear up his misconceptions about innate ideas or traits that are supposedly imprinted on his soul at birth, he just needs to look at their source. He'll then realize that the ideas he knows, which seem to have become a part of him, actually came through his senses. Sometimes, they are inscribed in his mind with great difficulty—they've never been permanent and have constantly changed within him. He'll understand that these so-called inherent ideas of his soul are the result of education, examples, and especially habits, which through repeated action have trained his brain to connect his ideas in either a confused or clear way, allowing it to get used to both logical and nonsensical systems. In short, he mistakes for innate ideas those that he has forgotten the origin of; he can no longer remember the specific time or the sequence of events when these ideas were first introduced to him. Once he reaches a certain age, he believes he has always held the same beliefs; his memory, packed with experiences and numerous facts, is no longer able to distinguish the unique circumstances that have shaped his brain's current modifications, its immediate way of thinking, and its current opinions. For instance, not one of his peers might recall the first moment the word "God" reached his ears—the initial ideas it sparked in him or the first thoughts it triggered; yet, it’s clear that from that moment on, he has searched for some being to associate with the idea he has either created or that has been suggested to him. Used to hearing about God all the time, he has, in other respects very enlightened, regarded this idea as if it were naturally ingrained in him, while in reality, it is clearly derived from the ways his parents or teachers have described it to him; he has therefore modified it according to his own personality and the circumstances he has faced. This is how each person creates their own concept of God, using their own image or modifying it to fit their own style.

His ideas of morals, although more real than those of metaphysics, are not however innate: the moral sentiments he forms on the will, or the judgment he passes on the actions of man, are founded on experience; which alone can enable him to discriminate those which are either useful or prejudicial, virtuous or vicious, honest or dishonest, worthy his esteem, or deserving his censure. His moral sentiments are the fruit of a multitude of experience that is frequently very long and very complicated. He gathers it with time; it is more or less faithful, by reason of his particular organization and the causes by which he is modified; he ultimately applies this experience with greater or less facility; to this is to be attributed his habit of judging. The celerity with which he applies his experience when he judges of the moral actions of his fellow man, is what has been termed moral instinct.

His ideas about morals, although more grounded than those of metaphysics, are not innate. The moral feelings he develops regarding will or the judgments he makes about people's actions are based on experience, which allows him to distinguish between what is useful or harmful, virtuous or immoral, honest or deceitful, deserving of his respect or of his criticism. His moral feelings result from a vast amount of experience, which can often be very lengthy and complex. He accumulates this over time; its accuracy varies due to his unique makeup and the influences on him. He ultimately applies this experience with varying degrees of ease; this leads to his habitual way of judging. The speed with which he draws on his experience when evaluating the moral actions of others is what has been called moral instinct.

That which in natural philosophy is called instinct, is only the effect of some want of the body, the consequence of some attraction or some repulsion in man or animals. The child that is newly born, sucks for the first time; the nipple of the breast is put into his mouth: by the natural analogy, that is found between the conglomerate glands, filled with nerves; which line his mouth, and the milk which flows from the bosom of the nurse, through the medium of the nipple, causes the child to press it with his mouth, in order to express the fluid appropriate to nourish his tender age; from all this the infant gathers experience; by degrees the idea of a nipple, of milk, of pleasure, associate themselves in his brain: every time he sees the nipple, he seizes it, promptly conveys it to his mouth, and applies it to the use for which it is designed.

What we refer to in natural philosophy as instinct is simply the result of some bodily need, driven by attraction or repulsion in humans or animals. A newborn baby suckles for the first time; the breast nipple is placed in its mouth. The natural connection between the clustered glands filled with nerves that line the baby’s mouth and the milk that comes from the nurse's breast through the nipple makes the baby instinctively suck in order to get the nourishment it needs at that young age. From all this, the infant gains experience; gradually, the concepts of a nipple, milk, and pleasure become linked in its brain: every time the baby sees a nipple, it grabs it, quickly brings it to its mouth, and uses it for its intended purpose.

What has been said, will enable us to judge of those prompt and sudden sentiments, which have been designated the force of blood. Those sentiments of love, which fathers and mothers have for their children—those feelings of affection, which children, with good inclinations, bear towards their parents, are by no means innate sentiments; they are nothing more, than the effect of experience, of reflection, of habit, in souls of sensibility. These sentiments do not even exist in a great number of human beings. We but too often witness tyrannical parents, occupied with making enemies of their children, who appear to have been formed, only to be the victims of their irrational caprices or their unreasonable desires.

What has been said will help us understand those quick and intense feelings often referred to as the force of blood. The love that parents have for their children and the affection that well-intentioned children feel for their parents are not innate sentiments; they are simply the result of experience, reflection, and habit in sensitive souls. These feelings don't even exist in a significant number of people. We often see tyrannical parents who seem to create enemies out of their children, raising them only to be victims of their irrational whims or unreasonable desires.

From the instant in which man commences, until that in which he ceases to exist, he feels—he is moved either agreeably or unpleasantly—he collects facts—he gathers experience; these produce ideas in his brain, that are either cheerful or gloomy. Not one individual has all this experience present to his memory at the same time, it does not ever represent to him the whole clew at once: it is, however, this experience that mechanically directs him, without his knowledge, in all his actions; it was to designate the rapidity with, which he applied this experience, of which he so frequently loses the connection—of which he is so often at a loss to render himself an account, that he imagined the word instinct: it appears to be the effect of magic, the operation of a supernatural power, to the greater number of individuals: it is a word devoid of sense to many others; but to the philosopher it is the effect of a very lively feeling to him it consists in the faculty of combining, promptly, a multitude of experience—of arranging with facility—of comparing with quickness, a long and numerous train of extremely complicated ideas. It is want that causes the inexplicable instinct we behold in animals which have been denied souls without reason, whilst they are susceptible of an infinity of actions that prove they think—judge—have memory—are capable of experience—can combine ideas—can apply them with more or less facility to satisfy the wants engendered by their particular organization; in short, that prove they have passions that are capable of being modified. Nothing but the height of folly can refuse intellectual faculties to animals; they feel, choose, deliberate, express love, show hatred; in many instances their senses are much keener than those of man. Fish will return periodically to the spot where it is the custom to throw them bread.

From the moment a person begins to exist until they no longer do, they experience feelings—pleasant or unpleasant—they gather facts and accumulate experiences. These lead to ideas in their mind, which can be cheerful or gloomy. No one can have all of this experience in their memory at once; it never presents the complete picture all at once. However, this experience guides them, often without their awareness, in everything they do. The speed at which they apply this experience, which they frequently lose track of, and struggle to articulate, is what led them to come up with the term instinct. For most people, it seems like a magical phenomenon, an act of some supernatural force. To many, the term doesn’t make sense, but to a philosopher, it reflects a strong feeling—it's the ability to quickly combine a lot of experiences, easily organize them, and swiftly compare a long and complex chain of ideas. This instinct, which we observe in animals that are thought to lack souls for no reason, is driven by need. Animals display a variety of actions that show they think, judge, remember, and have experiences. They can combine ideas and apply them with varying degrees of ease to meet their specific needs, proving they have passions that can change. It’s utter foolishness to deny animals intellectual abilities; they feel, choose, deliberate, express love, and show hatred. In many cases, their senses are sharper than those of humans. Fish will return regularly to the spot where they are fed.

It is well known the embarrassments which animals have thrown in the way of the partizans of the doctrine of spirituality; they have been fearful, if they allowed them to have a spiritual soul, of elevating them to the condition of human creatures; on the other hand, in not allowing them to have a soul, they have furnished their adversaries with authority to deny it in like manner to man, who thus finds himself debased to the condition of the animal. Metaphysicians have never known how to extricate themselves from this difficulty. DESCARTES fancied he solved it by saying that beasts have no souls, but are mere machines. Nothing can be nearer the surface, than the absurdity of this principle. Whoever contemplates Nature without prejudice, will readily acknowledge that there is no other difference between the man and the beast, than that which is to be attributed to the diversity of his organization.

It’s well known that animals have caused a lot of trouble for supporters of the idea of spirituality. They’ve been worried that if they admit animals have a spiritual soul, it would mean raising them to the level of humans. On the flip side, by denying them a soul, they give their opponents the right to deny it for humans as well, making humans seem lesser like animals. Philosophers have never figured out how to escape this issue. DESCARTES thought he fixed it by saying that animals don’t have souls, but are just machines. The ridiculousness of this idea is obvious. Anyone who looks at Nature without bias will quickly see that the only difference between humans and animals comes from their different physical makeups.

In some beings of the human species, who appear to be endowed with a greater sensibility of organs than others, may be seen an instinct, by the assistance of which they very promptly judge of the concealed dispositions of their fellows, simply by inspecting the lineaments of their face. Those who are denominated physiognomists, are only men of very acute feelings; who have gathered an experience of which others, whether from the coarseness of their organs, from the little attention they have paid, or from some defect in their senses, are totally incapable: these last do not believe in the science of physiognomy, which appears to them perfectly ideal. Nevertheless, it is certain, that the action of this soul, which has been made spiritual, makes impressions that are extremely marked upon the exterior of the body; these impressions, continually reiterated, their image remains: thus the habitual passions of man paint themselves on his countenance; by which the attentive observer, who is endowed with acute feeling, is enabled to judge with great rapidity of his mode of existence, and even to foresee his actions, his inclinations, his desires, his predominant passions, &c. Although the science of physiognomy appears chimerical to a great number of persons, yet there are few who have not a clear idea of a tender regard—of a cruel eye—of an austere aspect—of a false, dissimulating look—of an open countenance, &c. Keen practised optics acquire without doubt the faculty of penetrating the concealed motion of the soul, by the visible traces it leaves upon features that it has continually modified. Above all, the eyes of man very quickly undergo changes according to the motion which is excited in him: these delicate organs are visibly altered by the smallest shock communicated to his brain. Serene eyes announce a tranquil soul; wild eyes indicate a restless mind; fiery eyes pourtray a choleric, sanguine temperament; fickle or inconstant eyes give room to suspect a soul either alarmed or dissimulating. It is the study of this variety of shades that renders man practised and acute: upon the spot he combines a multitude of acquired experience, in order to form his judgment of the person he beholds. His judgment, thus rapidly formed, partakes in nothing of the supernatural, in nothing of the wonderful: such a man is only distinguished by the fineness of his organs, and by the celerity with which his brain performs its functions.

In some individuals of the human species, who seem to have heightened sensitivity in their senses compared to others, there's an instinct that allows them to quickly assess the hidden feelings of those around them just by looking at their facial features. Those referred to as physiognomists are simply people with very sharp perceptions who have acquired a knowledge that others, whether due to dull senses, lack of attention, or some sensory defect, cannot grasp at all. These others dismiss the science of physiognomy as completely imaginary. However, it's clear that the actions of the mind, being made spiritual, leave strong impressions on the body. These impressions, consistently repeated, create a lasting image; hence, the regular emotions of a person are reflected on their face. A keen observer, who is sensitive, can quickly judge a person's way of life and even predict their actions, tendencies, desires, and predominant passions, etc. While many may find physiognomy to be a fanciful idea, few lack a clear understanding of concepts like a gentle gaze, a cruel look, a stern expression, a deceptive or insincere appearance, or an open face, etc. Experienced and trained observers undoubtedly gain the ability to read the hidden movements of the soul through the visible marks left on facial features that have been continually shaped. Above all, a person's eyes change rapidly according to their emotional state: these delicate organs visibly shift with even the slightest disturbance to the brain. Calm eyes indicate a serene soul; restless eyes suggest an unsettled mind; fiery eyes denote a hot-tempered or passionate nature; fickle eyes may hint at a troubled or insincere soul. It’s the study of these subtle variations that sharpens one's skills and intuition: in the moment, they combine a wealth of experience to form their judgment of the person in front of them. This quick judgment has nothing to do with the supernatural or the miraculous; such a person is merely distinguished by the sensitivity of their senses and the speed at which their mind processes information.

It is the same with some beings of the human species, in whom may be discovered an extraordinary sagacity, which, to the uninformed, appears miraculous. The most skilful practitioners in medicine, are, no doubt, men endowed with very acute feelings, similar to that of the physiognomists, by the assistance of which they judge with great facility of diseases, and very promptly draw their prognostics. Indeed, we see men who are capable of appreciating in the twinkling of an eye a multitude of circumstances, who have sometimes the faculty of foreseeing the most distant events; yet, this species of prophetic talent has nothing in it of the supernatural; it indicates nothing more than great experience, with an extremely delicate organization, from which they derive the faculty of judging with extreme faculty of causes, of foreseeing their very remote effects. This faculty, however, is also found in animals, who foresee much better than man, the variations of the atmosphere with the various changes of the weather. Birds have long been the prophets, and even the guides of several nations who pretend to be extremely enlightened.

It's the same with some people in the human race, who show an amazing insight that seems miraculous to those who aren't aware. The most skilled doctors are undoubtedly individuals with very sharp instincts, similar to what physiognomists rely on, which helps them easily assess diseases and quickly make predictions. In fact, we see people who can pick up on a lot of details in an instant and sometimes can foresee even distant events; yet, this kind of prophetic ability is not supernatural. It simply reflects significant experience and an extremely sensitive nature, allowing them to make judgments about causes and anticipate their far-reaching effects. This ability is also present in animals, which can better predict changes in the atmosphere and weather patterns than humans. Birds have long served as the foretellers and even guides for several nations that claim to be highly knowledgeable.

It is, then, to their organization, exercised after a particular manner, that must be attributed those wonderous faculties which distinguish some beings, that astonish others. To have instinct, only signifies to judge quickly, without requiring to make a long, reasoning on the subject. Man's ideas upon vice and upon virtue, are by no means innate; they are, like all others, acquired: the judgment he forms, is founded upon experience, whether true or false,—this depends upon his conformation, and upon the habits that have modified him. The infant has no ideas either of the Divinity or of virtue; it is from those who instruct him that he receives these ideas; he makes more or less use of them, according to his natural organization, or as his dispositions have been more or less exercised. Nature gives man legs, the nurse teaches him their use, his agility depends upon their natural conformation, and the manner in which he exercises them.

It is, thus, their organization, shaped in a specific way, that gives rise to those amazing abilities that set some beings apart and astonish others. Having instinct simply means being able to judge quickly without needing to think things through extensively. A person's concepts of vice and virtue are not innate; they are, like all other ideas, learned: the judgments they make are based on experience, whether accurate or not—this depends on their makeup and the habits that have shaped them. An infant has no concepts of divinity or virtue; it is from those who educate them that they acquire these concepts; they make more or less use of them based on their natural tendencies or how much those tendencies have been developed. Nature gives a person legs, the caregiver teaches them how to use them, and their agility depends on their natural structure and how they practice using them.

What is called taste, in the fine arts, is to be attributed, in the same manner, only to the acuteness of man's organs, practised by the habit of seeing, of comparing, of judging certain objects; from whence results, to some of his species, the faculty of judging with great rapidity, in the twinkling of an eye, the whole with its various relations. It is by the force of seeing, of feeling, of experiencing objects, that he attains to a knowledge of them; it is in consequence of reiterating this experience, that he acquires the power, that he gains the habit of judging with celerity. But this experience is by no means innate, he did not possess it before he was born; he is neither able to think, to judge, nor to have ideas, before he has feeling; he is neither in a capacity to love, nor to hate; to approve, nor to blame, before he has been moved, either agreeably or disagreeably. Nevertheless, this is precisely what must be supposed by those who are desirous to make man admit of innate ideas, of opinions; infused by Nature, whether in morals, metaphysics, or any other science. That his mind should have the faculty of thought, that it should occupy itself with an object, it is requisite it should be acquainted with its qualities; that it may have a knowledge of these qualities, it is necessary some of his senses should have been struck by them: those objects, therefore, of which he does not know any of the qualities, are nullities; or at least they do not exist for him.

What we call taste in the fine arts comes from the sharpness of a person's senses, developed through the practice of seeing, comparing, and judging certain objects. This leads some individuals to quickly assess the entirety of a situation and its various relationships in the blink of an eye. It is through seeing, feeling, and experiencing things that a person gains knowledge of them. By repeatedly having these experiences, they develop the ability and habit of making quick judgments. However, this experience is not innate; they do not have it before birth. They cannot think, judge, or form ideas without first having feelings; they are unable to love, hate, approve, or disapprove until they are emotionally affected in some way. Still, this is exactly what those who want to argue that humans have innate ideas and opinions seem to believe, whether it's in morals, metaphysics, or any other field. For the mind to have the capacity for thought and to focus on something, it must know its qualities. To understand these qualities, some of a person's senses must have been engaged with them; therefore, objects whose qualities they do not know are essentially non-existent, or at least they do not exist for that person.

It will be asserted, perhaps, that the universal consent of man, upon certain propositions, such as the whole is greater than its part, upon all geometrical demonstrations, appear to warrant the supposition of certain primary notions that are innate, not acquired. It may be replied, that these notions are always acquired; that they are the fruit of an experience more or less prompt; that it is requisite to have compared the whole with its part, before conviction can ensue, that the whole is the greater of the two. Man when he is born, does not bring with him the idea that two and two make four; but he is, nevertheless, speedily convinced of its truth. Before forming any judgment whatever, it is absolutely necessary to have compared facts.

It may be argued that the universal agreement among people on certain ideas, like the whole is greater than its part and all geometric proofs, supports the belief in some inherent concepts that we are born with rather than learned. However, it can be countered that these concepts are always learned; they come from experiences that happen more or less quickly. We need to compare the whole to its parts before we can be convinced that the whole is greater. When a person is born, they don’t inherently know that two plus two equals four, but they are quickly convinced of its truth. Before making any judgment, it’s essential to have compared the facts.

It is evident, that those who have gratuitously supposed innate ideas, or notions inherent in man, have confounded his organization, or his natural dispositions, with the habit by which he is modified; with the greater or less aptitude he has of making experience, and of applying it in his judgment. A man who has taste in painting, has, without doubt, brought with him into the world eyes more acute, more penetrating than another; but these eyes would by no means enable him to judge with promptitude, if he had never had occasion to exercise them; much less, in some respects, can those dispositions which are called natural, be regarded as innate. Man is not, at twenty years of age, the same as he was when he came into the world; the physical causes that are continually acting upon him, necessarily have an influence upon his organization, and so modify it, that his natural dispositions themselves are not at one period what they are at another. La Motte Le Vayer says, "We think quite otherwise of things at one time than at another; when young than when old—when hungry than when our appetite is satisfied—in the night than in the day—when peevish than when cheerful. Thus, varying every hour, by a thousand other circumstances, which keep us in a state of perpetual inconstancy and instability." Every day may be seen children, who, to a certain age—display a great deal of ingenuity, a strong aptitude for the sciences, who finish by falling into stupidity. Others may be observed, who, during their infancy, have shown dispositions but little favourable to improvement, yet develope themselves in the end, and astonish us by an exhibition of those qualities of which we hardly thought them susceptible: there arrives a moment in which the mind takes a spring, makes use of a multitude of experience which it has amassed, without its having been perceived; and, if I may be allowed the expression, without their own knowledge.

It's clear that those who have casually suggested the existence of innate ideas or notions in humans have confused our natural makeup and instincts with the habits that shape us; with how well we can gain experience and use it in our judgment. A person who appreciates art certainly has sharper, more discerning eyes than others; however, those eyes won't help him make quick judgments if he hasn't had the chance to practice. Furthermore, what we refer to as "natural" traits shouldn't be seen as innate. A person at twenty is not the same as when they were born; the physical influences constantly affecting them have to impact their makeup, changing it so that their natural traits vary over time. La Motte Le Vayer said, "We think differently at different times; when we’re young versus old—when we’re hungry versus satisfied—at night versus during the day—when we’re irritable versus cheerful. So, changing every hour, through countless other circumstances, keeps us in a state of constant unpredictability and instability." Every day, we see children who, up to a certain age, display a lot of creativity and a strong talent for science, only to later fall into dullness. There are also others who, in their early years, don't show much potential for growth, yet eventually develop and surprise us with skills we never thought they had: there comes a time when their minds leap forward, drawing on a vast amount of experience they've gathered, often without even realizing it.

Thus, it cannot be too often repeated, all the ideas, all the notions, all the modes of existence, and all the thoughts of man, are acquired. His mind cannot act, cannot exercise itself, but upon that of which it has knowledge; it can understand either well or ill, only those things which it has previously felt. Such of his ideas that do not suppose some exterior material object for their model, or one to which he is able to relate them, which are therefore called abstract ideas, are only modes in which his interior organ considers its own peculiar modifications, of which it chooses some without respect to others. The words which he uses to designate these ideas, such as bounty, beauty, order, intelligence, virtue, &c. do not offer any one sense, if he does not relate them to, or if he does not explain them by, those objects which his senses have shewn him to be susceptible of those qualities, or of those modes of existence, of that manner of acting, which is known to him. What is it that points out to him the vague idea of beauty, if he does not attach it to some object that has struck his senses in a peculiar manner, to which, in consequence, he attributes this quality? What is it that represents the word intelligence, if he does not connect it with a certain mode of being and of acting? Does the word order signify any thing, if he does not relate it to a series of actions, to a chain of motion, by which he is affected in a certain manner? Is not the word virtue void of sense, if he does not apply it to those dispositions of his fellows which produce known effects, different from those which result from contrary inclinations? What do the words pain and pleasure offer to his mind in the moment when his organs neither suffer nor enjoy, if it be not the modes in which he has been affected, of which his brain conserves the remembrance, of those impressions, which experience has shewn him to be either useful or prejudicial? But when he bears the words spirituality, immateriality, incorporeality, &c. pronounced, neither his senses nor his memory afford him any assistance; they do not furnish him with any means by which he can form an idea of their qualities, or of the objects to which he ought to apply them; in that which is not matter he can only see vacuum and emptiness, which as long as he remains what he is, cannot, to his mind, be susceptible of any one quality.

So, it can't be said enough—every idea, every notion, every way of living, and every thought that a person has is learned. The mind can't work or engage unless it has knowledge of something; it can only understand well or poorly those things it has already experienced. Ideas that don’t have some outside material object to model them after—or that it can relate to—called abstract ideas, are just ways that the mind examines its own specific changes, choosing some over others without considering the rest. The words we use to name these ideas, like bounty, beauty, order, intelligence, virtue, etc., don't have any real meaning unless they’re connected to or explained by objects that our senses have shown to possess those qualities or ways of being, or actions that we know about. What identifies the vague idea of beauty if we don’t link it to an object that has affected our senses in a specific way to which we attribute this quality? What does the word intelligence represent if we don’t connect it to a specific way of being and acting? Does the word order mean anything if we don’t relate it to a series of actions or a chain of movements that affect us in a certain way? Isn’t the word virtue meaningless if we don’t apply it to the behaviors of others that produce known effects, different from those that arise from opposing inclinations? What do the words pain and pleasure mean to us when our bodies neither suffer nor enjoy them, unless they reflect the ways we've been affected, remembered in our minds, based on those experiences that have shown to be either beneficial or harmful? But when he hears words like spirituality, immateriality, incorporeality, etc., neither his senses nor his memory help him; they provide no way for him to form an idea of their qualities or the objects he should apply them to. In things that are not material, he can only perceive emptiness and void, which, as long as he remains what he is, cannot seem to possess any qualities at all.

All the errors, all the disputes of men, have their foundation in this, that they have renounced experience, have surrendered the evidence of their senses, to give themselves up to the guidance of notions which they have believed infused or innate; although in reality they are no more than the effect of a distempered imagination, of prejudices, in which they have been instructed from their infancy, with which habit has familiarized them, which authority has obliged them to conserve. Languages are filled with abstract words, to which are attached confused and vague ideas; of which, when they come to be examined, no model can be found in Nature; no object to which they can be related. When man gives himself the trouble to analyze things, he is quite surprised to find, that those words which are continually in the mouths of men, never present any fixed or determinate idea: he hears them unceasingly speaking of spirits—of the soul and its faculties—of duration—of space—of immensity—of infinity—of perfection—of virtue—of reason—of sentiment—of instinct—of taste, &c. without his being able to tell precisely, what they themselves understand by these words. Nevertheless, they do not appear to have been invented, but for the purpose of representing the images of things; or to paint, by the assistance of the senses, those known objects on which the mind is able to meditate, which it is competent to appreciate, to compare, and to judge.

All the mistakes and conflicts among people are rooted in the fact that they have rejected experience and ignored the evidence of their senses. Instead, they have followed ideas they believe are either inspired or innate, but in reality, these ideas stem from a disturbed imagination and prejudices instilled in them since childhood, which they have become accustomed to and which authority has forced them to hold onto. Languages are full of abstract words tied to unclear and vague concepts; when examined, there's no real model for them in Nature and no object to which they can be connected. When people take the time to analyze things, they are often surprised to discover that the words commonly used by others offer no fixed or clear meaning. They hear constant talk about spirits, the soul and its functions, duration, space, immensity, infinity, perfection, virtue, reason, sentiment, instinct, taste, etc., without being able to clearly understand what others mean by these terms. Yet, it seems these words were created to represent the images of things or to illustrate, with the help of the senses, those familiar objects that the mind can contemplate, assess, compare, and judge.

For man to think of that which has not acted on any of his senses, is to think on words; it is for his senses to dream; it is to seek in his own imagination for objects to which he can attach his wandering ideas: to assign qualities to these objects is, unquestionably, to redouble his extravagance, to set no limits to his folly. If a word be destined to represent to him an object that has not the capacity to act on any one of his organs; of which, it is impossible for him to prove either the existence or the qualities; his imagination, by dint of racking itself, will nevertheless, in some measure, supply him with the ideas he wants; he composes some kind of a picture, with the images or colours he is always obliged to borrow, from the objects of which he has a knowledge: thus the Divinity has been represented by some under the character of a venerable old man; by others, under that of a puissant monarch; by others, as an exasperated, irritated being, &c. It is evident, however, that man, with some of his qualities, has served for the model of these pictures: but if he be informed of objects that are represented as pure spirits—that have neither body nor extent—that are not contained in space—that are beyond nature,—here then he is plunged into emptiness; his mind no longer has any ideas—it no longer knows upon what it meditates. This, as will be seen in the sequel, no doubt, is the source of those unformed notions which some men have formed of the Divinity; they themselves frequently annihilate him, by assembling incompatible and contradictory attributes. In giving him morals—in composing him of known qualities,—they make him a man;—in assigning him the negative attributes of every thing they know, they render him inaccessible to their senses—they destroy all antecedent ideas—they make him a mere nothing. From this it will appear, that those sublime sciences which are called Theology, Psychology, Metaphysics, have been mere sciences of words: morals and politics, with which they very frequently mix, have, in consequence, become inexplicable enigmas, which there is nothing short of the study of Nature can enable us to expound.

For a person to think about things that haven't affected any of their senses is to focus on words; it's their senses that dream; it's about searching in their imagination for things to which they can connect their wandering thoughts. Assigning qualities to these things definitely just amplifies their wildness, removing any limits to their foolishness. If a word is meant to represent something that can't engage any of their senses, something whose existence or qualities they can't prove, their imagination, through stress, will still provide them with some ideas; they'll create a sort of picture using the images or colors they have to borrow from what they do know. Hence, some have depicted the Divine as an elderly man, others as a powerful king, and some as an angry, irritated being, etc. It's clear that humans, with some of their traits, have influenced these portrayals: but if they're aware of beings that are depicted as pure spirits—having no body or physical presence, being beyond nature—then they're faced with emptiness; their minds are left with no ideas—they no longer know what they're contemplating. As will be shown later, this is surely the cause of those vague ideas that some people have about the Divine; they frequently negate it by combining conflicting and contradictory traits. By giving it morals and composing it of familiar qualities, they turn it into a man; by assigning it the negative traits of everything they know, they make it unreachable for their senses—they erase all previous ideas—they render it practically nonexistent. From this, it becomes clear that those elevated fields of study called Theology, Psychology, Metaphysics have merely been sciences of words: morals and politics, which they often intermingle with, have consequently become puzzling enigmas that can only be clarified through the study of Nature.

Man has occasion for truth; it consists in a knowledge of the true relations he has with those beings competent to have an influence on his welfare; these relations are to be known only by experience: without experience there can be no reason; without reason man is only a blind creature, who conducts himself by chance. But, how is he to acquire experience upon ideal objects, which his senses neither enable him to know nor to examine? How is he to assure himself of the existence, how ascertain the qualities of beings he is not able to feel? How can he judge whether there objects be favorable or prejudicial to him? How is he to know, without the evidence of his senses, what he ought to love, what he should hate, what to seek after, what to shun, what to do, what to leave undone? It is, however, upon this knowledge that his condition in this world rests; it is upon this knowledge that morals is founded. From whence it may be seen, that, by causing him to blend vague metaphysical notions with morals, or the science of the certain and invariable relations which subsist between mankind; or by weakly establishing them upon chimerical ideas, which have no existence but in his imagination; these morals, upon which the welfare of society so much depends, are rendered uncertain, are made arbitrary, are abandoned to the caprices of fancy, are not fixed upon any solid basis.

Humans need truth, which comes from understanding the real relationships they have with those who can impact their well-being. These relationships can only be understood through experience: without experience, there is no reason; without reason, a person is just a blind creature navigating life randomly. But how can one gain experience regarding ideal objects that cannot be perceived or examined through the senses? How can one be sure of their existence or determine the qualities of beings they cannot feel? How can they judge whether these entities are beneficial or harmful? How can they know, without sensory evidence, what to love, what to hate, what to pursue, what to avoid, what to do, or what to leave undone? Yet, this knowledge is crucial for their situation in the world; it is the foundation of morality. Thus, when vague metaphysical ideas are mixed with morals, or when morals are weakly based on imaginary concepts that only exist in one’s mind, the morals upon which society’s well-being heavily relies become uncertain, arbitrary, subject to whims, and lack a solid foundation.

Beings essentially different by their natural organization, by the modifications they experience, by the habits they contract, by the opinions they acquire, must of necessity think differently. His temperament, as we have seen, decides the mental qualities of man: this temperament itself is diversely modified in him: from whence it consecutively follows, his imagination cannot possibly be the same; neither can it create to him the same images. Each individual is a connected whole, of which all the parts have a necessary correspondence. Different eyes must see differently, must give extremely varied ideas of the objects they contemplate, even when these objects are real. What, then, must be the diversity of these ideas, if the objects meditated upon do not act upon the senses? Mankind have pretty nearly the same ideas, in the gross, of those substances that act upon his organs with vivacity; he is sufficiently in unison upon some qualities which he contemplates very nearly in the same manner; I say, very nearly, because the intelligence, the notion, the conviction of any one proposition, however simple, however evident, however clear it may be supposed, is not, nor cannot be, strictly the same, in any two men. Indeed, one man not being another man, the first cannot, for example, have rigorously and mathematically the same notion of unity as the second; seeing that an identical effect cannot be the result of two different causes. Thus, when men are in accord in their ideas, in their modes of thinking, in their judgment, in their passions, in their desires, in, their tastes, their consent does not arise from their seeing or feeling the same objects precisely in the same manner, but pretty nearly; language is not, nor cannot be, sufficiently copious to designate the vast variety of shades, the multiplicity of imperceptible differences, which is to be found in their modes of seeing and thinking. Each man, then, has, to say thus, a language which is peculiar to himself alone, and this language is incommunicable to others. What harmony, what unison, then, can possibly exist between them, when they discourse with each other, upon objects only known to their imagination? Can this imagination in one individual ever be the same as in another? How can they possibly understand each other, when they assign to those objects qualities that can only be attributed to the particular manner in which their brain is affected.

Beings that are fundamentally different due to their natural makeup, the experiences they go through, the habits they form, and the opinions they hold must naturally think differently. As we've seen, a person's temperament shapes their mental qualities: this temperament varies from person to person, which means their imagination can’t be the same; it can’t produce the same images for everyone. Each individual is a connected whole, where all parts correspond in some way. Different eyes must see things differently and provide very different ideas about the objects they observe, even when those objects are real. So, how diverse must those ideas be if the objects being contemplated don’t directly impact the senses? People generally have similar broad ideas about those substances that actively engage their senses; they mostly agree on some qualities that they perceive in a similar way. I say "very nearly" because the understanding, interpretation, and certainty about any proposition, no matter how simple or obvious, cannot be exactly the same for any two people. One person cannot have a strictly identical understanding of unity as another, since an identical effect can’t come from two different causes. Therefore, when people agree in their ideas, thinking, judgments, passions, desires, and tastes, their agreement doesn't stem from seeing or feeling the same objects in exactly the same way, but rather in a close way; language is not and cannot be rich enough to capture the vast variety of nuances and subtle differences in their perceptions and thoughts. Each person, in this sense, has a unique language that belongs solely to them, which others can't fully access. What harmony or unity can exist between them when they talk about objects known only to their imagination? Can one person's imagination ever truly be the same as another's? How can they hope to understand each other when they attribute qualities to those objects based only on how their brains react?

For one man to exact from another that he shall think like himself, is to insist that he shall be organized precisely in the same manner—that he shall have been modified exactly the same in every moment of his existence: that he shall have received the same temperament, the same nourishment, the same education: in a word, that he shall require that other to be himself. Wherefore is it not exacted that all men shall have the same features? Is man more the master of his opinions? Are not his opinions the necessary consequence of his Nature, and of those peculiar circumstances which, from his infancy, have necessarily had an influence upon his mode of thinking, and his manner of acting? If man be a connected whole, whenever a single feature differs from his own, ought he not to conclude that it is not possible his brain can either think, associate ideas, imagine, or dream precisely in the same manner with that other.

For one person to demand that another think like them is to insist that they be organized in exactly the same way—that they have been shaped in every moment of their life in the same way: that they have the same temperament, the same experiences, the same education; in short, that they require the other to be just like them. So why isn’t it expected that all people have the same physical features? Is a person really in control of their opinions? Aren’t their opinions a direct result of their nature and the specific circumstances that have influenced their way of thinking and acting since childhood? If a person is a connected whole, whenever one aspect differs from their own, shouldn’t they conclude that it’s impossible for their brain to think, connect ideas, imagine, or dream in exactly the same way as someone else?

The diversity in the temperament of man, is the natural, the necessary source of the diversity of his passions, of his taste, of his ideas of happiness, of his opinions of every kind. Thus, this same diversity will be the fatal source of his disputes, of his hatreds, of his injustice, every time he shall reason upon unknown objects, but to which he shall attach the greatest importance. He will never understand either himself or others, in speaking of a spiritual soul, or of immaterial substances distinguished from Nature; he will, from that moment, cease to speak the same language, and he will never attach the same ideas to the same words. What, then, shall be, the common standard that shall decide which is the man that thinks with the greatest justice? What the scale by which to measure who has the best regulated imagination? What balance shall be found sufficiently exact to determine whose knowledge is most certain, when he agitates subjects, which experience cannot enable him to examine, that escape all his senses, that have no model, that are above reason? Each individual, each legislator, each speculator, each nation, has ever formed to himself different ideas of these things; each believes, that his own peculiar reveries ought to be preferred to those of his neighbours; which always appear to him an absurd, ridiculous, and false as his own can possibly have appeared to his fellow; each clings to his own opinion, because each retains his own peculiar mode of existence; each believes his happiness depends upon his attachment to his prejudices, which he never adopts but because he believes them beneficial to his welfare. Propose to a man to change his religion for yours, he will believe you a madman; you will only excite his indignation, elicit his contempt; he will propose to you, in his turn, to adopt his own peculiar opinions; after much reasoning, you will treat each other as absurd beings, ridiculously opiniated, pertinaciously stubborn: and he will display the least folly, who shall first yield. But if the adversaries become heated in the dispute, which always happens, when they suppose the matter important, or when they would defend the cause of their own self-love; from thence their passions sharpen, they grow angry, quarrels are provoked, they hate each other, and end by reciprocal injury. It is thus, that for opinions, which no man can demonstrate, we see the Brahmin despised; the Mahommedan hated; the Pagan held in contempt; that they oppress and disdain each with the most rancorous animosity: the Christian burns the Jew at what is called an auto-de-fe, because he clings to the faith of his fathers: the Roman Catholic condemns the Protestant to the flames, and makes a conscience of massacring him in cold blood: this re-acts in his turn; sometimes the various sects of Christians league together against the incredulous Turk, and for a moment suspend their own bloody disputes that they may chastise the enemies to the true faith: then, having glutted their revenge, return with redoubled fury, to wreak over again their infuriated vengeance on each other.

The diversity in human temperament is the natural and necessary source of differing passions, tastes, ideas of happiness, and opinions of all kinds. This very diversity will also be the unfortunate cause of disputes, hatred, and injustice whenever people reason about unknown subjects that they attach great importance to. They will struggle to understand themselves or others when discussing a spiritual soul or immaterial substances separate from nature; at that point, they will stop using the same language and will never attach the same meanings to the same words. So, what will be the common standard to determine who thinks most fairly? What will be the measure for assessing who has the best-regulated imagination? What scale can be precise enough to determine whose knowledge is most certain when discussing subjects that experience cannot allow them to explore, that escape all senses, that have no model, and that exceed reason? Each individual, each legislator, each thinker, and each nation has always formed different ideas about these matters; everyone believes their own unique views should be preferred over those of others, which they find as absurd, ridiculous, and false as their own views might seem to their peers. Each person clings to their opinion because they hold onto their own way of life, believing their happiness depends on their attachment to their prejudices, which they adopt only because they think they benefit their well-being. If you suggest a person change their religion for yours, they will think you're crazy; you'll only stir up their anger and disdain. They will then propose you adopt their beliefs, and after much debate, you'll see each other as absurd, stubborn, and ridiculous. The one who yields first will show the least folly. But if the opponents become heated in the argument, which always happens when they think the issue is important or want to protect their self-love, their passions intensify, they get angry, and disputes arise, leading to mutual hatred and harm. This is how, over opinions that no one can prove, we see the Brahmin looked down upon, the Muslim hated, and the Pagan disdained, with each group oppressing and scornfully animating the others: the Christian burns the Jew at what is called an auto-de-fe because he clings to the faith of his ancestors; the Roman Catholic condemns the Protestant to the flames and feels justified in cold-blooded massacres. This, in turn, reacts: sometimes the various Christian sects unite against the non-believing Turk, momentarily suspending their own bloody conflicts to punish enemies of true faith; then, having satisfied their thirst for revenge, they return with renewed fury to unleash their wrath on each other again.

If the imaginations of men were the same, the chimeras which they bring forth would be every where the same; there would be no disputes among them on this subject, if they all dreamt in the same manner; great numbers of human beings would be spared, if man occupied his mind with objects capable of being known, of which the existence was proved, of which he was competent to discover the true qualities, by sure, by reiterated experience. Systems of Philosophy are not subject to dispute but when their principles are not sufficiently proved; by degrees experience, in pointing out the truth and detecting their errors, terminates these quarrels. There is no variance among geometricians upon the principles of their science; it is only raised, when their suppositions are false, or their objects too much complicated. Theologians find so much difficulty in agreeing among themselves, simply, because, in their contests, they divide without ceasing, not known and examined propositions, but prejudices with which they have been imbued in their youth—in the schools—by each other's books, &c. They are perpetually reasoning, not upon real objects, of which the existence is demonstrated, but upon imaginary systems of which they have never examined the reality; they found these disputes, not upon averred experience, or constant facts, but upon gratuitious suppositions, which each endeavours to convince the other are without solidity. Finding these ideas of long standing, that few people, refuse to admit them, they take them for incontestible truths, that ought to be received merely upon being announced; whenever they attach great importance to them, they irritate themselves against the temerity of those who have the audacity to doubt, or even to examine them.

If everyone's imagination were the same, the ideas they create would all be identical; there wouldn't be any arguments among them on this topic if they all dreamed in the same way. A lot of people would be spared if individuals focused their thoughts on things that can be understood, that are proven to exist, and that they are capable of discovering through reliable, repeated experience. Philosophical Systems don't spark debate unless their principles aren't sufficiently proven; gradually, experience reveals the truth and uncovers their mistakes, putting an end to these disputes. There’s no disagreement among geometricians about the fundamentals of their field; conflict only arises when their assumptions are incorrect, or their topics are overly complex. Theologians struggle to agree with one another primarily because, in their arguments, they continuously divide not known and analyzed propositions, but biases they absorbed in their youth—in schools—through each other’s writings, etc. They are always reasoning, not about real things whose existence is established, but about imaginary systems they've never really assessed; their disputes are based not on claimed experience or consistent facts, but on baseless assumptions that each tries to convince the other lack validity. Finding that these long-standing ideas are widely accepted, they consider them indisputable truths that must be acknowledged simply upon declaration; whenever they put significant importance on them, they become frustrated with the audacity of anyone who dares to question or even critique them.

If prejudice had been laid aside, it would perhaps have been discovered that many of those objects, which have given birth to the most shocking, the most sanguinary disputes among men, were mere phantoms; which a little examination would have shown to be unworthy their notice: the priests of Apollo would have been harmless, if man had examined for himself, without prejudice, the tenets they held forth: he would have found, that he was fighting, that he was cutting his neighbour's throat, for words void of sense; or, at the least, he would have learned to doubt his right to act in the manner he did; he would have renounced that dogmatical, that imperious tone he assumed, by which he would oblige his fellow to unite with him in opinion. The most trifling reflection would have shewn him the necessity of this diversity in his notions, of this contrariety in his imagination, which depends upon his Natural conformation diversely modified: which necessarily has an influence over his thoughts, over his will, and over his actions. In short, if he had consulted morals, if he had fallen back upon reason, every thing would have conspired to prove to him, that beings who call themselves rational, were made to think variously; on that account were designed to live peaceable with each other, to love each other, to lend each other mutual succours whatever may be their opinions upon subjects, either impossible to be known, or to be contemplated under the same point of view: every thing would have joined in evidence to convince him of the unreasonable tyranny, of the unjust violence, of the useless cruelty of those men of blood, who persecute, who destroy mankind, in order that they may mould him to their own peculiar opinions; every thing would have conducted mortals to mildness, to indulgence, to toleration; virtues, unquestionably of more real importance, much more necessary to the welfare of society, than the marvellous speculations by which it is divided, by which it is frequently hurried on to sacrifice to a maniacal fury, the pretended enemies to these revered flights of the imagination.

If people set aside their prejudice, they might have realized that many of the issues that sparked the most shocking and bloody conflicts among humans were just illusions; a little investigation would have shown them to be unworthy of attention: the priests of Apollo would have seemed harmless if individuals had examined the beliefs they promoted without bias. They would have discovered that they were fighting and threatening their neighbors over meaningless words; or, at the very least, they would have questioned their right to act as they did. They would have rejected the dogmatic, domineering attitude they took, forcing others to agree with their views. Even a moment of reflection would have revealed the need for diverse opinions and the differences in our imaginations, which depend on our natural makeup being differently shaped, that inevitably influence our thoughts, desires, and actions. In short, if they had relied on morals, if they had turned to reason, everything would have aligned to show them that beings who call themselves rational are meant to think differently; for this reason, they are meant to live peacefully together, to love one another, and to offer mutual support regardless of their opinions on matters that are either impossible to fully understand or to view from the same perspective. Everything would have come together to demonstrate the unreasonable tyranny, the unjust violence, and the pointless cruelty of those brutal individuals who persecute and destroy humanity to shape others to their own narrow beliefs; ultimately, everything would have led people to kindness, compassion, and tolerance; virtues that are undoubtedly of greater importance and far more necessary for the well-being of society than the fantastic speculations that divide it and often drive it to sacrifice to a frenzied madness against the so-called enemies of these cherished flights of the imagination.

From this it must be evident, of what importance it is to morals to examine the ideas, to which it has been agreed to attach so much worth; to which man is continually sacrificing his own peculiar happiness; to which he is immolating the tranquillity of nations, at the irrational command of fanatical cruel guides. Let him fall back on his experience; let him return to Nature; let him occupy himself with reason; let him consult those objects that are real, which are useful to his permanent felicity; let him study Nature's laws; let him study himself; let him consult the bonds which unite him to his fellow mortals; let him examine the fictitious bonds that enchain him to the most baneful prejudices. If his imagination must always feed itself with illusions, if he remains steadfast in his own opinions, if his prejudices are dear to him, let him at least permit others to ramble in their own manner, or seek after truth as best suits their inclination; but let him always recollect, that all the opinions—all the ideas—all the systems—all the wills—all the actions of man, are the necessary consequence of his nature, of his temperament, of his organization, and of those causes, either transitory or constant, which modify hint: in short, that man is not more a free agent to think than to act: a truth that will be again proved in the following chapter.

From this, it should be clear how important it is for our morals to examine the ideas that we’ve decided to value so highly; ideas that people are constantly sacrificing their own happiness for; ideas that are disrupting the peace of nations at the irrational command of fanatical and cruel leaders. People should reflect on their experiences, turn back to nature, engage with reason, and focus on what is real and useful to their long-term happiness. They should study the laws of nature, examine themselves, consider the connections that bind them to other people, and question the false beliefs that trap them in harmful prejudices. If their imagination must always be fed by illusions, and if they stubbornly hold onto their opinions and cherished prejudices, they should at least allow others to explore their own paths or search for truth in ways that suit them. But they should always remember that all opinions, ideas, systems, wills, and actions of humans are the inevitable result of their nature, temperament, organization, and the varying factors that influence them: in short, that man is not more free to think than to act: a truth that will be proven again in the next chapter.










CHAP. XI

Of the System of Man's free agency.

Those who have pretended that the soul is distinguished from the body, is immaterial, draws its ideas from its own peculiar source, acts by its own energies without the aid of any exterior object; by a consequence of their own system, have enfranchised it from those physical laws, according to which all beings of which we have a knowledge are obliged to act. They have believed that the foul is mistress of its own conduct, is able to regulate its own peculiar operations; has the faculty to determine its will by its own natural energy; in a word, they have pretended man is a free agent.

Those who have claimed that the soul is separate from the body, is immaterial, gets its ideas from its own unique source, and operates on its own without needing any outside influence; as a result of their beliefs, have freed it from the physical laws that all known beings must follow. They have thought that the soul is in charge of its own behavior, can manage its own specific functions, and has the ability to choose its will based on its own natural energy; in short, they have claimed that man is a free agent.

It has been already sufficiently proved, that the soul is nothing more than the body, considered relatively to some of its functions, more concealed than others: it has been shewn, that this soul, even when it shall be supposed immaterial, is continually modified conjointly with the body; is submitted to all its motion; that without this it would remain inert and dead: that, consequently, it is subjected to the influence of those material, to the operation those physical causes, which give impulse to the body; of which the mode of existence, whether habitual or transitory, depends upon the material elements by which it is surrounded; that form its texture; that constitute its temperament; that enter into it by the means of the aliments; that penetrate it by their subtility; the faculties which are called intellectual, and those qualities which are styled moral, have been explained in a manner purely physical; entirely natural: in the last place, it has been demonstrated, that all the ideas, all the systems, all the affections, all the opinions, whether true or false, which man forms to himself, are to be attributed to his physical powers; are to be ascribed to his material senses. Thus man is a being purely physical; in whatever manner he is considered, he is connected to universal Nature: submitted to the necessary, to the immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains, according to their peculiar essences; conformable to the respective properties with which, without consulting them, she endows each particular species. Man's life is a line that Nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth: without his ever being able to swerve from it even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organizations does in no wise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no controul; give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or bad—happy or miserable—wise or foolish—reasonable or irrational, without his will going for anything in these various states. Nevertheless, in despite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is pretended he is a free agent, or that independent of the causes by which he is moved, he determines his own will; regulates his own condition.

It has already been clearly demonstrated that the soul is nothing more than the body, looked at in relation to some of its functions that are more hidden than others. It has been shown that this soul, even when considered non-physical, is constantly changing along with the body; it is subject to all its movements; without the body, it would be inert and lifeless. Consequently, it is affected by the material factors and the physical causes that drive the body; its way of existing, whether regular or temporary, depends on the material elements around it; those that make up its structure; those that form its temperament; that enter into it through food; that penetrate it with their subtleness. The faculties called intellectual and those qualities known as moral have been explained in a purely physical and entirely natural way; lastly, it has been shown that all the ideas, all the systems, all the feelings, all the beliefs, whether true or false, that humans create for themselves can be attributed to their physical powers and ascribed to their material senses. Thus, humans are purely physical beings; no matter how you look at it, they are connected to universal Nature, subjected to the necessary and unchanging laws that it imposes on all beings according to their unique essences; conforming to the specific properties with which, without regards for them, it endows each individual species. A person's life is a path that Nature commands them to follow on the earth's surface, with no ability to deviate from it for even a moment. They are born without their own consent; their organization does not depend on themselves; their ideas come to them involuntarily; their habits are determined by those who instill them; they are continuously shaped by visible or hidden causes over which they have no control; influencing their way of thinking and determining their actions. They are good or bad—happy or miserable—wise or foolish—reasonable or irrational, without their will playing a role in these different states. Still, despite the constraints they are under, it is claimed that they are free agents, or that independent of the causes that drive them, they shape their own will and regulate their own condition.

However slender the foundation of this opinion, of which every thing ought to point out to him the error; it is current at this day for an incontestible truth, and believed enlightened; it is the basis or religion, which has been incapable of imagining how man could either merit reward or deserve punishment if he was not a free agent. Society has been believed interested in this system, because an idea has gone abroad, that if all the actions of man were to be contemplated as necessary, the right of punishing those who injure their associates would no longer exist. At length human vanity accommodated itself to an hypothesis which, unquestionable, appears to distinguish man from all other physical beings, by assigning to him the special privilege of a total independence of all other causes; but of which a very little reflection would have shewn him the absurdity or even the impossibility.

No matter how weak the foundation of this opinion, which everything should indicate to him as wrong, it remains accepted today as an undeniable truth and is considered enlightened. It serves as the basis of religion, which has struggled to understand how a person could earn rewards or deserve punishments if they were not free agents. Society has believed it had a stake in this system because a notion spread that if all human actions were viewed as necessary, the right to punish those who harm others would cease to exist. Eventually, human vanity adapted to a hypothesis that, without question, seems to separate humans from all other physical beings by granting them the unique privilege of complete independence from all other causes; however, a little reflection would have revealed the absurdity or even the impossibility of this idea.

As a part, subordinate to the great whole, man is obliged to experience its influence. To be a free agent it were needful that each individual was of greater strength than the entire of Nature; or, that he was out of this Nature: who, always in action herself, obliges all the beings she embraces, to act, and to concur to her general motion; or, as it has been said elsewhere, to conserve her active existence, by the motion that all beings produce in consequence of their particular energies, which result from their being submitted to fixed, eternal, and immutable laws. In order that man might be a free agent, it were needful that all beings should lose their essences; it is equally necessary that he himself should no longer enjoy physical sensibility; that he should neither know good nor evil; pleasure nor pain; but if this was the case, from that moment he would no longer be in a state to conserve himself, or render his existence happy; all beings would become indifferent to him; he would no longer have any choice; he would cease to know what he ought to love; what it was right he should fear; he would not have any acquaintance with that which he should seek after; or with that which it is requisite he should avoid. In short, man would be an unnatural being; totally incapable of acting in the manner we behold. It is the actual essence of man to tend to his well-being; to be desirous to conserve his existence; if all the motion of his machine springs as a necessary consequence from this primitive impulse; if pain warns him of that which he ought to avoid; if pleasure announces to him that which he should desire; if it is in his essence to love that which either excites delight, or, that from which he expects agreeable sensations; to hate that which makes him either fear contrary impressions; or, that which afflicts him with uneasiness; it must necessarily be, that he will be attracted by that which he deems advantageous; that his will shall be determined by those objects which he judges useful; that he will be repelled by those beings which he believes prejudicial, either to his habitual, or to his transitory mode of existence; by that which he considers disadvantageous. It is only by the aid of experience, that man acquires the faculty of understanding what he ought to love; of knowing what he ought to fear. Are his organs sound? his experience will be true: are they unsound? it will be false: in the first instance he will have reason, prudence, foresight; he will frequently foresee very remote effects; he will know, that what he sometimes contemplates as a good, may possibly become an evil, by its necessary or probable consequences: that what must be to him a transient evil, may by its result procure him a solid and durable good. It is thus experience enables him to foresee that the amputation of a limb will cause him painful sensation, he consequently is obliged to fear this operation, and he endeavours to avoid the pain; but if experience has also shewn him, that the transitory pain this amputation will cause him may be the means of saving his life; the preservation, of his existence being of necessity dear to him, he is obliged to submit himself to the momentary pain with a view to procuring a permanent good, by which it will be overbalanced.

As part of a greater whole, humans are inevitably influenced by it. To be a truly free individual, one would need to be stronger than all of Nature combined or completely separate from it. Nature, always in motion, compels all beings within it to act and contribute to its overall movement. This is how she sustains her active existence through the actions produced by individual energies shaped by fixed, eternal, and unchanging laws. For a person to be a free agent, all beings would have to lose their essential nature; it would also mean that they themselves would need to lack physical sensitivity, and not know good or evil, pleasure or pain. However, if that were the case, they would be unable to maintain their own existence or achieve happiness. Everything would feel indifferent to them; they would no longer have choices, and would not recognize what to love or what to fear. They would lack any understanding of what to pursue or what to avoid. In short, they would become an unnatural being, entirely incapable of acting as we see humans do. It is in human nature to seek well-being and strive to preserve their existence. If all actions stem from this fundamental drive, if pain alerts them to what should be avoided, and if pleasure indicates what should be desired, then it is natural for them to be drawn to what they consider beneficial. Their will will be shaped by the things they deem useful, while they will be repelled by those they find harmful to their present or temporary existence. Only through experience can a person learn what to love and what to fear. Are their senses functioning well? Their experience will be accurate; if not, it will be distorted. In the first case, they will possess reason, caution, and foresight; they will often anticipate distant outcomes and recognize that something they see as good might lead to bad consequences. Something that seems like a temporary evil could ultimately lead to lasting good. For instance, experience teaches them that amputating a limb will result in painful sensations, making them fear such a procedure and strive to avoid the pain. However, if experience has also shown them that the temporary pain of amputation might save their life, then the preservation of their existence—being of utmost importance to them—will compel them to endure the immediate pain for the sake of securing a lasting benefit that outweighs it.

The will, as we have elsewhere said, is a modification of the brain, by which it is disposed to action or prepared to give play to the organs. This will is necessarily determined by the qualities, good or bad, agreeable or painful, of the object or the motive that acts upon his senses; or of which the idea remains with him, and is resuscitated by his memory. In consequence, he acts necessarily; his action is the result of the impulse he receives either from the motive, from the object, or from the idea, which has modified his brain, or disposed his will. When he does not act according to this impulse, it is because there comes some new cause, some new motive, some new idea, which modifies his brain in a different manner, gives him a new impulse, determines his will in another way; by which the action of the former impulse is suspended: thus, the sight of an agreeable object, or its idea, determines his will to set him in action to procure it; but if a new object or a new idea more powerfully attracts him, it gives a new direction to his will, annihilates the effect of the former, and prevents the action by which it was to be procured. This is the mode in which reflection, experience, reason, necessarily arrests or suspends the action of man's will; without this, he would, of necessity, have followed the anterior impulse which carried him towards a then desirable object. In all this he always acts according to necessary laws, from which he has no means of emancipating himself.

The will, as we've mentioned before, is a change in the brain that prepares us for action or gets the organs ready to function. This will is influenced by the qualities, whether good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, of the object or motive that affects our senses, or the idea that lingers in our mind and is stirred up by our memory. As a result, we act out of necessity; our actions stem from the impulses we receive from the motive, the object, or the idea that have influenced our brain or shaped our will. When we don't act on this impulse, it's because something new—a different cause, motive, or idea—has changed our brain in another way, giving us a new impulse and directing our will differently; this interrupts the action of the previous impulse. For instance, seeing a pleasing object or recalling its idea motivates us to act and obtain it; however, if a new object or idea captures our attention more strongly, it redirects our will, cancels out the previous desire, and stops us from acting to get it. This is how reflection, experience, and reason can halt or delay our will's actions; without this, we would inevitably follow the earlier impulse that drew us towards what we wanted back then. Throughout all this, we always act according to necessary laws, from which we cannot free ourselves.

If, when tormented with violent thirst, he figures to himself an idea, or really perceives a fountain, whose limpid streams might cool his feverish habit, is he sufficient master of himself to desire or not to desire the object competent to satisfy so lively a want? It will no doubt be conceded, that it is impossible he should not be desirous to satisfy it; but it will be said,—If at this moment it is announced to him, the water he so ardently desires is poisoned, he will, notwithstanding his vehement thirst, abstain from drinking it; and it has, therefore, been falsely concluded that he is a free agent. The fact, however, is, that the motive in either case is exactly the same: his own conservation. The same necessity that determined him to drink, before he knew the water was deleterious, upon this new discovery, equally determines him not to drink; the desire of conserving himself, either annihilates or suspends the former impulse; the second motive becomes stronger than the preceding; that is, the fear of death, or the desire of preserving himself, necessarily prevails over the painful sensation caused by his eagerness to drink. But, (it will be said) if the thirst is very parching, an inconsiderate man, without regarding the danger, will risque swallowing the water. Nothing is gained by this remark: in this case, the anterior impulse only regains the ascendency; he is persuaded, that life may possibly be longer preserved, or that he shall derive a greater good by drinking the poisoned water, than by enduring the torment, which, to his mind, threatens instant dissolution: thus, the first becomes the strongest, and necessarily urges him on to action. Nevertheless, in either case, whether he partakes of the water, or whether he does not, the two actions will be equally necessary; they will be the effect of that motive which finds itself most puissant; which consequently acts in a most coercive manner upon his will.

If, when suffering from intense thirst, he imagines or actually sees a fountain with clear water that could quench his burning need, can he really control whether he wants the thing that can satisfy such a strong desire? It's generally accepted that he will want to satisfy it; however, if at that moment he is told that the water he desperately wants is poisoned, he will, despite his intense thirst, refrain from drinking it. Thus, it has been wrongly concluded that he has free will. The truth is that the motivation in both situations is the same: his own survival. The necessity that made him want to drink, before he knew the water was toxic, now makes him not want to drink after discovering this fact; the desire to stay alive overruns or halts the previous urge. The fear of death or the wish to protect himself becomes more powerful than the painful feeling driven by his thirst. But, it could be argued, if the thirst is overwhelming, a reckless person might ignore the danger and risk drinking the water. This point adds nothing: in this scenario, the initial urge simply reasserts itself; he thinks he might survive longer or gain a greater benefit from drinking the poisoned water than by enduring the torment that feels like it will kill him right away. Thus, the first urge becomes the strongest and pushes him to act. Regardless, in either case—whether he drinks the water or not—both actions are equally necessary; they result from the motivation that proves most powerful and, therefore, acts most forcefully on his will.

This example will serve to explain the whole phaenomena of the human will. This will, or rather the brain, finds itself in the same situation as a bowl, which although it has received an impulse that drives it forward in a straight line, is deranged in its course, whenever a force, superior to the first, obliges it to change its direction. The man who drinks the poisoned water, appears a madman; but the actions of fools are as necessary as those of the most prudent individuals. The motives that determine the voluptuary, that actuate the debauchee to risk their health, are as powerful, their actions are as necessary, as those which decide the wise man to manage his. But, it will be insisted, the debauchee may be prevailed on to change his conduct; this does not imply that he is a free agent; but, that motives may be found sufficiently powerful to annihilate the effect of those that previously acted upon him; then these new motives determine his will to the new mode of conduct he may adopt, as necessarily as the former did to the old mode.

This example will help explain the entire phenomenon of human will. The will, or more accurately the brain, is in a similar position as a bowl; even though it has received an impulse that pushes it straight ahead, it can be thrown off course whenever a stronger force compels it to change direction. A person who drinks poisoned water seems insane, but the actions of fools are as essential as those of the most careful individuals. The reasons that drive the pleasure-seeker, which lead the debauchee to risk their health, are just as strong; their actions are as necessary as those that guide the wise person in managing theirs. However, one might argue that the debauchee can be convinced to change their behavior; this doesn't mean they are free agents, but rather that there can be powerful enough motives to override those that influenced them before. Then, these new motives guide their will toward the new behavior they might adopt, just as inevitably as the old motives did for their previous actions.

Man is said to deliberate when the action of the will is suspended; this happens when two opposite motives act alternately upon him. To deliberate, is to hate and to love in succession; it is to be alternately attracted and repelled; it is to be moved sometimes by one motive, sometimes by another. Man only deliberates when he does not distinctly understand the quality of the objects from which he receives impulse, or when experience has not sufficiently apprised him of the effects, more or less remote, which his actions will produce. He would take the air, but the weather is uncertain; he deliberates in consequence; he weighs the various motives that urge his will to go out or to stay at home; he is at length determined by that motive which is most probable; this removes his indecision, which necessarily settles his will either to remain within or to go abroad: this motive is always either the immediate or ultimate advantage he finds or thinks he finds in the action to which he is persuaded.

A person is said to deliberate when their will is in neutral; this happens when two opposing motives influence them one after the other. To deliberate means to experience love and hate in sequence; it's to feel both attracted and repelled; it means being driven sometimes by one reason and sometimes by another. A person only deliberates when they don’t clearly understand the nature of the options affecting them, or when their past experiences haven’t adequately informed them about the consequences—near or far—of their actions. They might want to go outside, but the weather is unpredictable; so they deliberate as a result. They weigh the different reasons pushing them to either go out or stay home; ultimately, they are swayed by the reason that seems most likely. This resolves their uncertainty and determines their choice to either stay in or go out: this reason is usually tied to the immediate or long-term benefit they perceive or believe they will gain from the action they are considering.

Man's will frequently fluctuates between two objects, of which either the presence or the ideas move him alternately: he waits until he has contemplated the objects or the ideas they have left in his brain; which solicit him to different actions; he then compares these objects or ideas: but even in the time of deliberation, during the comparison, pending these alternatives of love and hatred, which succeed each other sometimes with the utmost rapidity, he is not a free agent for a single instant; the good or the evil which he believes he finds successively in the objects, are the necessary motives of these momentary wills; of the rapid motion of desire or fear that he experiences as long as his uncertainty continues. From this it will be obvious, that deliberation is necessary; that uncertainty is necessary; that whatever part he takes, in consequence of this deliberation, it will always necessarily be that which he has judged, whether well or ill, is most probable to turn to his advantage.

A person's will often swings back and forth between two options, with either their presence or the ideas associated with them pulling them in different directions. They wait until they've thought about the options or the ideas left in their mind, which push them toward different actions. Then they compare these options or ideas. However, even while they're deliberating and weighing their feelings of love and hate, which can change incredibly fast, they aren't truly free for a single moment. The good or bad they think they see in the options are the necessary motivations for these temporary desires; the quick shifts of longing or fear they feel as long as their uncertainty persists. From this, it's clear that deliberation is essential; that uncertainty is crucial; and whatever choice they make as a result of this deliberation will always be what they believe, whether rightly or wrongly, is most likely to benefit them.

When the soul is assailed by two motives that act alternately upon it, or modify it successively, it deliberates; the brain is in a sort of equilibrium, accompanied with perpetual oscillations, sometimes towards one object, sometimes towards the other, until the most forcible carries the point, and thereby extricates it, from this state of suspense, in which consists the indecision of his will. But when the brain is simultaneously assailed by causes equally strong, that move it in opposite directions; agreeable to the general law of all bodies, when they are struck equally by contrary powers, it stops, it is in nisu; it is neither capable to will nor to act; it waits until one of the two causes has obtained sufficient force to overpower the other, to determine its will, to attract it in such a manner that it may prevail over the efforts of the other cause.

When the soul is influenced by two motives that alternately affect it or change it one after the other, it thinks things over; the brain is in a sort of balanced state, constantly shifting back and forth—sometimes drawn to one option, sometimes to the other—until the strongest motive takes the lead and helps it escape this state of uncertainty, which is what indecision is. But when the brain is simultaneously affected by equally strong forces pulling it in opposite directions, according to the general principle that when opposing forces hit an object equally, it comes to a standstill, remaining in a state of nisu; it is unable to make a decision or take action. It waits until one of the two forces gains enough strength to overcome the other, to make a choice, and to pull it in such a way that it can dominate the opposing force.

This mechanism, so simple, so natural, suffices to demonstrate, why uncertainty is painful; why suspense is always a violent state for man. The brain, an organ so delicate, so mobile, experiences such rapid modifications, that it is fatigued; or when it is urged in contrary directions, by causes equally powerful, it suffers a kind of compression, that prevents the activity which is suitable to the preservation of the whole, which is necessary to procure what is advantageous to its existence. This mechanism will also explain the irregularity, the indecision, the inconstancy of man; and account for that conduct, which frequently appears an inexplicable mystery, which indeed it is, under the received systems. In consulting experience, it will be found that the soul is submitted to precisely the same physical laws as the material body. If the will of each individual, during a given time, was only moved by a single cause or passion, nothing would be more easy than to foresee his actions; but his heart is frequently assailed by contrary powers, by adverse motives, which either act on him simultaneously or in succession; then his brain, attracted in opposite directions, is either fatigued, or else tormented by a state of compression, which deprives it of activity. Sometimes it is in a state of incommodious inaction; sometimes it is the sport of the alternate shocks it undergoes. Such, no doubt, is the state in which man finds himself, when a lively passion solicits him to the commission of crime, whilst fear points out to him the danger by which it is attended: such, also, is the condition of him whom remorse, by the continued labour of his distracted soul, prevents from enjoying the objects he has criminally obtained.

This mechanism, so simple and so natural, shows why uncertainty is painful and why suspense is always a distressing state for people. The brain, a delicate and agile organ, undergoes such rapid changes that it becomes fatigued; or when it is pulled in opposite directions by equally strong forces, it experiences a kind of pressure that hinders the activity needed to maintain its overall well-being and to pursue what is essential for its survival. This mechanism also explains human irregularity, indecision, and inconsistency, accounting for behaviors that often seem like an inexplicable mystery, which indeed they are within the existing systems. Looking at experience, it becomes clear that the soul operates under exactly the same physical laws as the body. If an individual's will were driven by only one cause or passion at any time, predicting their actions would be straightforward; however, their heart is often attacked by opposing forces and conflicting motives that either act on them at once or in turns. Consequently, their brain, pulled in different directions, becomes either exhausted or tormented by a state of pressure that deprives it of activity. Sometimes it is uncomfortably inactive; sometimes it is tossed about by alternating shocks. This reflects the state of a person when a strong passion urges them to commit a crime while fear highlights the danger linked to it; it also captures the condition of someone whom remorse, through the continuous struggle of their troubled soul, prevents from enjoying the rewards of their wrongful actions.

If the powers or causes, whether exterior or interior, acting on the mind of man, tend towards opposite points, his soul, is well as all other bodies, will take a mean direction between the two; in consequence of the violence with which his soul is urged, his condition becomes sometimes so painful that his existence is troublesome: he has no longer a tendency to his own peculiar conservation; he seeks after death, as a sanctuary against himself—as the only remedy to his despair: it is thus we behold men, miserable and discontented, voluntarily destroy themselves, whenever life becomes insupportable. Man is competent to cherish his existence, no longer than life holds out charms to him; when he is wrought upon by painful sensations, or drawn by contrary impulsions, his natural tendency is deranged, he is under the necessity to follow a new route; this conducts him to his end, which it even displays to him as the most desirable good. In this manner may be explained, the conduct of those melancholy beings, whose vicious temperaments, whose tortured consciences, whose chagrin, whose ennui, sometimes determine them to renounce life.

If the influences, whether external or internal, acting on a person's mind lead in different directions, their soul, like all other entities, will find a middle ground between the two. Because of the pressure on their soul, their situation can become so painful that their existence feels burdensome. They no longer have a desire to preserve their own life; instead, they seek death as a refuge from themselves—it's seen as the only escape from their despair. This is how we see people, unhappy and discontent, willingly end their lives when living becomes unbearable. A person can value their existence only as long as life offers them joy; when they are overwhelmed by pain or pulled in opposing directions, their natural instincts are disrupted, forcing them to take a different path. This new path leads them to their end, which they may even perceive as the most desirable outcome. This helps explain the behavior of those sorrowful individuals whose troubled natures, tortured consciences, and discontent sometimes drive them to abandon life.

The various powers, frequently very complicated, that act either successively or simultaneously upon the brain of man, which modify him so diversely in the different periods of his existence, are the true causes of that obscurity in morals, of that difficulty which is found, when it is desired to unravel the concealed springs of his enigmatical conduct. The heart of man is a labyrinth, only because it very rarely happens that we possess the necessary gift of judging it; from whence it will appear, that his circumstances, his indecision, his conduct, whether ridiculous, or unexpected, are the necessary consequences of the changes operated in him; are nothing but the effect of motives that successively determine his will; which are dependent on the frequent variations experienced by his machine. According to these variations, the same motives have not, always, the same influence over his will, the same objects no longer enjoy the faculty of pleasing him; his temperament has changed, either for the moment, or for ever. It follows as a consequence, that his taste, his desires, his passions, will change; there can be no kind of uniformity in his conduct, nor any certitude in the effects to be expected.

The various influences, often quite complex, that act either one after another or at the same time on a person's mind, which alter them in so many different ways throughout their life, are the real reasons behind the confusion in morals and the challenges we face when trying to understand the hidden reasons for their puzzling behavior. The human heart is like a maze, mainly because we rarely have the ability to judge it correctly. This shows that a person’s circumstances, indecision, and behavior—whether silly or unexpected—are simply results of the changes that happen within them; they are just the outcome of motivations that shape their decisions over time, which depend on the frequent shifts they experience. Depending on these shifts, the same motivations do not always have the same impact on their will; the same things may no longer attract them; their temperament may have changed, either temporarily or permanently. As a result, their tastes, desires, and passions will also change; there can be no consistency in their behavior or certainty in the expected outcomes.

Choice by no means proves the free-agency of man; he only deliberates when he does not yet know which to choose of the many objects that move him, he is then in an embarrassment, which does not terminate, until his will as decided by the greater advantage he believes be shall find in the object he chooses, or the action he undertakes. From whence it may be seen that choice is necessary, because he would not determine for an object, or for an action, if he did not believe that he should find in it some direct advantage. That man should have free-agency, it were needful that he should be able to will or choose without motive; or, that he could prevent motives coercing his will. Action always being the effect of his will once determined, as his will cannot be determined but by a motive, which is not in his own power, it follows that he is never the master of the determination of his own peculiar will; that consequently he never acts as a free agent. It has been believed that man was a free agent, because he had a will with the power of choosing; but attention has not been paid to the fact, that even his will is moved by causes independent of himself, is owing to that which is inherent in his own organization, or which belongs to the nature of the beings acting on him. Indeed, man passes a great portion of his life without even willing. His will attends the motive by which it is determined. If he was to render an exact account of every thing he does in the course of each day, from rising in the morning to lying down at night, he would find, that not one of his actions have been in the least voluntary; that they have been mechanical, habitual, determined by causes he was not able to foresee, to which he was either obliged to, yield, or with which he was allured to acquiesce; he would discover, that all the motives of his labours, of his amusements, of his discourses, of his thoughts, have been necessary; that they have evidently either seduced him or drawn him along. Is he the master of willing, not to withdraw his hand from the fire when he fears it will be burnt? Or has he the power to take away from fire the property which makes him fear it? Is he the master of not choosing a dish of meat which he knows to be agreeable, or analogous to his palate; of not preferring it to that which he knows to be disagreeable or dangerous? It is always according to his sensations, to his own peculiar experience, or to his suppositions, that he judges of things either well or ill; but whatever way be his judgment, it depends necessarily on his mode of feeling, whether habitual or accidental, and the qualities he finds in the causes that move him, which exist in despite of himself.

Choice doesn't prove that humans have free will; people only deliberate when they're unsure which of the many things influencing them to choose. At that point, they're stuck until their will is guided by the greater benefit they believe they'll find in the option they select or the action they take. This shows that choice is necessary because they wouldn't decide on an option or an action unless they believe it will provide some direct benefit. For a person to truly have free will, they would need to be able to will or choose without any reason or be able to prevent influences from overriding their will. Action is always a result of their will once decided, and since their will can't be determined without a motive—something beyond their control—they're never truly in charge of their own will. Thus, they don't act like free agents. It's often thought that people are free agents because they have a will with the ability to choose, but people overlook the fact that even their will is influenced by factors outside themselves, which come from their own nature or that of the things affecting them. In reality, people spend a lot of their lives without even exercising their will. Their will follows the motive that determines it. If someone were to keep a detailed account of everything they do in a day, from waking up to going to bed, they'd find that none of their actions were truly voluntary; they would appear mechanical, habitual, and determined by unforeseen causes that they either had to comply with or were drawn to accept. They'd discover that all the reasons for their work, fun, conversations, and thoughts were necessary; they were clearly either compelled or enticed. Are they in control of their will not to pull their hand away from a fire when they fear being burned? Can they remove from fire the characteristic that makes them fear it? Are they in control of declining a dish they know they enjoy, or of not preferring it over something they know is unappealing or dangerous? Their judgments about things are based on their feelings, personal experiences, or assumptions—however they evaluate them, it necessarily relies on how they feel, whether that feeling is habitual or accidental, and the traits they perceive in the influences acting upon them, which exist regardless of their desires.

All the causes which by his will is actuated, must act upon him in a manner sufficiently marked, to give him some sensation, some perception, some idea, whether complete or incomplete, true or false; as soon as his will is determined, he must have felt, either strongly or feebly; if this was not the case he would have determined without motive: thus, to speak correctly, there are no causes which are truly indifferent to the will: however faint the impulse he receives, whether on the part of the objects themselves, or on the part of their images or ideas, as soon as his will acts, the impulse has been competent to determine him. In consequence of a slight, of a feeble impulse, the will is weak, it is this weakness of the will that is called indifference. His brain with difficulty perceives the sensation, it has received; it consequently acts with less vigour, either to obtain or remove the object or the idea that has modified it. If the impulse is powerful, the will is strong, it makes him act vigorously, to obtain or to remove the object which appears to him either very agreeable or very incommodious.

All the causes that influence his will must affect him in a way that's noticeable enough to give him some sensation, some perception, some idea—whether complete or incomplete, true or false. As soon as his will is set, he must have felt it, either strongly or weakly; if that weren't the case, he would have decided without any motive. So, to be precise, there are no causes that are truly indifferent to the will: no matter how faint the impulse he receives—whether from the objects themselves or from their images or ideas—once his will acts, the impulse has been strong enough to determine him. A slight or weak impulse leads to a weak will, and this weakness is what we call indifference. His brain has a hard time perceiving the sensation it has received, which means it acts with less energy, either to acquire or to remove the object or idea that has affected it. If the impulse is strong, the will is robust, making him act decisively to obtain or eliminate the object that seems very appealing or very bothersome to him.

It has been believed man was a free agent, because it has been imagined that his soul could at will recall ideas, which sometimes suffice to check his most unruly desires. Thus, the idea of a remote evil frequently prevents him from enjoying a present and actual good: thus, remembrance, which is an almost insensible, a slight modification of his brain, annihilates, at each instant, the real objects that act upon his will. But he is not master of recalling to himself his ideas at pleasure; their association is independent of him; they are arranged in his brain, in despite of him, without his own knowledge, where they have made an impression more or less profound; his memory itself depends upon his organization; its fidelity depends upon the habitual or momentary state in which he finds himself; when his will is vigorously determined to some object or idea that excites a very lively passion in him, those objects or ideas that would be able to arrest his action no longer present themselves to his mind; in those moments his eyes are shut to the dangers that menace him, of which the idea ought to make him forbear; he marches forward headlong towards the object by whose image he is hurried on; reflection cannot operate upon him in any way; he sees nothing but the object of his desires; the salutary ideas which might be able to arrest his progress disappear, or else display themselves either too faintly or too late to prevent his acting. Such is the case with all those who, blinded by some strong passion, are not in a condition to recal to themselves those motives, of which the idea alone, in cooler moments, would be sufficient to deter them from proceeding; the disorder in which they are, prevents their judging soundly; render them incapable of foreseeing the consequence of their actions; precludes them from applying to their experience; from making use of their reason; natural operations, which suppose a justness in the manner of associating their ideas; but to which their brain is then not more competent, in consequence of the momentary delirium it suffers, than their hand is to write whilst they are taking violent exercise.

It's been thought that humans are free agents because their minds can recall ideas at will, which sometimes helps them control their strongest desires. However, the thought of a distant evil often stops them from enjoying immediate and real good: remembrance, which is a barely noticeable, slight change in their brain, wipes out the real objects acting on their will at each moment. But they aren't in control of bringing ideas to mind whenever they want; their connections to these ideas are independent of them; they're organized in their brain regardless of their knowledge, leaving a more or less deep impression. Their memory itself depends on their organization; its accuracy relies on their usual or temporary state. When their will is strongly focused on an object or idea that stirs intense passion, the objects or ideas that could halt their actions no longer come to mind; at those moments, they ignore the dangers that should make them hesitate. They rush headlong towards the object spurred by its image; reflection can't influence them at all; they see nothing but what they desire. The helpful ideas that might stop their progress vanish or appear too faintly or too late to prevent their actions. This is true for anyone overwhelmed by strong passion, unable to remember the reasons that would, in calmer moments, be enough to keep them from acting. Their disordered state prevents them from judging correctly, makes them unable to foresee the consequences of their actions, and stops them from using their experience or reason—natural processes that require a proper way of associating ideas. But their brains aren’t capable of that at the moment due to the temporary madness they experience, just as their hands aren't capable of writing while they're engaging in intense physical activity.

Man's mode of thinking is necessarily determined by his manner of being; it must, therefore, depend on his natural organization, and the modification his system receives independently of his will. From this we are obliged to conclude, that his thoughts, his reflections, his manner of viewing things, of feeling, of judging, of combining ideas, is neither voluntary nor free. In a word, that his soul is neither mistress of the motion excited in it, nor of representing to itself, when wanted, those images or ideas that are capable of counterbalancing the impulse it receives. This is the reason why man, when in a passion, ceases to reason; at that moment reason is as impossible to be heard, as it is during an extacy, or in a fit of drunkenness. The wicked are never more than men who are either drunk or mad: if they reason, it is not until tranquillity is re-established in their machine; then, and not till then, the tardy ideas that present themselves to their mind, enable them to see the consequence of their actions, and give birth to ideas, that bring on them that trouble, which is designated shame, regret, remorse.

A person's way of thinking is shaped by how they exist; it naturally depends on their innate qualities and the changes their system undergoes without their control. From this, we must conclude that their thoughts, reflections, views, feelings, judgments, and ability to combine ideas are neither voluntary nor free. In short, their mind is not in control of the reactions it experiences, nor can it readily call up the images or ideas that might balance out those impulses. This explains why, when someone is angry, they stop reasoning; in that moment, reason is as absent as it is during a state of ecstasy or drunkenness. The wicked are simply people who are either intoxicated or insane: if they do reason, it’s only after calm is restored within them; then, and only then, do the delayed ideas that come to mind help them grasp the consequences of their actions and lead to feelings of discomfort known as shame, regret, remorse.

The errors of philosophers on the free-agency of man, have arisen from their regarding his will as the primum mobile, the original motive of his actions; for want of recurring back, they have not perceived the multiplied, the complicated causes, which, independently of him, give motion to the will itself, or which dispose and modify his brain, whilst he himself is purely passive in the motion he receives. Is he the master of desiring or not desiring an object that appears desirable to him? Without doubt it will be answered, No: but he is the master of resisting his desire, if he reflects on the consequences. But, I ask, is he capable of reflecting on these consequences when his soul is hurried along by a very lively passion, which entirely depends upon his natural organization, and the causes by which he is modified? Is it in his power to add to these consequences all the weight necessary to counterbalance his desire? Is he the master of preventing the qualities which render an object desirable from residing in it? I shall be told, he ought to have learned to resist his passions; to contract a habit of putting a curb on his desires. I agree to it without any difficulty: but in reply, I again ask, Is his nature susceptible of this modification? Does his boiling blood, his unruly imagination, the igneous fluid that circulates in his veins, permit him to make, enable him to apply true experience in the moment when it is wanted? And, even when his temperament has capacitated him, has his education, the examples set before him, the ideas with which he has been inspired in early life, been suitable to make him contract this habit of repressing his desires? Have not all these things rather contributed to induce him to seek with avidity, to make him actually desire those objects which you say he ought to resist.

The mistakes of philosophers regarding human free will stem from their view of the will as the primary driver of actions. By not looking back far enough, they fail to see the numerous, complex factors that, independent of the individual, influence the will itself or shape and modify the brain while the person remains completely passive in the influence they receive. Is he truly in control of wanting or not wanting something that seems appealing to him? Obviously, the answer is no: however, he can choose to resist his desire if he thinks about the consequences. But I ask, can he actually think about those consequences when his emotions are overwhelming, driven by a strong passion that entirely relies on his natural makeup and the factors that affect him? Can he weigh those consequences enough to counteract his desire? Is he able to stop the qualities that make an object appealing from being present in it? I would be told he should learn to resist his passions and develop a habit of controlling his desires. I agree, but I must ask, is his nature capable of this change? Does his intense emotions, his uncontrollable imagination, the fiery energy running through his veins allow him to draw on real experience when it is needed? And even if his temperament allows for it, has his upbringing, the role models in his life, the ideas he was exposed to as a child, equipped him to develop this habit of suppressing his desires? Haven't all these factors instead pushed him to eagerly pursue and actually desire the things that he supposedly should resist?

The ambitious man cries out,—You will have me resist my passion, but have they not unceasingly repeated to me, that rank, honours, power, are the most desirable advantages in life? Have I not seen my fellow-citizens envy them—the nobles of my country sacrifice every thing to obtain them? In the society in which I live, am I not obliged to feel, that if I am deprived of these advantages, I must expect to languish in contempt, to cringe under the rod of oppression?

The ambitious man exclaims, "You want me to resist my desires, but haven’t they always told me that status, titles, and power are the most desirable things in life? Haven't I seen my fellow citizens envy them, and the nobles of my country give up everything to get them? In the society I live in, don’t I have to realize that if I'm lacking these advantages, I can only expect to suffer in shame and endure the weight of oppression?"

The miser says,—You forbid me to love money, to seek after the means of acquiring it: alas! does not every thing tell me, that in this world money is the greatest blessing; that it is amply sufficient to render me happy? In the country I inhabit, do I not see all my fellow-citizens covetous of riches? but do I not also witness that they are little scrupulous in the means of obtaining wealth? As soon as they are enriched by the means which you censure, are they not cherished, considered, and respected? By what authority, then, do you object to my amassing treasure? what right have you to prevent my using means, which although you call them sordid and criminal, I see approved by the sovereign? Will you have me renounce my happiness?

The miser says, — You tell me I shouldn't love money or seek ways to get it: but doesn’t everything around me say that in this world money is the greatest blessing and enough to make me happy? In my country, don’t I see all my fellow citizens chasing after wealth? And don’t I also notice that they are not very careful about how they get rich? As soon as they gain wealth through the means you criticize, aren’t they celebrated, regarded, and respected? So, on what basis do you oppose my accumulating wealth? What right do you have to stop me from using methods that, even though you call them dirty and wrong, I see the ruler approving? Do you want me to give up my happiness?

The voluptuary argues,—You pretend that I should resist my desires; but was I the maker of my own temperament, which unceasingly invites me to pleasure? You call my pleasures disgraceful; but in the country in which I live, do I not witness the most dissipated men enjoying the most distinguished rank? Do I not behold, that no one is ashamed of adultery but the husband it has outraged? do not I see men making trophies of their debaucheries, boasting of their libertinism, rewarded, with applause?

The pleasure-seeker argues, "You expect me to resist my desires, but did I create my own nature that constantly urges me toward pleasure? You say my pleasures are shameful, but in my country, don’t I see the most extravagant people enjoying the highest status? Don’t I notice that the only one ashamed of adultery is the betrayed husband? Don’t I see men flaunting their excesses, bragging about their hedonism, and being applauded for it?"

The choleric man vociferates,—You advise me to put a curb on my passions; to resist the desire of avenging myself: but can I conquer my nature? Can I alter the received opinions of the world? Shall I not be for ever disgraced, infallibly dishonoured in society, if I do not wash out, in the blood of my fellow-creature, the injuries I have received?

The choleric man shouts, “You tell me to control my emotions and to hold back my urge for revenge. But can I really change who I am? Can I change the way people think? Will I not be forever shamed and dishonored in society if I don’t erase the wrongs done to me with the blood of my fellow human?”

The zealous enthusiast exclaims,—You recommend to me mildness, you advise me to be tolerant, to be indulgent to the opinions of my fellow-men; but is not my temperament violent? Do I not ardently love my God? Do they not assure me that zeal is pleasing to him; that sanguinary inhuman persecutors have been his friends? That those who do not think as I do are his enemies? I wish to render myself acceptable in his sight, I therefore adopt the means you reprobate.

The passionate devotee exclaims, "You urge me to be mild, to tolerate, and to be lenient toward the opinions of others; but isn’t my nature intense? Don’t I fervently love my God? Don’t they tell me that zeal is pleasing to Him, and that brutal, cruel persecutors have been His allies? That those who disagree with me are His foes? I want to be acceptable in His eyes, so I embrace the methods you condemn."

In short, the actions of man are never free; they are always the necessary consequence of his temperament, of the received ideas, of the notions, either true or false, which he has formed to himself of happiness: of his opinions, strengthened by example, forfeited by education, consolidated by daily experience. So many crimes are witnessed on the earth, only because every thing conspires to render man vicious, to make him criminal; very frequently, the superstitions he has adopted, his government, his education, the examples set before him, irresistibly drive him on to evil: under these circumstances morality preaches virtue to him in vain. In those societies where vice is esteemed, where crime is crowned, where venality is constantly recompenced, where the most dreadful disorders are punished, only in those who are too weak to enjoy the privilege of committing them with impunity; the practice of virtue is considered nothing more than a painful sacrifice of fancied happiness. Such societies chastise, in the lower orders, those excesses which they respect in the higher ranks; and frequently have the injustice to condemn those in penalty of death, whom public prejudices, maintained by constant example, have rendered criminal.

In short, a person's actions are never truly free; they are always the result of their temperament, the ideas they've accepted, and the beliefs—whether true or false—they've formed about happiness. These include their opinions, backed by examples, affected by education, and solidified through daily experiences. There are many crimes in the world simply because everything works together to make people corrupt and criminal. Often, the superstitions they hold, their government, their education, and the examples around them push them toward wrongdoing; in these situations, morality preaching virtue falls on deaf ears. In societies where vice is valued, where crime is rewarded, where corruption is constantly compensated, and where the most severe disorders are punished only in those who lack the power to commit them without fear of consequences, practicing virtue is seen as merely a painful sacrifice of imagined happiness. Such societies punish the lower classes for the excesses they admire in the upper classes and often unjustly condemn to death those whom public prejudices, reinforced by constant examples, have made into criminals.

Man, then, is not a free agent in any one instant of his life; he is necessarily guided in each step by those advantages, whether real or fictitious, that he attaches to the objects by which his passions are roused: these passions themselves are necessary in a being who, unceasingly tends towards his own happiness; their energy is necessary, since that depends on his temperament; his temperament is necessary, because it depends on the physical elements which enter into his composition; the modification of this temperament is necessary, as it is the infallible result, the inevitable consequence of the impulse he receives from the incessant action of moral and physical beings.

Humans are not free agents at any point in their lives; they are always influenced by the advantages, whether real or imagined, that they associate with the things that trigger their emotions. These emotions are essential in a being who constantly strives for happiness; their intensity is necessary, as it relies on one's temperament. This temperament is also necessary because it comes from the physical elements that make up a person. Changes in this temperament are unavoidable, as they are the direct outcome of the ongoing influence from both moral and physical forces.

In despite of these proofs of the want of free-agency in man, so clear to unprejudiced minds, it will, perhaps, be insisted upon with no small feeling of triumph, that if it be proposed to any one to move or not to move his hand, an action in the number of those called indifferent, he evidently appears to be the master of choosing; from which it is concluded, evidence has been offered of his free-agency. The reply is, this example is perfectly simple; man in performing some action which he is resolved on doing, does not by any means prove his free-agency: the very desire of displaying this quality, excited by the dispute, becomes a necessary motive which decides his will either for the one or the other of these actions: what deludes him in this instance, or that which persuades him he is a free agent at this moment, is, that he does not discern the true motive which sets him in action; which is neither more nor less than the desire of convincing his opponent: if in the heat of the dispute he insists and asks, "Am I not the master of throwing myself out of the window?" I shall answer him, no; that whilst he preserves his reason, there is not even a probability that the desire of proving his free-agency, will become a motive sufficiently powerful, to make him sacrifice his life to the attempt; if, notwithstanding this, to prove he is a free agent, he should actually precipitate himself from the window, it would not be a sufficient warrantry to conclude he acted freely, but rather that it was the violence of his temperament which spurred him on to this folly. Madness is a state that depends upon the heat of the blood, not upon the will. A fanatic or a hero, braves death as necessarily as a more phlegmatic man or a coward flies from it. There is, in point of fact, no difference between the man who is cast out of the window by another, and the man who throws himself out of it, except that the impulse in the first instance comes immediately from without, whilst that which determines the fall in the second case, springs from within his own peculiar machine, having its more remote cause also exterior. When Mutius Scaevola held his hand in the fire, he was as much acting under the influence of necessity, caused by interior motives, that urged him to this strange action, as if his arm had been held by strong men; pride, despair, the desire of braving his enemy, a wish to astonish him, an anxiety to intimidate him, &c. were the invisible chains that held his hand bound to the fire. The love of glory, enthusiasm for their country, in like manner, caused Codrus and Decius to devote themselves for their fellow citizens. The Indian Calanus and the philosopher Peregrinus were equally obliged to burn themselves, by the desire of exciting the astonishment of the Grecian assembly.

Despite the clear evidence of the lack of free will in humans, which is obvious to unbiased minds, it may still be argued with a sense of triumph that if someone is asked whether to move or not move their hand—an action considered indifferent—they seem to have the freedom to choose. From this, it’s concluded that evidence of their free will exists. The response is that this example is overly simplistic; when a person performs an action they intend to do, it does not necessarily prove their free will. The very desire to show this quality, stirred up by the argument, becomes a necessary motive that decides their choice between the two actions. What misleads them in this case, making them believe they are free agents, is that they do not recognize the true motive behind their action, which is simply the desire to convince their opponent. If, in the heat of the discussion, they insist and ask, "Am I not in control of throwing myself out of the window?" the answer is no; as long as they are reasoning, it is highly unlikely that the desire to prove their free will will be a strong enough motive to risk their life for it. Even if, despite this, they do throw themselves out of the window to demonstrate they are free agents, it would not be sufficient proof that they acted freely, but rather that it was their emotional state driving them to such foolishness. Madness stems from the intensity of one’s emotions, not from will. A fanatic or a hero faces death just as inevitably as a more calm person or a coward runs from it. In reality, there is no difference between someone who is thrown out of a window by another and someone who jumps; the only distinction is that in the first case, the force comes from outside, while in the second, it arises from within their own circumstances, having its ultimate cause also external. When Mutius Scaevola held his hand in the fire, he acted under the influence of necessity caused by internal motives compelling him toward this strange action, just as if strong men were gripping his arm. Pride, despair, the desire to defy his enemy, a wish to impress him, and a need to intimidate him were the invisible chains that held his hand in the fire. The love of glory and enthusiasm for their country similarly drove Codrus and Decius to sacrifice themselves for their fellow citizens. The Indian Calanus and the philosopher Peregrinus were also compelled to self-immolate by the desire to astonish the Grecian assembly.

It is said that free-agency is the absence of those obstacles competent to oppose themselves to the actions of man, or to the exercise of his faculties: it is pretended that he is a free agent, whenever, making use of these faculties, he produces the effect he has proposed to himself. In reply to this reasoning, it is sufficient to consider that it in no wise depends upon himself to place or remove the obstacles that either determine or resist him; the motive that causes his action is no more in his own power than the obstacle that impedes him, whether this obstacle or motive be within his own machine or exterior of his person: he is not master of the thought presented to his mind which determines his will; this thought is excited by some cause independent of himself.

It’s said that free agency means having no barriers that can stop a person from acting or using their abilities. It’s assumed a person is a free agent whenever they use these abilities to achieve their desired outcome. In response to this argument, it’s enough to point out that individuals can’t control the obstacles that either push them to act or hold them back. The motive behind their actions is beyond their control, just like the barriers that block them, whether those barriers or motives are internal or external. They don’t control the thoughts that come to their mind and influence their choices; those thoughts are triggered by factors outside of their control.

To be undeceived on the system of his free-agency, man has simply to recur to the motive by which his will is determined, he will always find this motive is out of his own controul. It is said, that in consequence of an idea to which the mind gives birth, man acts freely if he encounters no obstacle. But the question is, what gives birth to this idea in his brain? has he the power either to prevent it from presenting itself, or from renewing itself in his brain? Does not this idea depend either upon objects that strike him exteriorly and in despite of himself, or upon causes that without his knowledge act within himself and modify his brain? Can he prevent his eyes, cast without design upon any object whatever, from giving him an idea of this object, from moving his brain? He is not more master of the obstacles; they are the necessary effects of either interior or exterior causes, which always act according to their given properties. A man insults a coward, who is necessarily irritated against his insulter, but his will cannot vanquish the obstacle that cowardice places to the object of his desire, which is, to resent the insult; because his natural conformation, which does not depend upon himself, prevents his having courage. In this case the coward is insulted in despite of himself, and against his will is obliged patiently to brook the insult he has received.

To understand the reality of his free will, a person just needs to look at what influences his decisions, and he will always see that this influence is beyond his control. It's often said that when an idea comes to mind, a person acts freely as long as there are no obstacles. But the real question is, what triggers this idea in his mind? Does he have the ability to stop it from appearing or repeating in his thoughts? Doesn’t this idea come from things that affect him from the outside, regardless of his will, or from causes that unknowingly operate within him and change his mind? Can he stop his eyes, which wander without any intention, from giving him a thought about whatever they see, from impacting his mind? He has no more power over obstacles; they are just the inevitable results of internal or external causes that always function according to their nature. If someone insults a coward, that coward is understandably upset with the insulter, but he cannot overcome the barrier that his cowardice puts in the way of acting on his desire to respond to the insult, because his natural disposition, which he doesn’t control, stops him from being brave. In this situation, the coward is insulted against his will and is forced to endure the insult he has received.

The partizans of the system of free-agency appear ever to have confounded constraint with necessity. Man believes he acts as a free agent, every time he does not see any thing that places obstacles to his actions; he does not perceive that the motive which causes him to will is always necessary, is ever independent of himself. A prisoner loaded with chains is compelled to remain in prison, but he is not a free agent, he is not able to resist the desire to emancipate himself; his chains prevent him from acting, but they do not prevent him from willing; he would save himself if they would loose his fetters, but he would not save himself as a free agent, fear or the idea of punishment would be sufficient motives for his action.

The supporters of the free-agency system seem to confuse constraint with necessity. A person thinks they’re acting as a free agent whenever they don’t see anything that blocks their actions; they fail to realize that the motive driving their will is always necessary and exists independently of them. A prisoner weighed down by chains has to stay in prison, but he isn’t a free agent, even though he can’t resist the urge to free himself; his chains stop him from acting, but they don’t stop him from wanting to escape. He would save himself if his restraints were removed, but he wouldn’t be acting as a free agent; fear or the threat of punishment would be enough to motivate his actions.

Man may therefore cease to be restrained, without, for that reason, becoming a free agent: in whatever manner he acts, he will act necessarily; according to motives by which he shall be determined. He may be compared to a heavy body, that finds itself arrested in its descent by any obstacle whatever: take away this obstacle, it will gravitate or continue to fall; but who shall say this dense body is free to fall or not? Is not its descent the necessary effect of its own specific gravity? The virtuous Socrates submitted to the laws of his country, although they were unjust; notwithstanding the doors of his gaol were left open to him he would not save himself; but in this he did not act as a free agent; the invisible chains of opinion, the secret love of decorum, the inward respect for the laws, even when they were iniquitous, the fear of tarnishing his glory, kept him in his prison: they were motives sufficiently powerful, with this enthusiast for virtue, to induce him to wait death with tranquillity; it was not in his power to save himself, because he could find no potential motive to bring him to depart, even for an instant, from those principles to which his mind was accustomed.

A person can stop being restrained, but that doesn't mean they'll become a free agent. No matter how they act, they'll still be acting out of necessity, driven by the motivations that influence them. They can be likened to a heavy object that is stopped in its fall by any barrier: remove the barrier, and it will continue to fall under the force of gravity. But who can say if that object is free to fall or not? Isn't its fall just a necessary result of its own weight? The virtuous Socrates followed the laws of his country, even though they were unfair; despite the fact that the doors of his prison were open to him, he chose not to escape. But in this, he wasn’t acting as a free agent; the unseen chains of public opinion, a deep sense of propriety, a respect for the laws—even when they were unjust—and the fear of damaging his reputation kept him confined. These were powerful motivations for this passionate advocate for virtue, compelling him to face death with calmness; he had no real ability to save himself, as he couldn't find any motivation strong enough to make him abandon the principles to which he was so accustomed.

Man, says he, frequently acts against his inclination, from whence he has falsely concluded he is a free agent; when he appears to act contrary to his inclination, he is determined to it by some motive sufficiently efficacious to vanquish this inclination. A sick man, with a view to his cure, arrives at conquering his repugnance to the most disgusting remedies: the fear of pain, the dread of death, then become necessary and intelligent motives; consequently, this sick man cannot be said, with truth, by any means, to act freely.

A man often acts against his natural inclinations, which leads him to mistakenly believe he has free will. When he seems to act against what he wants, it’s because he is driven by some strong motive that overcomes that inclination. For example, a sick person who wants to get better may push through their aversion to the most unpleasant treatments. In this case, the fear of pain or death becomes a necessary and rational motive. Therefore, this sick person can't truly be said to be acting freely.

When it is said, that man is not a free agent, it is not pretended to compare him to a body moved by a simple impulsive cause: he contains within himself causes inherent to his existence; he is moved by an interior organ, which has its own peculiar laws; which is itself necessarily determined, in consequence of ideas formed from perceptions, resulting from sensations, which it receives from exterior objects. As the mechanism of these sensations, of these perceptions, and the manner they engrave ideas on the brain of man, are not known to him, because he is unable to unravel all these motions; because he cannot perceive the chain of operations in his soul, or the motive-principle that acts within him, he supposes himself a free agent; which, literally translated, signifies that he moves himself by himself; that he determines himself without cause; when he rather ought to say, he is ignorant how or for why he acts in the manner he does. It is true the soul enjoys an activity peculiar to itself, but it is equally certain that this activity would never be displayed if some motive or some cause did not put it in a condition to exercise itself, at least it will not be pretended that the soul is able either to love or to hate without being moved, without knowing the objects, without having some idea of their qualities. Gunpowder has unquestionably a particular activity, but this activity will never display itself, unless fire be applied to it; this, however, immediately sets in motion.

When people say that man is not a free agent, they don't mean to suggest that he is like a body moved by a simple impulse. Instead, he has within himself causes that are essential to his existence; he is driven by an internal mechanism that operates according to its own specific laws. This mechanism is determined by ideas formed from perceptions that result from sensations he receives from external objects. Since he doesn't understand the workings of these sensations and perceptions, or how they engrave ideas onto his brain, he cannot see the chain of operations in his mind or the motivating principle at work within him. Because of this, he believes he is a free agent, which literally means he moves himself independently and makes decisions without cause. In reality, he should admit that he is unaware of how or why he acts the way he does. It's true that the soul has its own unique activity, but it's also clear that this activity would never manifest without some motive or cause prompting it. It cannot love or hate without being influenced, without recognizing the objects, or having some understanding of their qualities. Gunpowder undoubtedly has a specific activity, but it won’t show itself unless fire is applied to it; once that happens, it ignites and moves.

It is the great complication of motion in man, it is the variety of his action, it is the multiplicity of causes that move him, whether simultaneously or in continual succession, that persuades him he is a free agent: if all his motions were simple, if the causes that move him did not confound themselves with each other, if they were distinct, if his machine was less complicated, he would perceive that all his actions were necessary, because he would be enabled to recur instantly to the cause that made him act. A man who should be always obliged to go towards the west would always go on that side, but he would feel extremely well, that in so going he was not a free agent: if he had another sense, as his actions or his motion augmented by a sixth would be still more varied, much more complicated, he would believe himself still more a free agent than he does with his five senses.

The complexity of human movement, the diversity of our actions, and the numerous factors that drive us—whether at the same time or in a continuous flow—make us feel like we are free agents. If all our movements were straightforward, if the factors influencing us didn’t overlap, if they were clear-cut, and if our bodies were less intricate, we would realize that all our actions were necessary because we could easily trace back to the reason behind our actions. A person who was always forced to move westward would always head that way but would clearly understand that he wasn't making a free choice. If he had an additional sense, and his actions or movements became even more diverse and complex, he would feel even more like a free agent than he currently does with just five senses.

It is, then, for want of recurring to the causes that move him, for want of being able to analyse, from not being competent to decompose the complicated motion of his machine, that man believes himself a free agent; it is only upon his own ignorance that he founds the profound yet deceitful notion he has of his free-agency, that he builds those opinions which he brings forward as a striking proof of his pretended freedom of action. If, for a short time, each man was willing to examine his own peculiar actions, to search out their true motives, to discover their concatenation, he would remain convinced that the sentiment he has of his natural free-agency is a chimera that must speedily be destroyed by experience.

It is, then, because he doesn’t reflect on the reasons that influence him, because he’s unable to analyze, and because he lacks the skill to break down the complex workings of his own mind, that a person believes he is a free agent; his deep but misleading belief in his own free will stems only from his ignorance. This is how he forms the strong opinions he presents as proof of his supposed freedom to act. If, for just a little while, each person were willing to look closely at their own actions, explore their real motivations, and uncover the connections between them, they would come to realize that the feeling of natural free agency is an illusion that will soon be shattered by experience.

Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the multiplicity, the diversity of the causes which continually act upon man, frequently without even his knowledge, render it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, for him to recur to the true principles of his own peculiar actions, much less the actions of others; they frequently depend upon causes so fugitive, so remote from their effects, and which, superficially examined, appear to have so little analogy, so slender a relation with them, that it requires singular sagacity to bring them into light. This is what renders the study of the moral man a task of such difficulty; this is the reason why his heart is an abyss, of which it is frequently impossible for him to fathom the depth. He is, then, obliged to content himself with a knowledge of the general and necessary laws by which the human heart is regulated; for the individuals of his own species these laws are pretty nearly the same, they vary only in consequence of the organization that is peculiar to each, and of the modification it undergoes; this, however, is not, cannot be rigorously the same in any two. It suffices to know that by his essence man tends to conserve himself, to render his existence happy: this granted, whatever may be his actions, if he recurs back to this first principle, to this general, this necessary tendency of his will, he never can be deceived with regard to his motives. Man, without doubt, for want of cultivating reason, being destitute of experience, frequently deceives himself upon the means of arriving at this end; sometimes the means he employs are unpleasant to his fellows, because they are prejudicial to their interests; or else those of which he avails himself appear irrational, because they remove him from the end to which he would approximate: but whatever may be these means, they have always necessarily and invariably for object, either an existing or imaginary happiness; are directed to preserve himself in a state analogous to his mode of existence, to his manner of feeling, to his way of thinking; whether durable or transitory. It is from having mistaken this truth, that the greater number of moral philosophers have made rather the romance, than the history of the human heart; they have attributed the actions of man to fictitious causes; at least they have not sought out the necessary motives of his conduct. Politicians and legislators have been in the same state of ignorance; or else impostors have found it much shorter to employ imaginary motive-powers, than those which really have existence: they have rather chosen to make man wander out of his way, to make him tremble under incommodious phantoms, than guide him to virtue by the direct road to happiness; notwithstanding the conformity of the latter with the natural desires of his heart. So true it is, that error can never possibly be useful, to the human species.

However, we must recognize that the many different influences acting on humans—often without their awareness—make it nearly impossible, or at least very challenging, for them to understand the true reasons behind their own behaviors, let alone those of others. These influences often stem from factors that are fleeting, distant from their effects, and, when superficially examined, seem to have little connection to them, requiring keen insight to uncover. This complexity is what makes the study of human behavior so difficult; it explains why our hearts are like deep abysses that we often can't fully explore. Consequently, individuals have to settle for a general understanding of the universal laws that govern the human heart. While these laws are largely consistent across humanity, they do vary due to individual differences in organization and the changes those differences undergo; however, no two people are exactly alike. It's enough to know that, by their nature, people seek to preserve themselves and find happiness in their lives. With this understanding, regardless of their actions, if they return to this fundamental principle and acknowledge this inherent tendency of their will, they can avoid being misled about their motives. People, unfortunately, often mislead themselves due to an underdeveloped sense of reason or lack of experience, which can lead to choosing means that upset others because they harm their interests or seem irrational because they diverge from the desired goal. Nevertheless, all actions ultimately aim for some form of existing or imagined happiness, intended to maintain a state that aligns with how they live, feel, and think, whether that state is temporary or lasting. This misunderstanding of human nature has led many moral philosophers to create more of a fantasy than an accurate depiction of the human heart; they attribute human actions to made-up causes and often fail to investigate the real motives behind behavior. Politicians and lawmakers have similarly lacked understanding; or, alternatively, they find it easier to appeal to imaginary motivations rather than real ones. They have often preferred to mislead people, causing fear through inconvenient illusions instead of guiding them toward virtue by the straightforward path to happiness, which aligns much better with the natural desires of the human heart. It is indeed true that error can never possibly be useful to the human species.

However this may be, man either sees or believes he sees, much more distinctly, the necessary relation of effects with their causes in natural philosophy than in the human heart; at least he sees in the former sensible causes constantly produce sensible effects, ever the same, when the circumstances are alike. After this, he hesitates not to look upon physical effects as necessary, whilst he refuses to acknowledge necessity in the acts of the human will; these he has, without any just foundation, attributed to a motive-power that acts independently by its own peculiar energy, that is capable of modifying itself without the concurrence of exterior causes, and which is distinguished from all material or physical beings. Agriculture is founded upon the assurance afforded by experience, that the earth, cultivated and sown in a certain manner, when it has otherwise the requisite qualities, will furnish grain, fruit, and flowers, either necessary for subsistence or pleasing to the senses. If things were considered without prejudice, it would be perceived, that in morals education is nothing more than the agriculture of the mind; that like the earth, by reason of its natural disposition, of the culture bestowed upon it, of the seeds with which it is sown, of the seasons, more or less favorable, that conduct it to maturity, we may be assured that the soul will produce either virtue or vice; moral fruit that will be either salubrious for man or baneful to society. Morals is the science of the relations that subsist between the minds, the wills, and the actions of men; in the same manner that geometry is the science of the relations that are found between bodies. Morals would be a chimera, it would have no certain principles, if it was not founded upon the knowledge of the motives which must necessarily have an influence upon the human will, and which must necessarily determine the actions of human beings.

However, this may be, people see or believe they see the necessary relationship between causes and effects in natural philosophy more clearly than in the human heart. At least, they see that in the former, sensory causes consistently produce sensory effects that are always the same when the circumstances are similar. After this, they confidently view physical effects as necessary but deny necessity in human will. Without any solid basis, they attribute the latter to a motive power that operates independently through its unique energy, capable of changing without outside causes, and distinct from all material or physical entities. Agriculture is based on the assurance provided by experience that if the earth is cultivated and sown in a certain way, with the right qualities, it will yield grain, fruit, and flowers, either essential for survival or pleasing to the senses. If things were considered without bias, it would be clear that in ethics, education is just the agriculture of the mind; just like the earth, due to its natural tendencies, the cultivation it receives, the seeds planted, and the more or less favorable seasons that lead to maturity, we can be sure that the soul will produce either virtue or vice; moral fruit that can be either beneficial to individuals or harmful to society. Morals is the science of the relationships between minds, wills, and actions of people; in the same way that geometry is the science of the relationships among physical bodies. Morals would be a mirage; it would lack definite principles if it weren't based on understanding the motives that must influence human will and ultimately determine human actions.

If in the moral as well as in the physical world, a cause of which the action is not interrupted be necessarily followed by a given effect, it flows consecutively that a reasonable education, grafted upon truth, founded upon wise laws,—that honest principles instilled during youth, virtuous examples continually held forth, esteem attached solely to merit, recompense awarded to none but good actions, contempt regularly visiting vice, shame following falsehood as its shadow, rigorous chastisements applied without distinction to crime, are causes that would necessarily act on the will of man; that would determine the greater number of his species to exhibit virtue, to love it for its own sake, to seek after it as the most desirable good, as the surest road to the happiness he so ardently desires. But if, on the contrary, superstition, politics, example, public opinion, all labour to countenance wickedness, to train man viciously; if, instead of fanning his virtues, they stifle good principles; if, instead of directing his studies to his advantage, they render his education either useless or unprofitable; if this education itself, instead of grounding him in virtue, only inoculates him with vice; if, instead of inculcating reason, it imbues him with prejudice; if, instead of making him enamoured of truth, it furnishes him with false notions; if, instead of storing his mind with just ideas drawn from experience, it fills him with dangerous opinions; if, instead of fostering mildness and forbearance, it kindles in his breast only those passions which are incommodious to himself and hurtful to others; it must be of necessity, that the will of the greater number shall determine them to evil; shall render them unworthy, make them baneful to society. Many authors have acknowledged the importance of a good education, that youth was the season to feed the human heart with wholesome diet; but they have not felt, that a good education is incompatible, nay, impossible, with the superstition of man, since this commences with giving his mind a false bias: that it is equally inconsistent with arbitrary government, because this always dreads lest he should become enlightened, and is ever sedulous to render him servile, mean, contemptible, and cringing; that it is incongruous with laws that are not founded in equity, that are frequently bottomed on injustice; that it cannot obtain with those received customs that are opposed to good sense; that it cannot exist whilst public opinion is unfavourable to virtue; above all, that it is absurd to expect it from incapable instructors, from masters with weak minds, who have only the ability to infuse into their scholars those false ideas with which they are themselves infected. Here, without doubt, is the real source from whence springs that universal corruption, that wide-spreading depravity, of which moralists, with great justice, so loudly complain; without, however, pointing out those causes of the evil, which are true as they are necessary: instead of this, they search for it in human nature, say it is corrupt, blame man for loving himself, and for seeking after his own happiness, insist that he must have supernatural assistance, some marvellous interference, to enable him to become good: this is a very prejudicial doctrine for him, it is directly subversive of his true happiness; by teaching him to hold himself in contempt, it tends necessarily to discourage him; it either makes him sluggish, or drives him to despair whilst waiting for this grace: is it not easy to be perceived, that he would always have it if he was well educated; if he was honestly governed? There cannot well exist a wilder or a stranger system of morals, than that of the theologians who attribute all moral evil to an original sin, and all moral good to the pardon of it. It ought not to excite surprise if such a system is of no efficacy; what can reasonably be the result of such an hypothesis? Yet, notwithstanding the supposed, the boasted free-agency of man, it is insisted that nothing less than the Author of Nature himself is necessary to destroy the wicked desires of his heart: but, alas! no power whatever is found sufficiently efficacious to resist those unhappy propensities, which, under the fatal constitution of things, the most vigorous motives, as before observed, are continually infusing into the will of man; no agency seems competent to turn the course of that unhappy direction these are perpetually giving to the stream of his natural passions. He is, indeed, incessantly exhorted to resist these passions, to stifle them, and to root them out of his heart; but is it not evident they are necessary to his welfare? Can it not be perceived they are inherent in his nature? Does not experience prove them to be useful to his conservation, since they have for object, only to avoid that which may be injurious to him; to procure that which may be advantageous to his mode of existence? In short, is it not easy to be seen, that these passions, well directed, that is to say, carried towards objects that are truly useful, that are really interesting to himself, which embrace the happiness of others, would necessarily contribute to the substantial, to the permanent well-being of society? Theologians themselves have felt, they have acknowledged the necessity of the passions: many of the fathers of the church have broached this doctrine; among the rest Father Senault has written a book expressly on the subject: the passions of man are like fire, at once necessary to the wants of life, suitable to ameliorate the condition of humanity, and equally capable of producing the most terrible ravages, the most frightful devastation.

If both in moral and physical realms, a cause that isn’t interrupted is necessarily followed by a specific effect, it follows that a reasonable education, rooted in truth and built on wise laws—where honest principles are instilled during youth, virtuous examples are constantly presented, esteem is based solely on merit, rewards are given only for good actions, contempt regularly targets vice, and shame is a constant companion of falsehood, with strict punishments applied uniformly to crime—are influences that would undeniably impact human will. These conditions would encourage most people to display virtue, appreciate it for its own sake, and pursue it as the most desirable good and the surest path to the happiness they deeply desire. Conversely, if superstition, politics, poor examples, and public opinion all support wickedness and train people to be vicious; if, instead of nurturing their virtues, they suppress good principles; if, rather than guiding their studies for their benefit, they make education either useless or unproductive; if this education, instead of grounding them in virtue, only infects them with vice; if, instead of promoting reason, it fills them with prejudice; if, instead of fostering a love for truth, it provides them with false ideas; if, instead of enlightening their minds with just concepts drawn from experience, it fills them with dangerous opinions; if, instead of nurturing kindness and restraint, it ignites only harmful passions within them; then it must follow that the will of the majority will lead them towards evil, rendering them unworthy and harmful to society. Many authors have recognized the significance of a good education, understanding youth as the time to provide the human heart with a healthy foundation. However, they have not grasped that a true education is incompatible, indeed impossible, with human superstition, which begins by skewing one's mindset. It is also inconsistent with arbitrary governance, as such governments fear enlightenment and strive to keep individuals servile, lowly, despicable, and subservient. It is at odds with laws not based in fairness and often rooted in injustice; it cannot thrive amid customs that defy common sense; it cannot exist while public opinion opposes virtue; above all, it is absurd to expect good education from incapable teachers or from instructors with weak minds who can only pass on the false ideas that they themselves hold. This, without doubt, is the true source of universal corruption and widespread moral decay that moralists justly lament, without adequately identifying the necessary causes of this evil. Instead, they look for the root in human nature, claiming it is corrupt, blaming individuals for loving themselves and seeking their own happiness, insisting that they need supernatural help or miraculous intervention to become good. This is a deeply harmful doctrine for humanity; it undermines true happiness. By teaching people to hold themselves in contempt, it necessarily discourages them; it either makes them lazy or drives them to despair while waiting for this grace. It is apparent that they would always have this support if they received proper education and were governed justly. There cannot be a more extreme or absurd moral system than that of theologians, who attribute all moral evil to original sin and all moral good to its forgiveness. It should not be surprising that such a system is ineffective; what reasonable outcome can result from such a hypothesis? Yet, despite the claimed free will of humanity, it is argued that nothing less than the Creator of Nature is needed to eliminate the wicked desires of the human heart. Alas, no power seems sufficient to resist those unfortunate inclinations that, due to the flawed structure of things, continually push man’s will toward bad choices. He is constantly urged to combat these passions, to suppress them and eradicate them from his heart; but isn't it clear that they are essential for his well-being? Can we not see that they are inherent in his nature? Does experience not show that they serve a useful purpose for his survival, aiming only to avoid things that may harm him and to seek things beneficial for his existence? In summary, isn't it easy to see that these passions, when directed well—meaning directed toward truly useful and genuinely interesting goals, including the happiness of others—would substantially contribute to the lasting well-being of society? Theologians themselves have recognized the necessity of passions; many church fathers have discussed this idea, including Father Senault, who wrote a book specifically on this topic: human passions are like fire, both essential for life and capable of improving the human condition, while also having the potential to cause severe destruction.

Every thing becomes an impulse to the will; a single word frequently suffices to modify a man for the whole course of his life, to decide for ever his propensities; an infant who has burned his finger by having approached it too near the flame of a lighted taper, is warned from thence, that he ought to abstain from indulging a similar temptation; a man, once punished and despised for having committed a dishonest action, is not often tempted to continue so unfavourable a course. Under whatever point of man is considered, he never acts but after the impulse given to his will, whether it be by the will of others, or by more perceptible physical causes. The particular organization decides the nature of the impulse; souls act upon souls that are analogous; inflamed, fiery imaginations, act with facility upon strong passions; upon imaginations easy to be inflamed, the surprising progress of enthusiasm; the hereditary propagation of superstition; the transmission of religious errors from race to race, the excessive ardour with which man seizes on the marvellous, are effects as necessary as those which result from the action and re-action of bodies.

Everything fuels our will; often, a single word is enough to change a person's life forever and shape their tendencies. An infant who burns their finger by getting too close to a flame learns to avoid similar temptations in the future. A man who has been punished and looked down upon for a dishonest act is rarely tempted to continue down that unfavorable path. No matter how we view human behavior, people only act after receiving an impulse to their will, whether it's from others or from more obvious physical causes. The specific nature of the impulse is determined by individual makeup; like souls influence like souls. Passionate, fiery imaginations easily spark strong emotions; these lead to the unexpected rise of enthusiasm, the inherited spread of superstition, and the transmission of religious errors from generation to generation. The intense way humans embrace the extraordinary is as inevitable as the physical actions and reactions we observe.

In despite of the gratuitous ideas which man has formed to himself on his pretended free-agency; in defiance of the illusions of this suppose intimate sense, which, contrary to his experience, persuades him that he is master of his will,—all his institutions are really founded upon necessity: on this, as on a variety of other occasions, practice throws aside speculation. Indeed, if it was not believed that certain motives embraced the power requisite to determine the will of man, to arrest the progress of his passions, to direct them towards an end, to modify him; of what use would be the faculty of speech? What benefit could arise from education itself? What does education achieve, save give the first impulse to the human will, make man contract habits, oblige him to persist in them, furnish him with motives, whether true or false, to act after a given manner? When the father either menaces his son with punishment, or promises him a reward, is he not convinced these things will act upon his will? What does legislation attempt, except it be to present to the citizens of a state those motives which are supposed necessary to determine them to perform some actions that are considered worthy; to abstain from committing others that are looked upon as unworthy? What is the object of morals, if it be not to shew man that his interest exacts he should suppress the momentary ebullition of his passions, with a view to promote a more certain happiness, a more lasting well-being, than can possibly result from the gratification of his transitory desires? Does not the religion of all countries suppose the human race, together with the entire of Nature, submitted to the irresistible will of a necessary being, who regulates their condition after the eternal laws of immutable wisdom? Is not God the absolute master of their destiny? Is it not this divine being who chooses and rejects? The anathemas fulminated by religion, the promises it holds forth, are they not founded upon the idea of the effects they will necessarily produce upon mankind? Is not man brought into existence without his own knowledge? Is he not obliged to play a part against his will? Does not either his happiness or his misery depend on the part he plays?

In spite of the unnecessary ideas that people have about their supposed free will, and contrary to the illusions of this perceived inner sense that convinces them they are in control of their choices—everything they create is really based on necessity. In many situations, actions speak louder than theories. If people didn't believe that certain motivations had the power to influence their choices, to halt their emotional turmoil, to guide them toward a goal, or to change them, then what value would speech have? What benefit would education bring? What does education do, other than spark the initial motivation for action, shape habits, force individuals to stick with them, and provide reasons—whether accurate or not—to act in specific ways? When a father threatens his son with punishment or offers a reward, doesn't he believe these will impact his son's choices? What does legislation aim for, if not to present citizens with the motivations thought necessary to encourage them to take actions deemed appropriate and to refrain from those seen as inappropriate? What is the point of morality, if not to show people that they need to control the fleeting impulses of their emotions to achieve a greater, more lasting happiness than can be found in fulfilling their temporary desires? Doesn't religion in every culture imply that humanity and all of nature are under the powerful will of a necessary being who governs their existence according to the eternal laws of unchanging wisdom? Isn't God the ultimate authority over their fate? Isn't it this divine being who decides what happens? The curses pronounced by religion and the promises it offers are based on the idea of the unavoidable impacts they will have on humanity. Is a person not brought into existence without their own choice? Are they not forced to play a role against their will? Does their happiness or suffering not depend on the role they play?

All religion has been evidently founded upon Fatalism. Among the Greeks they supposed men were punished for their necessary faults, as may be seen in Orestes, in Oedipus, &c. who only committed crimes predicted by the oracles. It is rather singular that the theological defenders of the doctrine of free-agency, which they endeavour to oppose to that of predestination,—which according to them is irreconcileable with Christianity, inasmuch as it is a false and dangerous system,—should not have been aware that the doctrines of the fall of angels, original sin, the small number of the elect, the system of grace, &c. were most incontestibly supporting, by the most cogent arguments, a true system of fatalism.

All religion is clearly based on Fatalism. The Greeks believed that people were punished for their unavoidable faults, as seen with Orestes and Oedipus, who only committed crimes foretold by the oracles. It's somewhat surprising that the theological supporters of the doctrine of free agency, which they try to contrast with predestination—which they claim is incompatible with Christianity, since it is a misleading and harmful system—did not realize that the beliefs in the fall of angels, original sin, the small number of the elect, the system of grace, etc. actually provide strong support for a true system of fatalism.

Education, then, is only necessity shewn to children: legislation is necessity shewn to the members of the body politic: morals is the necessity of the relations subsisting between men, shewn to reasonable beings: in short, man grants necessity in every thing for which he believes he has certain, unerring experience: that of which he does not comprehend the necessary connection of causes with their effects he styles probability: he would not act as he does, if he was not convinced, or, at least, if he did not presume he was, that certain effects will necessarily follow his actions. The moralist preaches reason, because he believes it necessary to man: the philosopher writes, because he believes truth must, sooner or later, prevail over falsehood: tyrants and fanatical priests necessarily hate truth, despise reason, because they believe them prejudicial to their interests: the sovereign, who strives to terrify crime by the severity of his laws, but who nevertheless, from motives of state policy sometimes renders it useful and even necessary to his purposes, presumes the motives he employs will be sufficient to keep his subjects within bounds. All reckon equally upon the power or upon the necessity of the motives they make use of; each individual flatters himself, either with or without reason, that these motives will have an influence on the conduct of mankind. The education of man is commonly so defective, so inefficacious, so little calculated to promote the end he has in view, because it is regulated by prejudice: even when this education is good, it is but too often speedily counteracted, by almost every thing that takes place in society. Legislation and politics are very frequently iniquitous, and serve no better purpose than to kindle passions in the bosom of man, which once set afloat, they are no longer competent to restrain. The great art of the moralist should be, to point out to man, to convince those who are entrusted with the sacred office of regulating his will, that their interests are identified; that their reciprocal happiness depends upon the harmony of their passions; that the safety, the power, the duration of empires, necessarily depend on the good sense diffused among the individual members; on the truth of the notions inculcated in the mind of the citizens, on the moral goodness that is sown in their hearts, on the virtues that are cultivated in their breasts; religion should not be admissible, unless it truly fortified, unless it really strengthened these motives. But in the miserable state into which error has plunged a considerable portion of the human species, man, for the most part, is seduced to be wicked: he injures his fellow-creature as a matter of conscience, because the strongest motives are held out to him to be persecuting; because his institutions invite him to the commission of evil, under the lure of promoting his own immediate happiness. In most countries superstition renders him a useless being, makes him an abject slave, causes him to tremble under its terrors, or else turns him into a furious fanatic, who is at once cruel, intolerant, and inhuman: in a great number of states arbitrary power crushes him, obliges him to become a cringing sycophant, renders him completely vicious: in those despotic states the law rarely visits crime with punishment, except in those who are too feeble to oppose its course? or when it has become incapable of restraining the violent excesses to which a bad government gives birth. In short, rational education is neglected; a prudent culture of the human mind is despised; it depends, but too frequently, upon bigotted, superstitious priests, who are interested in deceiving man, and who are sometimes impostors; or else upon parents or masters without understanding, who are devoid of morals, who impress on the ductile mind of their scholars those vices with which they are themselves tormented; who transmit to them the false opinions, which they believe they have an interest in making them adopt.

Education is simply the necessity shown to children: legislation is the necessity demonstrated to the members of society: morals represent the necessity of the relationships between people, made clear to rational beings: in short, humanity acknowledges necessity in everything for which it believes it has certain and reliable experience: what it does not understand regarding the necessary connection between causes and their effects is deemed probability: individuals would not act as they do if they were not convinced—or at least did not assume they were—that certain effects will inevitably follow their actions. The moralist teaches reason because he believes it's essential for humans: the philosopher writes because he believes that truth must eventually triumph over falsehood: tyrants and fanatical priests inherently oppose truth and scorn reason because they see them as threats to their interests: the sovereign, who aims to deter crime through harsh laws, but who also, for reasons of state policy, often finds it beneficial or even necessary to his ends, assumes that the motivations he uses will be enough to keep his subjects in check. Everyone relies equally on the power or necessity of the motives they use; each person convinces themselves, with or without justification, that these motives will influence people's behavior. Humanity's education is often so lacking, so ineffective, so poorly designed to achieve its intended goals, because it is driven by prejudice: even when education is good, it is often quickly undermined by almost everything happening in society. Legislation and politics are frequently unjust and serve no purpose other than to ignite passions in people's hearts, which, once unleashed, are beyond control. The great challenge for the moralist should be to show people, to convince those responsible for regulating their behavior, that their interests are intertwined; that their mutual happiness relies on the harmony of their passions; that the safety, power, and longevity of empires depend on the common sense shared among individuals; on the truth of the ideas instilled in citizens' minds; on the moral goodness nurtured in their hearts; on the virtues cultivated within them; religion should only be acceptable if it genuinely supports and strengthens these motives. But in the unfortunate situation that error has brought upon much of humanity, people are often led to be wicked: they harm their fellow beings as a matter of conscience because the strongest incentives are presented as persecuting; because their institutions encourage wrongdoing under the guise of promoting their own immediate happiness. In many places, superstition turns them into useless beings, makes them wretched slaves, causes them to quiver in fear, or transforms them into ferocious fanatics who are cruel, intolerant, and inhumane: in a great number of states, arbitrary power crushes them, forces them to become obsequious sycophants, leaving them entirely corrupt: in those despotic states, laws rarely punish crimes except against those too weak to oppose its power, or when it can no longer contain the violent outbursts fostered by bad governance. In short, rational education is ignored; careful cultivation of the human mind is scorned; it often relies upon bigoted, superstitious priests who have a vested interest in deceiving people and may even be charlatans; or on parents or masters lacking understanding and morals, who instill in their impressionable students the vices with which they themselves struggle; who pass on the false beliefs they think will benefit them by having others adopt.

All this proves the necessity of falling back to man's original errors, and recurring to the primitive source of his wanderings, if it be seriously intended to furnish him with suitable remedies for such enormous maladies: it is useless to dream of correcting his mistakes, of curing him of his depravity, until the true causes that move his will are unravelled; until more real, more beneficial, more certain motives are substituted for those which are found so inefficacious; which prove so dangerous both to society and to himself. It is for those who guide the human will, who regulate the condition of nations, who hold the real happiness of man in their grasp, to seek after these motives,—with which reason will readily furnish them—which experience will enable them to apply with success: even a good book, by touching the heart of a great prince, may become a very powerful cause that shall necessarily have an influence over the conduct of a whole people, and decide upon the felicity of a portion of the human race.

All of this shows how important it is to go back to humanity's original mistakes and revisit the basic reasons for our misguidance if we truly want to provide effective solutions for such severe issues. It’s pointless to think we can fix our errors or heal our moral failings until we uncover the real motivations behind our actions. We need to replace the ineffective motives with ones that are more realistic, helpful, and reliable—ones that won't harm society or ourselves. It's up to those who influence human behavior, shape nations, and hold the key to human happiness to search for these new motives—ones that reason can easily identify and that experience can help them implement successfully. Even a well-written book, by resonating with the heart of a powerful leader, can become a significant force that impacts the actions of an entire population and determines the well-being of part of humanity.

From all that has been advanced in this chapter, it results, that in no one moment of his existence man is a free agent: he is not the architect of his own conformation; this he holds from Nature, he has no controul over his own ideas, or over the modification of his brain; these are due to causes, that, in despite of him, very frequently without his own knowledge, unceasingly act upon him; he is not the master of not loving that which he finds amiable; of not coveting that which appears to him desirable; he is not capable of refusing to deliberate, when he is uncertain of the effects certain objects will produce upon him; he cannot avoid choosing that which he believes will be most advantageous to him: in the moment when his will is determined by his choice, he is not competent to act otherwise than he does: in what instance, then, is he the master of his own actions? In what moment is he a free agent?

From everything discussed in this chapter, it becomes clear that at no point in his life is a person a free agent: he isn't the creator of his own nature; he gets that from Nature, and he has no control over his own thoughts or the changes in his brain; these are influenced by causes that act on him without his knowledge, constantly. He can't help loving what he finds appealing, or desiring what seems attractive to him; he can't refuse to think when he's unsure of the outcomes certain things will have on him. He can't avoid choosing what he believes will benefit him the most: when his will is shaped by his choice, he can't act any differently than he does. So, in what situation is he in control of his own actions? At what moment is he truly a free agent?

That which a man is about to do is always a consequence of that which he has been—of that which he is—of that which he has done up to the moment of the action: his total and actual existence, considered under all its possible circumstances, contains the sum of all the motives to the action he is about to commit; this is a principle, the truth of which no thinking, being will be able to refuse accrediting: his life is a series of necessary moments; his conduct, whether good or bad, virtuous or vicious, useful or prejudicial, either to himself or to others, is a concatenation of action, a chain of causes and effects, as necessary as all the moments of his existence. To live, is to exist in a necessary mode during the points of its duration, which succeed each other necessarily: to will, is to acquiesce or not in remaining such as he is: to be free, is to yield to the necessary motives that he carries within himself.

What a person is about to do is always a result of what they have been, who they are, and what they have done up to that moment: their entire existence, considered with all its possible circumstances, includes the total sum of all the reasons for the action they are about to take; this is a principle that no rational being can deny. Their life is a series of essential moments; their behavior, whether good or bad, virtuous or vicious, helpful or harmful, to themselves or others, is a connected sequence of actions, a chain of causes and effects, as essential as every moment of their existence. To live is to exist in a necessary manner during the points of time that follow one after the other: to will is to agree or disagree with remaining as they are: to be free is to respond to the necessary motivations they hold within themselves.

If he understood the play of his organs, if he was able to recal to himself all the impulsions they have received, all the modifications they have undergone, all the effects they have produced, he would perceive, that all his actions are submitted to that fatality which regulates his own particular system, as it does the entire system of the universe: no one effect in him, any more than in Nature, produce itself by chance; this, as has been before proved, is a word void of sense. All that passes in him, all that is done by him, as well as all that happens in Nature, or that is attributed to her, is derived from necessary laws, which produce necessary effects; from whence necessarily flow others.

If he understood how his body works, if he could remember all the impulses they’ve received, all the changes they’ve gone through, and all the effects they’ve caused, he would realize that all his actions are subject to that fatality which governs his own personal system, just like it governs the whole universe: no effect in him, just like in Nature, happens by chance; this, as has been shown before, is a meaningless word. Everything that happens in him, everything he does, as well as everything that occurs in Nature, or is attributed to her, comes from necessary laws that produce necessary effects; from which other effects necessarily follow.

Fatality is the eternal, the immutable, the necessary order established in Nature, or the indispensible connection of causes that act with the effects they operate. Conforming to this order, heavy bodies fall, light bodies rise; that which is analogous in matter, reciprocally attracts; that which is heterogeneous, mutually repels; man congregates himself in society, modifies each his fellow, becomes either virtuous or wicked; either contributes to his mutual happiness, or reciprocates his misery; either loves his neighbour, or hates his companion necessarily; according to the manner in which the one acts upon the other. From whence it may be seen, that the same necessity which regulates the physical, also regulates the moral world: in which every thing is in consequence submitted to fatality. Man, in running over, frequently without his own knowledge, often in despite of himself, the route which Nature has marked out for him, resembles a swimmer who is obliged to follow the current that carries him along; he believes himself a free agent, because he sometimes consents, sometimes does not consent, to glide with the stream; which, notwithstanding, always hurries him forward; he believes himself the master of his condition, because he is obliged to use his arms under the fear of sinking.

Fatality is the eternal, unchanging, necessary order established in Nature, or the essential connection of causes that produce their effects. Following this order, heavy objects fall and light objects rise; similar materials attract each other while dissimilar ones repel each other. People gather in society, influence each other, and become either good or bad; they either contribute to each other's happiness or reciprocate each other's misery; they either love their neighbors or hate their companions, depending on how one acts toward the other. This shows that the same necessity that governs the physical world also governs the moral world, where everything is ultimately subject to fatality. As people go through life, often without realizing it and sometimes against their will, they follow the path that Nature has laid out for them, much like a swimmer who has to go with the current that drags him along. They think they are free agents because they occasionally choose to go with the flow or resist it. However, the current always pushes them forward, and they believe they control their fate because they have to paddle to avoid sinking.

The false ideas he has formed to himself upon free-agency, are in general thus founded: there are certain events which he judges necessary; either because he sees they are effects that are constantly, are invariably linked to certain causes, which nothing seems to prevent; or because he believes he has discovered the chain of causes and effects that is put in play to produce those events: whilst he contemplates as contingent, other events, of whose causes he is ignorant; the concatenation of which he does not perceive; with whose mode of acting he is unacquainted: but in Nature, where every thing is connected by one common bond, there exists no effect without a cause. In the moral as well as in the physical world, every thing that happens is a necessary consequence of causes, either visible or concealed; which are, of necessity, obliged to act after their peculiar essences. In man, free-agency is nothing more than necessity contained within himself.

The false ideas he's formed about free will are generally based on the following: he believes there are certain events that are necessary; either because he sees they are consistently linked to certain causes that nothing seems to stop, or because he thinks he has figured out the chain of causes and effects that lead to those events. Meanwhile, he sees other events as contingent, whose causes he doesn't understand; he doesn’t perceive the connections between them, nor is he familiar with how they operate. However, in nature, where everything is interconnected by a common bond, there is no effect without a cause. In both the moral and physical world, everything that happens is a necessary result of causes, whether they're visible or hidden, which must act according to their unique essences. In humans, free will is just necessity contained within themselves.










CHAP. XII.

An examination of the Opinion which pretends that the System of Fatalism is dangerous.

An analysis of the view that the concept of Fatalism is risky.

For a being whose essence obliges him to have a constant tendency to his own conservation, to continually seek to render himself happy, experience is indispensible: without it he cannot discover truth, which is nothing more, as has been already said, than a knowledge of the constant relations which subsist between man, and those objects that act upon him; according to his experience he denominates those that contribute to his permanent welfare useful and salutary; those that procure him pleasure, more or less durable, he calls agreeable. Truth itself becomes the object of his desires, only when he believes it is useful; he dreads it, whenever he presumes it will injure him. But has truth the power to injure him? Is it possible that evil can result to man from a correct understanding of the relations he has with other beings? Can it be true, that he can be harmed by becoming acquainted with those things, of which, for his own happiness, he is interested in having a knowledge? No: unquestionably not. It is upon its utility that truth founds its worth; upon this that it builds its rights; sometimes it may be disagreeable to individuals—it may even appear contrary to their interests—but it will ever be beneficial to them in the end; it will always be useful to the whole human species; it will eternally benefit the great bulk of mankind; whose interests must for ever remain distinct from those of men, who, duped by their own peculiar passions, believe their advantage consists in plunging others into error.

For a being whose nature drives him to constantly try to preserve himself and seek happiness, experience is essential: without it, he can't discover the truth, which is simply an understanding of the consistent relationships between himself and the things that influence him. Based on his experiences, he labels those that contribute to his overall well-being as useful and beneficial; those that bring him pleasure, whether temporary or lasting, he calls enjoyable. Truth becomes something he desires only when he believes it is beneficial; he fears it whenever he thinks it will harm him. But can truth actually harm him? Can a clear understanding of his relationships with others really lead to his downfall? Is it possible that knowing things relevant to his happiness would cause him harm? No, definitely not. Truth's value is based on its utility; this is what establishes its rights. Sometimes it may be unpleasant for individuals—it might even seem against their interests—but ultimately, it will always be beneficial for them; it will always serve the greater good of humanity; it will eternally benefit the majority of people; whose interests will always differ from those of individuals who, fooled by their own unique desires, believe that their advantage lies in misleading others.

Utility, then, is the touchstone of his systems, the test of his opinions, the criterion of the actions of man; it is the standard of the esteem, the measure of the love he owes to truth itself: the most useful truths are the most estimable: those truths which are most interesting for his species, he styles eminent; those of which the utility limits itself to the amusement of some individuals who have not correspondent ideas, similar modes of feeling, wants analogous to his own, he either disdains, or else calls them barren.

Utility is the benchmark for his systems, the test of his beliefs, and the standard for human actions; it's the measure of value, the way he judges love for truth itself: the most useful truths are the most admirable. He refers to those truths that are most relevant to his kind as eminent; truths that only serve to entertain some individuals who don’t share similar thoughts, feelings, or needs are either scorned or labeled as barren.

It is according to this standard, that the principles laid down in this work, ought to be judged. Those who are acquainted with the immense chain of mischief produced on the earth by erroneous systems of superstition, will acknowledge the importance of opposing to them systems more accordant with truth, schemes drawn from Nature, sciences founded on experience. Those who are, or believe they are, interested in maintaining the established errors, will contemplate, with horror, the truths here presented to them: in short, those infatuated mortals, who do not feel, or who only feel very faintly, the enormous load of misery brought upon mankind by metaphysical speculation; the heavy yoke of slavery under which prejudice makes him groan, will regard all our principles as useless; or, at most, as sterile truths, calculated to amuse the idle hours of a few speculators.

It is based on this standard that the principles laid out in this work should be evaluated. Those who understand the vast chain of damage caused on earth by misguided systems of superstition will recognize the importance of countering them with systems more aligned with truth, plans rooted in Nature, and sciences based on experience. Those who are, or think they are, invested in upholding the established errors will look on the truths presented here with dread: in short, those misguided individuals who either do not feel or only faintly feel the immense burden of misery inflicted on humanity by metaphysical speculation; the heavy burden of slavery that prejudice forces people to endure will see all our principles as pointless or, at best, as barren truths meant to occupy the idle hours of a few thinkers.

No astonishment, therefore, need be excited at the various judgments formed by man: his interests never being the same, any more than his notions of utility, he condemns or disdains every thing that does not accord with his own peculiar ideas. This granted, let us examine, if in the eyes of the disinterested man, who is not entangled by prejudice—who is sensible to the happiness of his species—who delights in truth—the doctrine of fatalism be useful or dangerous? Let us see if it is a barren speculation, that his not any influence upon the felicity of the human race? At has been already shewn, that it will furnish morals with efficacious arguments, with real motives to determine the will, supply politics with the true lever to raise the proper activity in the mind of man. It will also be seen that it serves to explain in a simple manner the mechanism of man's actions; to develope in an easy way the arcana of the most striking phenomena of the human heart: on the other hand, if his ideas are only the result of unfruitful speculations, they cannot interest the happiness of the human species. Whether he believes himself a free agent, or whether he acknowledges the necessity of things, he always equally follows the desires imprinted on his soul; which are to preserve his existence and render himself happy. A rational education, honest habits, wise systems, equitable laws, rewards uprightly distributed, punishments justly inflicted, will conduct man to happiness by making him virtuous; while thorny speculations, filled with difficulties, can at most only have an influence over persons unaccustomed to think.

No surprise, then, should arise from the different judgments people make: since their interests shift just like their ideas of what's useful, they tend to judge or dismiss everything that doesn't align with their unique perspectives. With that in mind, let’s explore whether, in the view of an unbiased person—someone who isn’t caught up in prejudice, who cares about the well-being of humanity, and who values truth—the doctrine of fatalism is beneficial or harmful. We should see if it’s a mere trivial idea that has no impact on human happiness. It has already been shown that it can provide morals with strong arguments and real motivations to guide choices, and it can give politics effective tools to inspire human action. It also helps clarify how people act and offers straightforward explanations for the most remarkable aspects of human emotions. On the other hand, if his ideas are just the result of unproductive thoughts, they won't concern human happiness. Whether he sees himself as a free agent or accepts the necessity of circumstances, he will always pursue the desires engraved in his soul: to sustain his life and to be happy. A sensible education, decent habits, wise systems, fair laws, well-distributed rewards, and justly administered punishments will lead people to happiness through virtue, while complicated ideas filled with challenges can only influence those who aren’t used to thinking deeply.

After these reflections, it will be very easy to remove the difficulties that are unceasingly opposed to the system of fatalism, which so many persons, blinded by their superstitious prejudices, are desirous to have considered as dangerous—as deserving of punishment—as calculated to disturb public tranquility—as tending to unchain the passions—to undermine the opinions man ought to have; and to confound his ideas of vice and of virtue.

After these thoughts, it will be quite simple to eliminate the challenges that constantly oppose the idea of fatalism, which many people, blinded by their superstitions, want to label as dangerous—worthy of punishment—likely to disturb public peace—likely to unleash passions—undermine the beliefs someone should hold; and to confuse their understanding of right and wrong.

The opposers of necessity, say, that if all the actions of man are necessary, no right whatever exists to punish bad ones, or even to he angry with those who commit them: that nothing ought to be imputed to them; that the laws would be unjust if they should decree punishment for necessary actions; in short, that under this system man could neither have merit nor demerit. In reply, it may be argued, that, to impute an action to any one, is to attribute that action to him; to acknowledge him for the author: thus, when even an action was supposed to be the effect of an agent, and that agent necessity, the imputation would lie: the merit or demerit, that is ascribed to an action are ideas originating in the effects, whether favourable or pernicious, that result to those who experience its operation; when, therefore, it should be conceded, that the agent was necessity, it is not less certain, that the action would be either good or bad; estimable or contemptible, to those who must feel its influence; in short that it would be capable of either eliciting their love, or exciting their anger. Love and anger are modes of existence, suitable to modify, beings of the human species: when, therefore, man irritates himself against his fellow, he intends to excite his fear, or even to punish him, in order to deter him from committing that which is displeasing to him. Moreover his anger is necessary; it is the result of his Nature; the consequence of his temperament. The painful sensation produced by a stone that falls on the arm, does not displease the less, because it comes from a cause deprived of will; which acts by the necessity of its Nature. In contemplating man as acting necessarily, it is impossible to avoid distinguishing that mode of action or being which is agreeable, which elicits approbation, from that which is afflicting, which irritates, which Nature obliges him to blame and to prevent. From this it will be seen, that the system of fatalism, does not in any manner change the actual state of things, and is by no means calculated to confound man's ideas of virtue and vice.

Opponents of necessity argue that if all human actions are necessary, there's no right to punish bad actions or even be angry with those who commit them; that nothing should be blamed on them; and that laws would be unjust if they required punishment for necessary actions. In short, under this system, people would have no merit or demerit. In response, it can be argued that attributing an action to someone means recognizing them as its author. So, even if an action is seen as the effect of an agent called necessity, blame can still apply. The ideas of merit or demerit associated with an action come from the effects, whether positive or negative, that those experiencing it feel. Therefore, if the agent is necessity, it remains true that the action can be good or bad; it can be admirable or contemptible to those affected by it, potentially leading to either love or anger. Love and anger are human emotions that can alter behavior. Thus, when one person becomes upset with another, they intend to instill fear or even punish to deter undesirable actions. Moreover, this anger is necessary; it results from human nature and inherent temperament. A painful sensation from something like a stone falling on the arm doesn’t become less unpleasant just because it comes from an unintentional cause acting out of necessity. When considering humans as acting necessarily, it’s impossible not to differentiate between actions that are pleasant, which receive approval, and those that are distressing, which provoke blame and must be prevented. This demonstrates that the fatalistic view doesn't change the reality of things and does not confuse human concepts of virtue and vice.

Man's Nature always revolts against that which opposes it: there are men so choleric, that they infuriate themselves even against insensible and inanimate objects; reflection on their own impotence to modify these objects ought to conduct them back to reason. Parents are frequently very much to be blamed for correcting their children with anger: they should be contemplated as beings who are not yet modified; or who have, perhaps, been very badly modified by themselves: nothing is more common in life, than to see men punish faults of which they are themselves the cause.

Human nature always pushes back against what opposes it. Some people get so angry that they even lose their cool over things that are unfeeling and inanimate. Realizing their inability to change these objects should help them regain their composure. Parents often deserve criticism for correcting their children in anger; they should view them as individuals who are still developing or who may have been poorly influenced themselves. It's all too common to see people punish mistakes that they are actually responsible for.

Laws are made with a view to maintain society; to uphold its existence; to prevent man associated, from injuring his neighbour; they are therefore competent to punish those who disturb its harmony, or those who commit actions that are injurious to their fellows; whether these associates may be the agents of necessity, or whether they are free agents, it suffices to know they are susceptible of modification, and are therefore submitted to the operation of the law. Penal laws are, or ought to be, those motives which experience has shewn capable of restraining the inordinate passions of man, or of annihilating the impulse these passions give to his will; from whatever necessary cause man may derive these passions, the legislator proposes to arrest their effect, when he takes suitable means, when he adopts proper methods, he is certain of success. The Judge, in decreeing to crime, gibbets, tortures, or any other chastisement whatever, does nothing more than is done by the architect, who in building a house, places gutters to carry off the rain, and prevent it from sapping the foundation.

Laws are created to maintain society, to support its existence, and to prevent individuals from harming one another. They are designed to punish those who disrupt its harmony or engage in harmful actions against others. Whether these individuals act out of necessity or freely, it is enough to know that they can be changed, which means they are subject to the law. Criminal laws should be those measures that experience has shown can curb human passions or eliminate the impulses those passions create. Regardless of where humans get these passions, lawmakers aim to stop their negative consequences by taking effective actions and adopting proper methods, which should ensure their success. When a judge imposes punishments like hanging, torture, or any other form of punishment for a crime, they are simply doing what an architect does when constructing a house: they put in gutters to direct rainwater away and prevent it from eroding the foundation.

Whatever may be the cause that obliges man to act, society possesses the right to crush the effects, as much as the man whose land would be ruined by a river, has to restrain its waters by a bank: or even, if he is able, to turn its course. It is by virtue of this right that society has the power to intimidate, the faculty to punish, with a view to its own conservation, those who may be tempted to injure it; or those who commit actions which are acknowledged really to interrupt its repose; to be inimical to its security; repugnant to its happiness.

Whatever the reason that drives a person to act, society has the right to mitigate the consequences, just like a person whose land is threatened by a river has the right to build a dam to control its flow, or even, if possible, redirect it. It is based on this right that society has the authority to intimidate, the ability to punish, in order to protect itself from those who may try to harm it; or those who engage in actions that are recognized to disturb its peace; pose a threat to its safety; or contradict its well-being.

It will, perhaps, be argued, that society does not, usually, punish those faults in which the will has no share; that, in fact, it punishes the will alone; that this it is which decides the nature of the crime, and the degree of its atrocity; that if this will be not free, it ought not to be punished. I reply, that society is an assemblage of sensible beings, susceptible of reason, who desire their own welfare; who fear evil, and seek after good. These dispositions enable their will to be so modified or determined, that they are capable of holding such a conduct as will conduce to the end they have in view. Education, the laws, public opinion, example, habit, fear, are the causes that must modify associated man, influence his will, regulate his passions, restrain the actions of him who is capable of injuring the end of his association, and thereby make him concur to the general happiness. These causes are of a nature to make impressions on every man, whose organization, whose essence, whose sanity, places him in a capacity to contract the habits, to imbibe the modes of thinking, to adopt the manner of acting, with which society is willing to inspire him. All the individuals of the human species are susceptible of fear, from whence it flows as a natural consequence, that the fear of punishment, or the privation of the happiness he desires, are motives that must necessarily more or less influence his will, and regulate his actions. If the man is to be found who is so badly constituted as to resist, whose organization is so vicious as to be insensible to those motives which operate upon all his fellows, he is not fit to live in society; he would contradict the very end of his association: he would be its enemy; he would place obstacles to its natural tendency; his rebellious disposition, his unsociable will, not being susceptible of that modification which is convenient to his own true interests and to the interests of his fellow-citizens; these would unite themselves against such an enemy; and the law which is, or ought to be the expression of the general will, would visit with condign punishment that refractory individual upon whom the motives presented to him by society, had not the effect which it had been induced to expect: in consequence, such an unsociable man would be chastised; he would be rendered miserable, and according to the nature of his crime he would be excluded from society as a being but little calculated to concur in its views.

It might be argued that society usually doesn't punish faults where the will isn't involved; that in fact, it punishes the will alone; that this determines the nature of the crime and how severe it is; and that if the will isn't free, it shouldn't be punished. I respond by saying that society is made up of rational beings who want their own well-being, who fear harm, and strive for good. These inclinations allow their will to be shaped or directed so they can behave in ways that help achieve their goals. Education, laws, public opinion, examples, habits, and fear are the factors that must influence individuals in a society, impact their will, manage their passions, and restrict the actions of anyone who could harm their collective interests, thereby helping to promote general happiness. These influences can make an impression on anyone, whose nature and sanity enable them to develop habits, adopt ways of thinking, and follow the behaviors that society aims to instill. All human beings can feel fear, leading to the natural conclusion that the fear of punishment or the loss of desired happiness are motivations that will inevitably influence their will and regulate their actions. If there is someone whose nature is so flawed that they resist, or whose disposition is so misguided that they are insensitive to the motivations that affect everyone else, they are unfit to live in society; they would contradict the very purpose of social living: they would be its adversary; they would obstruct its natural goals; their rebellious nature and antisocial will would prevent them from aligning with their own true interests or those of their fellow citizens; the community would band together against such a foe; and the law, which is or should be a reflection of the collective will, would impose appropriate punishment on that individual who failed to respond to the societal motivations as expected. Consequently, such an antisocial person would face punishment, be made miserable, and depending on the nature of their crime, would be excluded from society as someone who is not suited to contribute to its aims.

If society has the right to conserve itself, it has also the right to take the means: these means are the laws which present or ought to present to the will of man those motives which are most suitable to deter him from committing injurious actions. If these motives fail of the proper effect, if they are unable to influence him, society, for its own peculiar good, is obliged to wrest from him the power of doing it further injury. From whatever source his actions may arise, therefore, whether they are the result of free-agency, or whether they are the offspring of necessity, society coerces him if, after having furnished him with motives, sufficiently powerful to act upon reasonable beings, it perceives that these motives have not been competent to vanquish his depraved nature. It punishes him with justice, when the actions from which it dissuades him are truly injurious to society; it has an unquestionable right to punish, when it only commands those things that are conformable to the end proposed by man in his association; or defends the commission of those acts, which are contrary to this end; which are hostile to the nature of beings associated for their reciprocal advantage. But, on the other hand, the law has not acquired the right to punish him: if it has failed to present to him the motives necessary to have an influence over his will, it has not the right to coerce him if the negligence of society has deprived him of the means of subsisting; of exercising his talents; of exerting his industry; of labouring for its welfare. It is unjust, when it punishes those to whom it has, neither given an education, nor honest principles; whom it has not enabled to contract habits necessary to the maintenance of society: it is unjust when it punishes them for faults which the wants of their nature, or the constitution of society has rendered necessary to them: it is unjust, it is irrational, whenever it chastises them for having followed those propensities, which example, which public opinion, which the institutions, which society itself conspires to give them. In short, the law is defective when it does not proportion the punishment to the real evil which society has sustained. The last degree of injustice, the acme of folly is, when society is so blinded as to inflict punishment on those citizens who have served it usefully.

If society has the right to protect itself, it also has the right to use the means to do so: these means are the laws that should present to people's will the motivations most likely to deter them from doing harm. If these motivations don’t work, if they can’t influence someone, society must take away their ability to cause further harm for its own good. No matter where their actions come from—whether from free will or necessity—society will impose consequences if it has provided strong enough motivations that act on reasonable individuals and sees that these motivations haven’t overcome their bad behavior. It justly punishes someone when the actions it's trying to stop genuinely harm society; it definitely has the right to punish when it only demands actions that align with the purpose everyone has in coming together or defends against actions that contradict that purpose, which go against the nature of beings working together for their mutual benefit. However, the law doesn’t have the right to punish someone if it hasn’t given them the necessary motivations to influence their choices. It can’t force them if society’s negligence has robbed them of the means to survive, use their skills, work hard, or contribute to the community’s well-being. It is unjust to punish those who haven’t been provided an education or solid principles, or who haven’t had the chance to develop the habits they need to support society. It is unjust when it penalizes them for behavior that the needs of their nature or the structure of society have made necessary. It is unfair and unreasonable whenever it punishes them for acting on impulses that are promoted by examples, public opinion, institutions, or society itself. In short, the law is flawed when it doesn’t match the punishment to the actual harm society has suffered. The ultimate injustice, the height of foolishness, is when society is so shortsighted that it punishes those citizens who have been helpful to it.

The penal laws, in exhibiting terrifying objects to man, who must be supposed susceptible of fear, presents him with motives calculated to have an influence over his will. The idea of pain, the privation of liberty, the fear of death, are, to a being well constituted, in the full enjoyment of his faculties, very puissant obstacles, that strongly oppose themselves to the impulse of his unruly desires: when these do not coerce his will, when they fail to arrest his progress, he is an irrational being; a madman; a being badly organized; against whom society has the right to guarantee itself; against whom it has a right to take measures for its own security. Madness is, without doubt, an involuntary, a necessary state; nevertheless, no one feels it unjust to deprive the insane of their liberty, although their actions can only be imputed to the derangement of their brain. The wicked are men whose brain is either constantly or transitorily disturbed; still they must be punished by reason of the evil they commit; they must always be placed in the impossibility of injuring society: if no hope remains of bringing them back to a reasonable conduct—if every prospect of recalling them to their duty has vanished—if they cannot be made to adopt a mode of action conformable to the great end of association—they must be for ever excluded its benefits.

The penal laws, by showing terrifying consequences to people, who are assumed to be capable of fear, give them reasons that can affect their choices. The thought of pain, losing freedom, and the fear of death are significant barriers for someone who is well-adjusted and fully aware of their abilities, strongly opposing their uncontrolled desires. When these fears do not control their decisions or stop their actions, they become irrational; they act like madmen; they are poorly structured individuals against whom society has the right to protect itself and to take measures for its own safety. Madness is certainly an involuntary and unavoidable state; however, nobody thinks it’s unfair to take away the freedom of those who are insane, even though their actions are solely a result of their mental disorder. The wicked are individuals whose minds are either permanently or temporarily disturbed; they must still be punished for the harm they cause, and society must always ensure they cannot harm others. If there is no hope of restoring them to rational behavior—if every possibility of bringing them back to their responsibilities has disappeared—if they cannot be made to act in accordance with the primary purpose of social collaboration—they must be permanently excluded from its benefits.

It will not be requisite to examine here, how far the punishments which society inflicts upon those who offend against it, may be reasonably carried. Reason should seem to indicate that the law ought to shew to the necessary crimes of man, all the indulgence that is compatible with the conservation of society. The system of fatalism, as we have seen, does not leave crime unpunished; but it is, at least, calculated to moderate the barbarity with which a number of nations punish the victims to their anger. This cruelty becomes still more absurd, when experience has shewn its inutility: the habit of witnessing ferocious punishments familiarizes criminals with the idea. If it be true that society possesses the right of taking away the life of its members—if it be really a fact, that the death of a criminal, thenceforth useless, can be advantageous for society, which it will be necessary to examine, humanity, at least, exacts that this death should not be accompanied with useless tortures; with which laws, perhaps in this instance too rigorous, frequently seem to delight in overwhelming their victim. This cruelty seems to defeat its own end, it only serves to make the culprit, who is immolated to the public vengeance, suffer without any advantage to society; it moves the compassion of the spectator, interests him in favor of the miserable offender who groans under its weight; it impresses nothing upon the wicked, but the sight of those cruelties destined for himself; which but too frequently renders him more ferocious, more cruel, more the enemy of his associates: if the example of death was less frequent, even without being accompanied with tortures, it would be more efficacious. If experience was consulted, it would be found that the greater number of criminals only look upon death as a bad quarter of an hour. It is an unquestionable fact, that a thief seeing one of his comrades, display a want of firmness under the punishment, said to him: "Is not this what I have often told you, that in our business, we have one evil more than the rest of mankind?" Robberies are daily committed, even at the foot of the scaffolds where criminals are punished. In those nations, where the penalty of death is so lightly inflicted, has sufficient attention been paid to the fact, that society is yearly deprived of a great number of individuals who would be able to render it very useful service, if made to work, and thus indemnify the community for the injuries they have committed? The facility with which the lives of men are taken away, proves the incapacity of counsellors; is an evidence of the negligence of legislators: they find it a much shorter road, that it gives them less trouble to destroy the citizens than to seek after the means to render them better.

It’s not necessary to discuss how far society can reasonably go with the punishments it hands out to those who break its laws. Common sense suggests that the law should show as much leniency as possible, as long as it doesn’t harm society. As we've observed, fatalism does punish crime, but it tends to soften the harshness with which many nations punish those who provoke their anger. This cruelty becomes even more ridiculous when experience shows it doesn’t work: witnessing brutal punishments desensitizes criminals to the whole idea. If it’s true that society has the right to take the lives of its members—if the death of a criminal, who is no longer useful, can actually benefit society—which we need to look into—humanity demands that this death shouldn’t come with unnecessary torture, which laws, often too strict in this regard, seem to take pleasure in inflicting upon their victims. This cruelty undermines its own purpose; it only makes the condemned suffer without giving society any real advantage. It evokes compassion from the onlookers, who feel sympathy for the miserable offender under such distress; all it teaches the wicked is the brutal treatment they might face, which often makes them more savage, crueler, and more hostile to others. If the example of death were less common, even without accompanying torture, it would be more effective. If experience were considered, we would find most criminals view death as just a bad quarter of an hour. An undeniable fact is that a thief watched one of his companions crumble under punishment and said to him, "Isn't this what I’ve been saying, that in our line of work, we suffer one extra hardship compared to others?" Crimes are committed daily, even at the foot of the gallows where criminals are executed. In societies where the death penalty is handed out casually, has anyone considered how many individuals society loses every year who could actually be of great service if they were put to work to make amends for their offenses? The ease with which lives are taken points to the ineptitude of advisers and shows the neglect of lawmakers; they find it much simpler and less troublesome to eliminate citizens than to find ways to reform them.

What shall be said for the unjust cruelty of some nations, in which the law, that ought to have for its object the advantage of the whole, appears to be made only for the security of the most powerful? How shall we account for the inhumanity of those societies, in which punishments the most disproportionate to the crime, unmercifully take away the lives of men, whom the most urgent necessity, the dreadful alternative of famishing in a land of plenty, has obliged to become criminal? It is thus that in a great number of civilized nations, the life of the citizen is placed in the same scales with money; that the unhappy wretch who is perishing from hunger, who is writhing under the most abject misery, is put to death for having taken a pitiful portion of the superfluity of another whom he beholds rolling in abundance! It is this that, in many otherwise very enlightened societies, is called justice, or making the punishment commensurate with the crime.

What can we say about the unfair cruelty of some nations, where the law, which should benefit everyone, seems designed only to protect the powerful? How do we explain the inhumanity of societies that impose punishments vastly disproportionate to the crime, mercilessly taking the lives of people who, driven by desperate necessity and the horrifying choice between starvation and crime in a land of plenty, have been pushed to wrongdoing? In many so-called civilized nations, a citizen's life is weighed against money; the unfortunate soul suffering from hunger, enduring extreme misery, is executed for grabbing a tiny bit of the excess from someone who enjoys abundance! This is what many otherwise enlightened societies refer to as justice, or making the punishment fit the crime.

Let the man of humanity, whose tender feelings are alive to the welfare of his species—let the moralist, who preaches virtue, who holds out forbearance to man—let the philosopher, who dives into the secrets of Nature—let the theologian himself say, if this dreadful iniquity, this heinous sin, does not become yet more crying, when the laws decree the most cruel tortures for crimes to which the most irrational customs gave birth—which bad institutions engender—which evil examples multiply? Is not this something like building a sorry, inconvenient hovel, and then punishing the inhabitant, because he does not find all the conveniences of the most complete mansion, of the most finished structure? Man, as at cannot be too frequently repeated, is so prone to evil, only because every thing appears to urge him on to the commission of it, by too frequently shewing him vice triumphant: his education is void in a great number of states, perhaps defective in nearly all; in many places he receives from society no other principles, save those of an unintelligible superstition; which make but a feeble barrier against those propensities that are excited by dissolute manners; which are encouraged by corrupt examples: in vain the law cries out to him: "abstain from the goods of thy neighbour;" his wants, more powerful, loudly declare to him that he must live: unaccustomed to reason, having never been submitted to a wholesome discipline, he conceives he must do it at the expence of a society who has done nothing for him: who condemns him to groan in misery, to languish in indigence: frequently deprived of the common necessaries requisite to support his existence, which his essence, of which he is not the master, compels him to conserve. He compensates himself by theft, he revenges himself by assassination, he becomes a plunderer by profession, a murderer by trade; he plunges into crime, and seeks at the risque of his life, to satisfy those wants, whether real or imaginary, to which every thing around him conspires to give birth. Deprived of education, he has not been taught to restrain the fury of his temperament—to guide his passions with discretion—to curb his inclinations. Without ideas of decency, destitute of the true principles of honour, he engages in criminal pursuits that injure his country: which at the same time has been to him nothing more than a step-mother. In the paroxysm of his rage, in the exacerbation of his mind, he loses sight of his neighbour's rights, he overlooks the gibbet, he forgets the torture; his unruly desires have become too potent—they have completely absorbed his mind; by a criminal indulgence they have given an inveteracy to his habits which preclude him from changing them; laziness has made him torpid: remorse has gnawed his peace; despair has rendered him blind; he rushes on to death; and society is compelled to punish him rigorously, for those fatal, those necessary dispositions, which it has perhaps itself engendered in his heart by evil example: or which at least, it has not taken the pains seasonably to root out; which it has neglected to oppose by suitable motives—by those calculated to give him honest principles—to excite him to industrious habits, to imbue him with virtuous inclinations. Thus, society frequently punishes those propensities of which it is itself the author, or which its negligence has suffered to spring up in the mind of man: it acts like those unjust fathers, who chastise their children for vices which they have themselves made them contract.

Let the compassionate person, who cares about the well-being of others—let the moral teacher, who promotes virtue and encourages patience—let the philosopher, who explores the mysteries of nature—let the theologian himself say, if this terrible injustice, this awful sin, doesn't become even more apparent, when laws impose the harshest punishments for crimes born from the most irrational customs—cruel institutions that create them—bad examples that multiply? Isn't this a bit like building a shabby, uncomfortable home, and then punishing the resident for not finding all the comforts of a well-designed mansion? It cannot be said too often that humans are prone to wrongdoing, only because everything seems to push them toward it, often showing them vice as victorious: their education is lacking in many states, possibly flawed in nearly all; in many places, society offers them no principles but those of incomprehensible superstition, which provide a weak barrier against the urges stirred by immoral behavior, encouraged by corrupt examples. The law shouts at them: "Do not take what belongs to your neighbor," but their needs, more powerful, loudly tell them that they must survive: untrained in reasoning, having never experienced healthy discipline, they believe they must fulfill their needs at the expense of a society that has done nothing for them: a society that condemns them to suffer in misery, to languish in poverty: often deprived of basic necessities essential for their survival, which their very nature, which they do not control, compels them to maintain. They compensate by stealing, they seek revenge through murder, they become professional thieves, murderers by trade; they plunge into crime and risk their lives to satisfy those needs, whether real or imagined, that everything around them seems to encourage. Deprived of education, they haven’t been taught to control their raging emotions—to manage their passions wisely—to restrain their urges. Lacking a sense of decency, devoid of true principles of honor, they engage in illegal activities that harm their society: which, at the same time, has treated them like a cruel stepmother. In the heat of their anger, in the turmoil of their minds, they disregard their neighbor's rights, ignore the gallows, forget the torture; their unrestrained desires have become too strong—they have entirely consumed their thoughts; indulgence in crime has entrenched their habits, making change impossible; laziness has rendered them apathetic: guilt has gnawed at their peace; despair has blinded them; they rush toward death; and society feels forced to punish them harshly for those fatal, necessary tendencies that it may have planted in their hearts through bad examples: or which at least, it has failed to root out in time; which it has neglected to counter with appropriate motivations—those meant to provide them with honest principles—to encourage industrious behavior, to instill virtuous inclinations. Thus, society often punishes those tendencies of which it is itself the source or which its negligence has allowed to develop in people's minds: it acts like unjust parents who punish their children for vices they themselves have instilled.

However unjust, however unreasonable this conduct may be, or appear to be, it is not the less necessary: society, such as it is, whatever may be its corruption, whatever vices may pervade its institutions, like every thing else in Nature, is willing to subsist; tends to conserve itself: in consequence, it is obliged to punish those excesses which its own vicious constitution has produced: in despite of its peculiar prejudices, notwithstanding its vices, it feels cogently that its own immediate security demands that it should destroy the conspiracies of those who make war against its tranquillity: if these, hurried on by the foul current of their necessary propensities, disturb its repose—if, borne on the stream of their ill-directed desires, they injure its interests, this following the natural law, which obliges it to labour to its own peculiar conservation, removes them out of its road; punishes them with more or less rigor, according to the objects to which it attaches the greatest importance, or which it supposes best suited to further its own peculiar welfare: without doubt, it deceives itself frequently, both upon these objects and the means; but it deceives itself necessarily, for want of the knowledge calculated to enlighten it, with regard to its true interests; for want of those, who regulate its movements possessing proper vigilance—suitable talents—the requisite virtue. From this it will appear, that the injustice of a society badly constituted, and blinded by its prejudices, is as necessary, as the crimes of those by whom it is hostilely attacked—by whose vices it is distracted. The body politic, when in a state of insanity, cannot act more consistently with reason, than one of its members whose brain is disturbed by madness.

No matter how unfair or unreasonable this behavior may seem, it’s still necessary: society, with all its flaws and corruption, is determined to survive; it naturally wants to preserve itself. Because of this, it has to punish the excesses created by its own corrupt nature. Despite its biases and shortcomings, society strongly feels that its immediate safety requires it to eliminate the threats posed by those who disrupt its peace. If individuals, driven by their harmful instincts, disturb its calm, or if they pursue misguided desires that harm its interests, society, following the natural law that compels it to protect itself, removes those threats. It punishes them with varying degrees of severity, based on what it values most or what it believes would best serve its well-being. While it often misjudges both those priorities and the methods, such self-deception is inevitable due to a lack of understanding of its true interests and the absence of watchful leaders with the right skills and virtues. This illustrates that the injustice of a poorly structured society, blinded by its biases, is as necessary as the crimes of those who threaten it—whose vices create chaos within it. A society in turmoil cannot act any more rationally than an individual whose mind is disturbed by madness.

It will still be said that these maxims, by submitting every thing to necessity, must confound, or even destroy the notions man forms of justice and injustice; of good and evil; of merit and demerit: I deny it. Although man, in every thing he does, acts necessarily, his actions are good, they are just, they are meritorious, every time they tend to the real utility of his fellows; of the society of which he makes a part: they are, of necessity, distinguished from those which are really prejudicial to the welfare of his associates. Society is just, it is good, it is worthy our reverence, when it procures for all its members, their physical wants, when it affords them protection, when it secures their liberty, when it puts them in possession of their natural rights. It is ill this that consists all the happiness of which the social compact is susceptible: society is unjust, it is bad, it is unworthy our esteem, when it is partial to a few, when it is cruel to the greater number: it is then that it multiplies its enemies, obliges them to revenge themselves by criminal actions which it is under the necessity to punish. It is not upon the caprices of political society that depend the true notions of justice and injustice—the right ideas of moral good and evil—a just appreciation of merit and demerit; it is upon utility, upon the necessity of things, which always forces man to feel that there exists a mode of acting on which he implicitly relies, which he is obliged to venerate, which he cannot help approving either in his fellows, in himself, or in society: whilst there is another mode to which he cannot lend his confidence, which his nature makes him to hate, which his feelings compel him to condemn. It is upon his own peculiar essence that man founds his ideas of pleasure and of pain—of right and of wrong—of vice and of virtue: the only difference between these is, that pleasure and pain make them instantaneously felt in his brain; he becomes conscious of their existence upon the spot; in the place of which, the advantages that accrue to him from justice, the benefit that he derives from virtue, frequently do not display themselves but after a long train of reflections—after multiplied experience and complicated attention; which many, either from a defect in their conformation, or from the peculiarity of the circumstances under which they are placed, are prevented from making, or at least from making correctly.

It can still be argued that these principles, by submitting everything to necessity, must confuse or even destroy the concepts of justice and injustice, good and evil, merit and demerit that people form. I disagree. Even though every action humans take is necessary, those actions are good, just, and deserving whenever they benefit the true welfare of their peers and the society they belong to. They are, by necessity, set apart from actions that harm the well-being of others. Society is just, good, and worthy of our respect when it meets the physical needs of all its members, protects them, secures their liberty, and ensures they have their natural rights. This is where all the happiness that the social contract can provide resides: society is unjust, bad, and unworthy of our esteem when it favors a few at the expense of the many. This creates more enemies and forces them to retaliate through criminal acts that society then feels compelled to punish. The true concepts of justice and injustice, the right ideas of moral good and evil, and a fair assessment of merit and demerit do not depend on the whims of political society; they rely on utility and the necessity of things, which always compels people to recognize a way of acting that they implicitly trust, respect, and cannot help but approve of, whether in themselves, others, or society. Conversely, there is another way that they cannot trust, which their nature makes them detest, and their feelings urge them to condemn. Humans base their ideas of pleasure and pain, right and wrong, vice and virtue on their own unique essence; the only difference is that pleasure and pain are instantly felt in the mind, making individuals aware of their existence right away. In contrast, the benefits that come from justice and the good gained from virtue often reveal themselves only after prolonged thought, extensive experience, and complex attention, which many may struggle to engage in correctly due to either personal shortcomings or the unique circumstances they find themselves in.

By a necessary consequence of this truism, the system of fatalism, although it has frequently been so accused, does not tend to encourage man in crime, to make remorse vanish from his mind. His propensities are to be ascribed to his nature; the use he makes of his passions depends upon his habits, upon his opinions, upon the ideas he has received in his education; upon the examples held forth by the society in which he lives. These things are what necessarily decide his conduct. Thus, when his temperament renders him susceptible of strong passions, he is violent in his desires, whatever may be his speculations.

As a natural consequence of this truth, the system of fatalism, despite often being accused of it, does not encourage people to commit crimes or make them feel no remorse. His tendencies are part of his nature; how he uses his passions depends on his habits, beliefs, and the ideas he has learned through his education, as well as the examples presented by the society around him. These factors are what ultimately shape his behavior. Therefore, when his temperament makes him prone to strong emotions, he can be intense in his desires, regardless of his thoughts.

Remorse is the painful sentiment excited in him by grief, caused either by the immediate or probable future effect of his indulged passions: if these effects were always useful to him, he would not experience remorse; but, as soon as he is assured that his actions render him hateful, that his passions make him contemptible; or, as soon as he fears he shall be punished in some mode or other, he becomes restless, discontented with himself—he reproaches himself with his own conduct—he feels ashamed—he fears the judgement of those beings whose affection he has learned to esteem—in whose good-will he finds his own comfort deeply interested. His experience proves to him that the wicked man is odious to all those upon whom his actions have any influence: if these actions are concealed at the moment of commission, he knows it very rarely happens they remain so for ever. The smallest reflection convinces him that there is no wicked man who is not ashamed of his own conduct—who is truly contented with himself—who does not envy the condition of the good man—who is not obliged to acknowledge that he has paid very dearly for those advantages he is never able to enjoy, without experiencing the most troublesome sensations, without making the most bitter reproaches against himself; then he feels ashamed, despises himself, hates himself, his conscience becomes alarmed, remorse follows in it train. To be convinced of the truth of this principle it is only requisite to cast our eyes on the extreme precautions that tyrants and villains, who are otherwise sufficiently powerful not to dread the punishment of man, take to prevent exposure;—to what lengths they push their cruelties against some, to what meannesses they stoop to others of those who are able to hold them up to public scorn. Have they not, then, a consciousness of their own iniquities? Do they not know that they are hateful and contemptible? Have they not remorse? Is their condition happy? Persons well brought up acquire these sentiments in their education; which are either strengthened or enfeebled by public opinion, by habit, or by the examples set before them. In a depraved society, remorse either does not exist, or presently disappears; because, in all his actions, it is ever the judgment of his fellow-man that man is obliged necessarily to regard. He never feels either shame or remorse for actions he sees approved, that are practised by the world. Under corrupt governments, venal souls, avaricious being, mercenary individuals, do not blush either at meanness, robbery, or rapine, when it is authorized by example; in licentious nations, no one blushes at adultery except the husband, at whose expence it is committed; in superstitious countries, man does not blush to assassinate his fellow for his opinions. It will be obvious, therefore, that his remorse, as well as the ideas, whether right or wrong, which man has of decency, virtue, justice, &c. are the necessary consequence of his temperament, modified by the society in which he lives: assassins and thieves, when they live only among themselves, have neither shame nor remorse.

Remorse is the painful feeling caused by grief, stemming from either the immediate or likely future consequences of his indulged passions. If these consequences were always beneficial to him, he wouldn’t feel remorse; but as soon as he realizes that his actions make him loathsome, that his passions render him despicable, or as soon as he fears punishment in some form, he becomes restless, dissatisfied with himself—he blames himself for his own behavior—he feels ashamed—he worries about the judgment of those whose affection he has come to value and whose goodwill deeply affects his own comfort. His experiences show him that a wicked person is detestable to everyone affected by his actions: if these actions are hidden at the time they occur, he knows they rarely stay hidden forever. A bit of reflection convinces him that there is no wicked person who is not ashamed of his own actions—who is genuinely satisfied with himself—who does not envy the state of a good person—who does not have to admit that he has paid a heavy price for advantages he can never fully enjoy without facing the most distressing feelings, without the harshest self-reproaches; then he feels ashamed, despises himself, hates himself, his conscience becomes agitated, and remorse follows closely behind. To truly understand this principle, it's enough to look at the extreme measures that tyrants and villains, who are otherwise powerful enough not to fear human punishment, take to avoid exposure;—what lengths they go to in their cruelty toward some, to what lows they stoop toward others who can expose them to public disgrace. Do they not have a sense of their own wrongdoing? Do they not realize they are detestable and despicable? Do they not feel remorse? Is their situation truly happy? Well-raised individuals develop these feelings in their upbringing, which are either strengthened or weakened by public opinion, habit, or the examples set before them. In a corrupt society, remorse either doesn't exist or quickly fades; because, in all his actions, it is always the judgment of his fellow humans that one must necessarily consider. He never feels shame or remorse for actions he sees approved and practiced by society. Under corrupt governments, corrupt individuals, greedy people, and selfish individuals don’t feel shame for dishonesty, theft, or violence when it’s sanctioned by example; in libertine societies, no one feels shame for adultery except the husband at whose expense it is committed; in superstitious countries, people do not feel shame for killing others over their beliefs. It is clear, therefore, that his remorse, along with the notions—whether right or wrong—of decency, virtue, justice, etc., are the inevitable results of his temperament, shaped by the society in which he lives: assassins and thieves, when they live only among themselves, have neither shame nor remorse.

Thus, I repeat, all the actions of man are necessary those which are always useful, which constantly contribute to the real, tend to the permanent happiness of his species, are called virtues, and are necessarily pleasing to all who experience their influence; at least, if their passions or false opinions do not oblige them to judge in that manner which is but little accordant with the nature of things: each man acts, each individual judges, necessarily, according to his own peculiar mode of existence—after the ideas, whether true or false, which he has formed with regard to his happiness. There are necessary actions which man is obliged to approve; there are others, that, in despite of himself, he is compelled to censure; of which the idea generates shame when his reflection permits him to contemplate them under the same point of view that they are regarded by his associates. The virtuous man and the wicked man act from motives equally necessary: they differ simply in their organization—in the ideas they form to themselves of happiness: we love the one necessarily—we detest the other from the same necessity. The law of his nature, which wills that a sensible being shall constantly labour to preserve himself, has not left to man the power to choose, or the free-agency to prefer pain to pleasure—vice to utility—crime to virtue. It is, then, the essence of man himself that obliges him to discriminate those actions which are advantageous to him, form those which are prejudicial to his interest, from those which are baneful to his felicity.

So, I’ll say it again, all of a person's actions are necessary. Those that are always beneficial and contribute to the genuine, lasting happiness of humanity are called virtues, and they are usually pleasing to everyone who feels their effects; at least, unless their feelings or misconceptions lead them to judge in a way that doesn’t align well with reality. Each person acts, and each individual judges based on their own unique way of life—according to the ideas, whether true or false, that they have about their happiness. There are necessary actions that a person has to endorse; there are others that, despite themselves, they are forced to criticize, which cause feelings of shame when they reflect on them in the same way their peers view them. The virtuous person and the wicked person act from equally necessary motivations; they only differ in their makeup—in the concepts they form of happiness. We necessarily love one and detest the other for the same reason. The law of human nature, which dictates that a sentient being must continually strive to preserve itself, doesn’t give us the choice or the free will to prefer pain over pleasure—vice over utility—crime over virtue. Therefore, it is the very essence of humanity that compels us to distinguish between actions that are beneficial to us and those that are harmful to our well-being.

This distinction subsists even in the most corrupt societies, in which the ideas of virtue, although completely effaced from their conduct, remain the same in their mind. Let us suppose a matt, who had decidedly determined for villainy, who should say to himself—"It is folly to be virtuous in a society that is depraved, in a community that is debauched." Let us suppose also, that he has sufficient address, the unlooked-for good fortune to escape censure or punishment, during a long series of years; I say, that in despite of all these circumstances, apparently so advantageous for himself, such a man has neither been happy nor contented with his own conduct, He has been in continual agonies—ever at war with his own actions—in a state of constant agitation. How much pain, how much anxiety, has he not endured in this perpetual conflict with himself? How many precautions, what excessive labour, what endless solicitude, has he not been compelled to employ in this continued struggle; how many embarrassments, how many cares, has he not experienced in this eternal wrestling with his associates, whose penetration he dreads, whose scorn he fears will follow a true knowledge of his pursuits. Demand of him what he thinks of himself, he will shrink from the question. Approach the bedside of this villain at the moment he is dying; ask him if he would be willing to recommence, at the same price, a life of similar agitation? If he is ingenuous, he will avow that he has tasted neither repose nor happiness; that each crime filled him with inquietude—that reflection prevented him from sleeping—that the world has been to him only one continued scene of alarm—an uninterrupted concatenation of terror—an everlasting, anxiety of mind;—that to live peaceably upon bread and water, appears to him to be a much happier, a more easy condition, than to possess riches, credit, reputation, honours, on the same terms that he has himself acquired them. If this villain, notwithstanding all his success, finds his condition so deplorable, what must be thought of the feelings of those who have neither the same resources nor the same advantages to succeed in their criminal projects.

This distinction exists even in the most corrupt societies, where the ideas of virtue, though completely absent from their behavior, remain the same in their minds. Let's imagine a man who has firmly chosen a life of villainy and thinks to himself, "It's foolish to be virtuous in a corrupt society, in a debauched community." Let's also imagine that he has enough skill and unexpected luck to avoid criticism or punishment for many years; despite all these seemingly favorable circumstances, this man has neither been happy nor satisfied with his actions. He has been in constant agony—always at war with himself—caught in a state of ongoing turmoil. How much pain and anxiety has he endured in this endless struggle with his own conscience? How many precautions, how much excessive effort, how much endless worry has he had to invest in this continuous battle; how many complications, how many concerns has he faced in this never-ending confrontation with his peers, fearing their insight and dreading the scorn that would follow if they truly knew his pursuits? If you ask him what he thinks of himself, he will shy away from the question. Approach the bedside of this villain as he lies dying; ask him if he would be willing to relive a life of similar turmoil at the same cost. If he's honest, he will admit that he has known neither peace nor happiness; that every crime filled him with unease—that reflection kept him awake at night—that the world has been nothing but a continuous source of fear—an unending chain of terror—an everlasting anxiety;—that living simply on bread and water seems to him a much happier, easier state than having wealth, credit, reputation, and honors on the same terms as he has acquired them. If this villain, despite all his success, finds his situation so miserable, what must we think of the feelings of those who lack the same resources and opportunities to succeed in their criminal endeavors?

Thus, the system of necessity is a truth not only founded upon certain experience, but, again, it establishes morals upon an immoveable basis. Far from sapping the foundations of virtue, it points out its necessity; it clearly shows the invariable sentiments it must excite—sentiments so necessary, so strong, so congenial to his existence, that all the prejudices of man—all the vices of his institutions—all the effect of evil example, have never been able entirely to eradicate them from his mind. When he mistakes the advantages of virtue, it ought to be ascribed to the errors that are infused into him—to the irrationality of his institutions: all his wanderings are the fatal consequences of error,—the necessary result of prejudices which have identified themselves with his existence. Let it not, therefore, any longer be imputed to his nature that he has become wicked, but to those baneful opinions which he has imbibed with his mother's milk,—that have rendered him ambitious, avaricious, envious, haughty, arrogant, debauched, intolerant, obstinate, prejudiced, incommodious to his fellows, mischievous to himself. It is education that carries into his system the germ of those vices which necessarily torment him during the whole course of his life.

The system of necessity is a truth based not just on specific experiences but also establishes morals on a solid foundation. Instead of undermining virtue, it highlights its necessity; it clearly demonstrates the consistent feelings it must inspire—feelings that are so essential, so strong, and so aligned with human existence that all of humanity's prejudices, all the flaws of its institutions, and all the negative examples set by others have never fully erased them from our minds. When someone misunderstands the benefits of virtue, it should be attributed to the misconceptions instilled in them and the irrationality of their institutions: all their missteps are the unfortunate outcomes of error—the inevitable result of prejudices that have become part of who they are. Therefore, it should no longer be blamed on human nature that one becomes wicked, but rather on those harmful beliefs that have been absorbed from infancy, making them ambitious, greedy, envious, proud, arrogant, corrupt, intolerant, stubborn, biased, burdensome to others, and harmful to themselves. It is education that introduces the seeds of these vices into their system, which will inevitably torment them throughout their lives.

Fatalism is reproached with discouraging man—with damping the ardour of his soul—with plunging him into apathy—with destroying the bonds that should connect him with society. Its opponents say, "If every thing is necessary, we must let things go on, and not be disturbed by any thing." But does it depend on man to be sensible or not? Is he master of feeling or not feeling pain? If Nature has endowed him with a humane, with a tender soul, is it possible he should not interest himself in a very lively manner, in the welfare of beings whom he knows are necessary to his own peculiar happiness? His feelings are necessary: they depend on his own peculiar nature, cultivated by education. His imagination, prompt to concern itself with the felicity of his race, causes his heart to be oppressed at the sight of those evils his fellow-creature is obliged to endure,—makes his soul tremble in the contemplation of the misery arising from the despotism that crushes him—from the superstition that leads him astray—from the passions that distract him in a state of warfare against his neighbour. Although he knows that death is the fatal, the necessary period to the form of all beings, his soul is not affected in a less lively manner at the loss of a beloved wife,—at the demise of a child calculated to console his old age,—at the final separation from an esteemed friend who had become dear to his heart. Although he is not ignorant that it is the essence of fire to burn, he does not believe he is dispensed from using his utmost efforts to arrest the progress of a conflagration. Although he is intimately convinced that the evils to which he is a witness, are the necessary consequence of primitive errors with which his fellow-citizens are imbued, he feels he ought to display truth to them, if Nature has given him the necessary courage; under the conviction, that if they listen to it, it will, by degrees, become a certain remedy for their sufferings, that it will produce those necessary effects which it is of its essence to operate.

Fatalism is criticized for discouraging people, dampening their spirits, plunging them into apathy, and breaking the connections that should link them to society. Its critics argue, "If everything is predetermined, we might as well sit back and not get upset about anything." But can a person control whether they feel or don’t feel pain? Is he truly in charge of his emotions? If nature has given him a compassionate and sensitive soul, how can he not deeply care about the welfare of those whose happiness is essential to his own? His feelings are necessary; they depend on his unique nature, shaped by his upbringing. His imagination, eager to engage with the happiness of humanity, weighs heavily on his heart when he witnesses the suffering his fellow beings endure—his soul shakes at the thought of the misery caused by oppression, the misguided beliefs that lead people astray, and the passions that throw them into conflicts with one another. Even though he knows that death is the inevitable end for all beings, he still feels the pain acutely when he loses a beloved wife, when a child who could have brought him joy in old age passes away, or when he is separated from a cherished friend. Though he understands that fire burns by its very nature, he doesn’t think that excuses him from doing everything he can to stop a fire from spreading. He may be fully aware that the suffering around him results from fundamental mistakes held by his fellow citizens, yet he believes he should reveal the truth to them, if nature has given him the courage to do so; he is convinced that if they heed it, it will gradually provide a certain cure for their pain, producing those essential effects that truth inherently has the power to create.

If the speculations of man modify his conduct, if they change his temperament, he ought not to doubt that the system of necessity would have the most advantageous influence over him; not only is it suitable to calm the greater part of his inquietude, but it will also contribute to inspire him with a useful submission, a rational resignation, to the decrees of a destiny with which his too great sensibility frequently causes him to be overwhelmed. This happy apathy, without doubt, would be, desirable to those whose souls, too tender to brook the inequalities of life, frequently render them the deplorable sport of their fate; or whose organs, too weak to make resistance to the buffettings of fortune, incessantly expose them to be dashed in pieces under the rude blows of adversity.

If people's beliefs change their behavior and affect their mood, they should understand that the idea of necessity could have a positive impact on them. Not only would it help calm a lot of their restlessness, but it would also encourage them to accept their circumstances with a practical resignation to a fate that their heightened sensitivity often overwhelms them with. This state of emotional detachment would certainly be desirable for those whose sensitive hearts struggle to handle life's ups and downs, making them vulnerable to whatever fate brings; or for those whose bodies are too fragile to withstand the blows of fortune, leaving them constantly at risk of being shattered by the harsh realities of hardship.

But, of all the important advantages the human race would be enabled to derive from the doctrine of fatalism, if man was to apply it to his conduct, none would be of greater magnitude, none of more happy consequence, none that would more efficaciously corroborate his happiness, than that general indulgence, that universal toleration, that must necessarily spring from the opinion, that all is necessary. In consequence, of the adoption of this principle, the fatalist, if he had a sensible soul, would commisserate the prejudices of his fellow-man—would lament over his wanderings—would seek to undeceive him—would try by gentleness to lead him into the right path, without ever irritating himself against his weakness, without ever insulting his misery. Indeed, what right have we to hate or despise man for his opinions? His ignorance, his prejudices, his imbecility, his vices, his passions, his weakness, are they not the inevitable consequence of vicious institutions? Is he not sufficiently punished by the multitude of evils that afflict him on every side? Those despots who crush him with an iron sceptre, are they not continual victims to their own peculiar restlessness—mancipated to their perpetual diffidence—eternal slaves to their suspicions? Is there one wicked individual who enjoys a pure, an unmixed, a real happiness? Do not nations unceasingly suffer from their follies? Are they not the incessant dupes to their prejudices? Is not the ignorance of chiefs, the ill-will they bear to reason, the hatred they have for truth, punished by the imbecility of their citizens, by the ruin of the states they govern? In short, the fatalist would grieve to witness necessity each moment exercising its severe decrees upon mortals who are ignorant of its power, or who feel its castigation, without being willing to acknowledge the hand from whence it proceeds; he will perceive that ignorance is necessary, that credulity is the necessary result of ignorance—that slavery and bondage are necessary consequences of ignorant credulity—that corruption of manners springs necessarily from slavery—that the miseries of society, the unhappiness of its members, are the necessary offspring of this corruption. The fatalist, in consequence, of these ideas, will neither be a gloomy misanthrope, nor a dangerous citizen; he will pardon in his brethren those wanderings, he will forgive them those errors—which their vitiated nature, by a thousand causes, has rendered necessary—he will offer them consolation—he will endeavour to inspire them with courage—he will be sedulous to undeceive them in their idle notions, in their chimerical ideas; but he will never display against them bitterness of soul—he will never show them that rancorous animosity which is more suitable, to make them revolt from his doctrines, than to attract them to reason;—he will not disturb the repose of society—he will not raise the people to insurrection against the sovereign authority; on the contrary, he will feel that the miserable blindness of the great, and the wretched perverseness, the fatal obstinacy of so many conductors of the people, are the necessary consequence of that flattery that is administered to them in their infancy—that feeds their hopes with allusive falsehoods—of the depraved malice of those who surround them—who wickedly corrupt them, that they may profit by their folly—that they may take advantage of their weakness: in short, that these things are the inevitable effect of that profound ignorance of their true interest, in which every thing strives to keep them.

But of all the significant benefits humanity could gain from the idea of fatalism, if people were to apply it to their behavior, none would be more powerful, none more beneficial, and none would support their happiness more effectively than the widespread acceptance of the belief that everything is necessary. By embracing this idea, a fatalist, if he were sensible, would empathize with the biases of others—would mourn their mistakes—would strive to enlighten them—would gently guide them onto the right path without getting annoyed at their weaknesses or mocking their struggles. Indeed, what right do we have to hate or look down on someone for their beliefs? Their ignorance, biases, incompetence, vices, passions, and weaknesses are they not the unavoidable result of flawed systems? Are they not suffering enough from the countless troubles that surround them? Those oppressive rulers who dominate them with an iron fist—aren’t they constantly tortured by their own restlessness—enslaved by their doubts—forever chained by their suspicions? Is there a single wicked person who experiences true, pure happiness? Do not nations endlessly endure the consequences of their foolishness? Are they not perpetual victims of their own biases? Is not the ignorance of leaders and their disdain for reason and truth punished by the ineptitude of their citizens and the downfall of the states they lead? In short, the fatalist would be pained to see necessity imposing its harsh commands on people who are unaware of its influence or who suffer its consequences while refusing to acknowledge where it comes from; he would understand that ignorance is essential, that gullibility is a natural result of ignorance—that servitude and oppression are inevitable consequences of blind belief—that the decay of morals arises inevitably from slavery—that the suffering of society and the unhappiness of its members are the natural results of this corruption. As a result of these thoughts, the fatalist will neither be a bitter misanthrope nor a harmful citizen; he will excuse his fellow humans for their missteps, he will forgive them for the errors that their flawed nature, influenced by countless factors, has made unavoidable—he will offer them comfort—he will try to inspire them with courage—he will diligently work to disillusion them of their empty beliefs and fanciful ideas; but he will never show them bitterness—he will never exhibit the venomous animosity that would push them away from his ideas rather than draw them towards reason; he will not disrupt society’s peace—he will not incite the people to revolt against authority; on the contrary, he will recognize that the wretched ignorance of the powerful and the miserable stubbornness of many leaders are the direct results of the flattery they receive in childhood—that fills their heads with deceptive hopes—of the corrupt intentions of those around them—who deceitfully mislead them for their own gain—who exploit their vulnerabilities: in short, that these issues are the unavoidable outcomes of that deep ignorance about their true interests, in which everything strives to keep them.

The fatalist has no right to be vain of his peculiar talents; no privilege to be proud of his virtues; he knows that these qualities are only the consequence of his natural organization, modified by circumstances that have in no wise depended upon himself. He will neither have hatred nor feel contempt for those whom Nature and circumstances have not favoured in a similar manner. It is the fatalist who ought to be humble, who should be modest from principle: is he not obliged to acknowledge, that he possesses nothing that he has not previously received?

The fatalist has no reason to be arrogant about his unique talents; he has no privilege to take pride in his virtues; he understands that these traits are just a result of his natural makeup, shaped by circumstances that he had no control over. He won’t harbor hatred or feel contempt for those whom Nature and circumstances haven’t favored in the same way. It is the fatalist who should be humble, who should be modest by nature: shouldn’t he acknowledge that he has nothing he hasn’t been given?

In fact, will not every thing conduct to indulgence the fatalist whom experience has convinced of the necessity of things? Will he not see with pain, that it is the essence of a society badly constituted, unwisely governed, enslaved to prejudice, attached to unreasonable customs, submitted to irrational laws, degraded under despotism, corrupted by luxury, inebriated by false opinions, to be filled with trifling members; to be composed of vicious citizens; to be made up of cringing slaves, who are proud of their chains; of ambitious men, without idea of true glory; of misers and prodigals; of fanatics and libertines! Convinced of the necessary connection of things, he will not be surprised to see that the supineness of their chiefs carries discouragement into their country, or that the influence of their governors stirs up bloody wars by which it is depopulated, and causes useless expenditures that impoverish it; that all these excesses united, is the reason why so many nations contain only men wanting happiness, without understanding to attain it; who are devoid of morals, destitute of virtue. In all this he will contemplate nothing more than the necessary action and re-action of physics upon morals, of morals upon physics. In short, all who acknowledge fatality, will remain persuaded that a nation badly governed is a soil very fruitful in venomous reptiles—very abundant in poisonous plants; that these have such a plentiful growth as to crowd each other and choak themselves. It is in a country cultivated by the hands of a Lycurgus, that he will witness the production of intrepid citizens, of noble-minded individuals, of disinterested men, who are strangers to irregular pleasures. In a country cultivated by a Tiberius, he will find nothing but villains with depraved hearts, men with mean contemptible souls, despicable informers, execrable traitors. It is the soil, it is the circumstances in which man finds himself placed, that renders him either a useful object or a prejudicial being: the wise man avoids the one, as he would those dangerous reptiles whose nature it is to sting and communicate their deadly venom; he attaches himself to the other, esteems him, loves him, as he does those delicious fruits with whose rich maturity his palate is pleasantly gratified, with whose cooling juices he finds himself agreeably refreshed: he sees the wicked without anger—he cherishes the good with pleasure—he delights in the bountiful: he knows full well that the tree which is languishing without culture in the arid, sandy desert, that is stunted for want of attention, leafless for want of moisture, that has grown crooked from neglect, become barren from want of loam, whose tender bark is gnawed by rapacious beasts of prey, pierced by innumerable insects, would perhaps have expanded far and wide its verdant boughs from a straight and stately stem, have brought forth delectable fruit, have afforded from its luxuriant foliage under its lambent leaves an umbrageous refreshing retreat from the scorching rays of a meridian sun, have offered beneath its swelling branches, under its matted tufts a shelter from the pitiless storm, it its seed had been fortunately sown in a more fertile soil, placed in a more congenial climate, had experienced the fostering cares of a skilful cultivator.

Actually, won’t everything lead to indulgence for the fatalist who believes in the necessity of things? Won’t he painfully observe that it’s the nature of a poorly structured society to be foolishly governed, shackled by prejudice, bound to unreasonable customs, subjected to irrational laws, degraded by tyranny, corrupted by luxury, intoxicated by false beliefs, filled with trivial members; made up of immoral citizens; consisting of subservient people who take pride in their chains; of ambitious individuals without a sense of true greatness; of both stingy and extravagant people; of fanatics and libertines? Convinced of how everything is interconnected, he won’t be shocked to see that the laziness of their leaders brings discouragement to the nation or that the influence of their rulers incites bloody wars that depopulate it and lead to pointless expenditures that impoverish it; that all these excesses combined are why so many nations only have people seeking happiness without knowing how to achieve it; who lack morals, devoid of virtue. In all this, he will observe nothing more than the necessary cause and effect of physical laws on morals, and morals on physical laws. In short, all who believe in fate will remain convinced that a poorly governed nation is a breeding ground for dangerous creatures—rich in poisonous plants; that these grow so abundantly that they crowd and choke each other. It’s in a land cultivated by the hands of a Lycurgus that he will see the rise of courageous citizens, noble-minded individuals, and selfless people who are unfamiliar with illicit pleasures. In a land cultivated by a Tiberius, he will find nothing but villains with corrupt hearts, individuals with despicable souls, loathsome informers, and detestable traitors. It’s the environment and circumstances in which a person finds themselves that make them either a valuable member of society or a detrimental being: the wise person avoids the former, just as they would avoid those dangerous creatures whose nature it is to sting and spread their lethal poison; they embrace the latter, respect them, love them, as they do those delightful fruits that satisfy their palate with rich flavors and refresh them with their cool juices: they regard the wicked without anger—they cherish the good with joy—they take pleasure in abundance: they understand that the tree languishing without care in a dry, sandy desert, stunted by neglect, leafless from lack of water, twisted from disregard, barren from insufficient soil, whose delicate bark is gnawed by hungry predators, pierced by countless insects, might have stretched out its lush branches from a tall, straight trunk, produced delicious fruit, and offered a shady retreat from the harsh rays of the midday sun, providing shelter from the relentless storm, if only its seeds had been wisely sown in more fertile ground, placed in a more suitable climate, and nurtured by a skilled caretaker.

Let it not then be said, that it is degrading man reduce his functions to a pure mechanism; that it is shamefully to undervalue him, scandalously to abuse him, to compare him to a tree; to an abject vegetation. The philosopher devoid of prejudice does not understand this language, invented by those who are ignorant of what constitutes the true dignity of man. A tree is an object which, in its station, joins the useful with the agreeable; it merits our approbation when it produces sweet and pleasant fruit; when it affords a favourable shade. All machines are precious, when they are truly useful, when they faithfully perform the functions for which they are designed. Yes, I speak it with courage, reiterate it with pleasure, the honest man, when he has talents, when he possesses virtue, is, for the beings of his species, a tree that furnishes them with delicious fruit, that affords them refreshing shelter: the honest man is a machine of which the springs are adapted to fulfil its functions in a manner that must gratify the expectation of all his fellows. No, I should not blush, I should not feel degraded, to be a machine of this sort; and my heart would leap with joy, if I could foresee that the fruit of my reflections would one day be useful to my race, consoling to my fellow-man.

Let’s not say that reducing humans to a pure mechanism is degrading; it’s shameful to undervalue them, disgraceful to compare them to a tree or something inconsequential. A philosopher who isn’t biased doesn’t understand this viewpoint, which comes from people who don’t grasp what true human dignity is. A tree, in its place, combines usefulness with beauty; it earns our approval when it bears sweet and pleasant fruit and provides good shade. All machines are valuable when they are genuinely useful and perform their intended functions well. Yes, I say this boldly, and I repeat it joyfully: a good person, when they have talent and possess virtue, is like a tree that provides delicious fruit and refreshing shelter for others. A good person is a machine whose parts are designed to fulfill its functions in a way that satisfies everyone around them. No, I wouldn’t feel embarrassed or degraded to be this kind of machine; my heart would soar with joy if I could believe that the outcomes of my thoughts might one day benefit humanity and offer comfort to my fellow people.

Is not Nature herself a vast machine, of which the human species is but a very feeble spring? I see nothing contemptible either in her or her productions; all the beings who come out of her hands are good, are noble, are sublime, whenever they co-operate to the production of another, to the maintenance of harmony in the sphere where they must act. Of whatever nature the soul may be, whether it is made mortal, or whether it be supposed immortal; whether it is regarded as a spirit, or whether it be looked upon as a portion of the body; it will be found noble, it will be estimated great, it will be ranked good, it will be considered sublime, in a Socrates, in an Aristides, in a Cato: it will be thought abject, it will be viewed as despicable, it will be called corrupt, in a Claudius, in a Sejanus, in a Nero: its energies will be admired, we shall be delighted with its manner, fascinated with its efforts, in a Shakespeare, in a Corneille, in a Newton, in a Montesquieu: its baseness will be lamented, when we behold mean, contemptible men, who flatter tyranny, or who servilely cringe at the foot of superstition.

Isn't Nature itself a huge machine, with the human species being just a weak spring? I see nothing shameful in her or her creations; all beings that come from her are good, noble, and sublime whenever they work together to produce something else, maintaining harmony in the environment where they operate. Regardless of whether the soul is mortal or assumed to be immortal; whether it's seen as a spirit or viewed as part of the body; it will be found noble, considered great, regarded as good, and thought to be sublime in a Socrates, an Aristides, or a Cato. In contrast, it will be seen as lowly, viewed as despicable, and labeled corrupt in a Claudius, a Sejanus, or a Nero. Its strengths will be admired, and we'll be captivated by its style, fascinated by its efforts in a Shakespeare, a Corneille, a Newton, or a Montesquieu. We will mourn its lack of integrity when we see petty, contemptible people who flatter tyranny or grovel at the feet of superstition.

All that has been said in the course of this work, proves clearly that every thing is necessary; that every thing is always in order, relatively to Nature; where all beings do nothing more than follow the laws that are imposed on their respective classes. It is part of her plan, that certain portions of the earth shall bring forth delicious fruits, shall blossom beauteous flowers; whilst others shall only furnish brambles, shall yield nothing but noxious vegetables: she has been willing that some societies should produce wise men, great heroes; that others should only give birth to abject souls, contemptible men, without energy, destitute of virtue. Passions, winds, tempests, hurricanes, volcanoes, wars, plagues, famines, diseases, death, are as necessary to her eternal march as the beneficent heat of the sun, the serenity of the atmosphere, the gentle showers of spring, plentiful years, peace, health, harmony, life: vice and virtue, darkness and light, and science are equally necessary; the one are not benefits, the other are not evils, except for those beings whose happiness they influence by either favouring or deranging their peculiar mode of existence. The whole cannot be miserable, but it may contain unhappy individuals.

Everything that's been discussed in this work clearly shows that everything is necessary; everything is always in order in relation to Nature, where all beings simply follow the laws that are set for their specific classes. It's part of her design that some areas of the earth produce delicious fruits and beautiful flowers, while others only provide thorny bushes and toxic plants. She's decided that some societies should create wise people and great heroes, while others should only give rise to worthless souls and contemptible individuals, lacking in energy and virtue. Passions, winds, storms, hurricanes, volcanoes, wars, plagues, famines, diseases, and death are as necessary to her eternal progression as the beneficial warmth of the sun, the calm of the skies, the gentle rains of spring, abundant harvests, peace, health, harmony, and life itself. Vice and virtue, darkness and light, as well as knowledge, are all equally necessary; one isn't a benefit and the other isn't an evil, except for those beings whose happiness is affected by either supporting or disrupting their specific way of life. The whole cannot be miserable, but it may contain unhappy individuals.

Nature, then, distributes with the same hand that which is called order, and that which is called disorder; that which is called pleasure, and that which is called pain: in short, she diffuses by the necessity of her existence, good and evil in the world we inhabit. Let not man, therefore, either arraign her bounty, or tax her with malice; let him not imagine that his feeble cries, his weak supplications, can never arrest her colossal power, always acting after immutable laws; let him submit silently to his condition; and when he suffers, let him not seek a remedy by recurring to chimeras that his own distempered imagination has created; let him draw from the stores of Nature herself, the remedies which she offers for the evil she brings upon him: if she sends him diseases, let him search in her bosom for those salutary productions to which she has given birth, which will cure them: if she gives him errors, she also furnishes him with experience to counteract them; in truth, she supplies him with an antidote suitable to destroy their fatal effects. If she permits man to groan under the pressure of his vices, beneath the load of his follies, she also shews him in virtue, a sure remedy for his infirmities: if the evils that some societies experience are necessary, when they shall have become too incommodious they will be irresistibly obliged to search for those remedies which Nature will always point out to them. If this Nature has rendered existence insupportable, to some unfortunate beings, whom she appears to have selected for her victims, still death, is a door that will surely be opened to them—that will deliver them from their misfortunes, although in their puny, imbecile, wayward judgment, they may be deemed impossible of cure.

Nature, then, provides both what we call order and what we call disorder; what we call pleasure and what we call pain: in short, she distributes, by the necessity of her existence, good and evil in the world we live in. Therefore, let no one criticize her generosity or accuse her of cruelty; let no one think that their weak pleas or feeble cries can ever stop her immense power, which always operates under unchanging laws; let them quietly accept their condition; and when they suffer, let them not look for solutions in fantasies created by their own disturbed minds; instead, let them seek remedies from the resources of Nature herself, which she provides for the troubles she brings upon them: if she sends diseases, let them look for healing properties in her embrace that she has produced; if she causes them to err, she also gives them the wisdom to overcome those errors; indeed, she provides an antidote capable of countering their deadly effects. If she allows humans to suffer under the weight of their vices and the burden of their foolishness, she also shows them in virtue a reliable remedy for their weaknesses: if the hardships faced by some societies are necessary, when they become too burdensome, they will inevitably have to seek out the remedies that Nature will always point them towards. If Nature has made existence unbearable for some unfortunate souls whom she seems to have chosen as her victims, still, death is a door that will surely open for them, that will free them from their suffering, even if they may foolishly believe it is impossible to heal.

Let not man, then, accuse Nature with being inexorable to him, since there does not exist in her whole circle an evil for which she has not furnished the remedy, to those who have the courage to seek it, who have the fortitude to apply it. Nature follows general and necessary laws in all her operations; physical calamity and moral evil are not to be ascribed to her want of kindness, but to the necessity of things. Physical calamity is the derangement produced in man's organs by physical causes which he sees act: moral evil is the derangement produced in him by physical causes of which the action is to him a secret. These causes always terminate by producing sensible effects, which are capable of striking his senses; neither the thoughts nor the will of man ever shew themselves, but by the marked effects they produce either in himself or upon those beings whom Nature has rendered susceptible of feeling their impulse. He suffers, because it is of the essence of some beings to derange the economy of his machine; he enjoys, because the properties of some beings are analogous to his own mode of existence; he is born, because it is of the nature of some matter to combine itself under a determinate form; he lives, he acts, he thinks, because it is of the essence of certain combinations to maintain themselves in existence by given means for a season; at length he dies, because a necessary law prescribes that all the combinations which are formed, shall either be destroyed or dissolve themselves. From all this it results, that Nature is impartial to all its productions; she submits man, like all other beings, to those eternal laws from which she has not even exempted herself; if she was to suspend these laws, even for an instant, from that moment disorder would reign in her, system; her harmony would be disturbed.

Let no one blame Nature for being harsh, since within her entire realm, there is no problem for which she hasn't provided a solution for those brave enough to seek it and committed enough to apply it. Nature operates according to general and necessary laws in all her workings; physical disasters and moral failures shouldn’t be blamed on her lack of compassion but rather on the necessity of things. Physical disaster results from disruptions in human organs caused by physical factors that can be observed; moral failure arises from disruptions caused by physical factors that remain a mystery to us. These causes ultimately lead to obvious effects that we can perceive; neither human thoughts nor will can be shown except through the noticeable effects they create in ourselves or others who are capable of feeling their impact. We suffer because some beings disrupt the functioning of our bodies; we find joy because the properties of some beings align with our way of existing; we are born because certain matter naturally comes together in specific forms; we live, act, and think because certain combinations persist for a time by specific means; and eventually, we die because a necessary law dictates that all combinations must either be destroyed or break down. All of this shows that Nature is unbiased toward all her creations; she subjects humans, like all other beings, to those eternal laws she has never exempted even herself from; if she were to pause these laws, even for a moment, disorder would take over her system, and her harmony would be disrupted.

Those who wish to study Nature, must take experience for their guide; this, and this only, can enable them to dive into her secrets, to unravel by degrees, the frequently imperceptible woof of those slender causes, of which she avails herself to operate the greatest phenomena: by the aid of experience, man often discovers in her properties, perceives modes of action entirely unknown to the ages which have preceded him; those effects which his grandfathers contemplated as marvellous, which they regarded as supernatural efforts, looked upon as miracles, have become familiar to him in the present day, and are at this moment contemplated as simple and natural consequences, of which he comprehends the mechanism—of which he understands the cause—of which he can unfold the manner of action. Man, in fathoming Nature, has arrived at discovering the true causes of earthquakes; of the periodical motion of the sea; of subterraneous conflagrations; of meteors; of the electrical fluid, the whole of which were considered by his ancestors, and are still so by the ignorant, by the uninformed, as indubitable signs of heaven's wrath. His posterity, in following up, in rectifying the experience already made, will perhaps go further, and discover those causes which are totally veiled from present eyes. The united efforts of the human species will one day perhaps penetrate even into the sanctuary of Nature, and throw into light many of those mysteries which up to the present time she seems to have refused to all his researches.

Those who want to study Nature should let experience be their guide; only this can help them delve into her secrets and gradually untangle the often subtle threads of the small causes she uses to create the biggest phenomena. With the help of experience, people often uncover properties of Nature and see ways of acting that were completely unknown to earlier generations. The effects that their grandparents marveled at, which they considered supernatural or miraculous, are now familiar to us and are seen as simple and natural results, where we comprehend the mechanism, understand the cause, and can explain how it works. In exploring Nature, humans have figured out the true causes of earthquakes, the tidal movements of the sea, underground fires, meteors, and electricity—things that their ancestors viewed as clear signs of divine anger. Future generations, by building on and refining past experiences, might go even further and uncover causes that are completely hidden from us now. One day, the combined efforts of humanity may even uncover the mysteries of Nature that she has so far kept hidden from all our inquiries.

In contemplating man under his true aspect; in quitting authority to follow experience; in laying aside error to consult reason; in submitting every thing to physical laws, from which his imagination has vainly exerted its utmost power to withdraw them; it will be found that the phenomena of the moral world follow exactly the same general rules as those of the physical; that the greater part of those astonishing effects, which ignorance, aided by his prejudices, make him consider as inexplicable, and regard as wonderful, are natural consequences flowing from simple causes. He will find that the eruption of a volcano and the birth of a Tamerlane are to Nature the same thing; in recurring to the primitive causes of those striking events which he beholds with consternation, which he contemplates with fearful alarm, in falling back to the sources of those terrible revolutions, those frightful convulsions, those dreadful explosions that distract mankind, lay waste the fairest works of Nature, ravage nations, and tear up society by the roots; he will find the wills that compassed the most surprising changes, that operated the most extensive alterations in the state of things, that brought about the most unlooked-for events, were moved by physical causes, whose exility made him treat them as contemptible; whose want of consequence in his own purblind eyes led him to believe them utterly incapable to give birth to the phenomena whose magnitude strikes him with such awe, whose stupendous range fills him with such amazement.

When considering humans in their true form; when leaving behind authority to rely on experience; when setting aside misconceptions to seek reason; and when subjecting everything to physical laws, from which his imagination has futilely tried to separate them; it becomes clear that the phenomena of the moral world follow the same general rules as those of the physical world. Most of the astonishing effects that ignorance, supported by his biases, leads him to view as inexplicable and extraordinary are actually natural outcomes stemming from simple causes. He will discover that a volcanic eruption and the rise of a Tamerlane are the same to nature. By looking back at the fundamental causes of those striking events that fill him with dread and alarm, and by returning to the roots of the terrible upheavals, frightful disruptions, and dreadful explosions that distress humanity, destroy nature’s finest creations, devastate nations, and uproot society, he will realize that the decisions that led to the most surprising changes, that caused the most significant shifts in circumstances, and that produced the most unexpected events were driven by physical causes that he dismisses as trivial. Their apparent insignificance in his limited view leads him to believe they couldn’t possibly give rise to the phenomena that leave him in such awe and amazement.

If man was to judge of causes by their effects, there would be no small causes in the universe. In a Nature where every thing is connected, where every thing acts and re-acts, moves and changes, composes and decomposes, forms and destroys, there is not an atom which does not play an important part—that does not occupy a necessary station; there is not an imperceptible particle, however minute, which, placed in convenient circumstances, does not operate the most prodigious effects. If man was in a capacity to follow the eternal chain, to pursue the concatenated links, that connect with their causes all the effects he witnesses, without losing sight of any one of its rings,—if he could unravel the ends of those insensible threads that give impulse to the thoughts, decision to the will, direction to the passions of those men who are called mighty, according to their actions, he would find, they are true atoms which Nature employs to move the moral world; that it is the unexpected but necessary function of these indiscernible particles of matter, it is their aggregation, their combination, their proportion, their fermentation, which modifying the individual by degrees, in despite of himself, frequently without his own knowledge, make him think, will, and act, in a determinate, but necessary mode. If, then, the will and the actions of this individual have an influence over a great number of other men, here is the moral world in a state of the greatest combustion, and those consequences ensue which man contemplates with fearful wonder. Too much acrimony in the bile of a fanatic—blood too much inflamed in the heart of a conqueror—a painful indigestion in the stomach of a monarch—a whim that passes in the mind of a woman—are sometimes causes sufficient to bring on war—to send millions of men to the slaughter—to root out an entire people—to overthrow walls—to reduce cities into ashes—to plunge nations into slavery—to put a whole people into mourning—to breed famine in a land—to engender pestilence—to propagate calamity—to extend misery—to spread desolation far and wide upon the surface of our globe, through a long series of ages.

If people were to judge causes by their effects, there would be no small causes in the universe. In a Nature where everything is connected, where everything interacts, moves and changes, comes together and breaks apart, forms and destroys, there isn't an atom that doesn't play an important role—that doesn't hold a necessary position; there isn’t an imperceptible particle, however tiny, that, in the right circumstances, doesn’t produce the most extraordinary effects. If people could follow the eternal chain, to trace the interconnected links that connect all the effects they observe to their causes, without losing sight of any of its rings—if they could untangle the ends of those invisible threads that drive the thoughts, decisions, and passions of those individuals known as powerful, based on their actions, they would find that these are the true atoms Nature uses to influence the moral world. It is the unexpected but essential function of these indistinguishable particles of matter, their grouping, their combination, their proportion, their reactions, which gradually modify the individual, often without their awareness, leading them to think, will, and act in a specific, yet necessary way. If, then, an individual's will and actions affect a significant number of other people, here is the moral world in a state of intense turmoil, resulting in the consequences that people observe with fearful amazement. Too much anger in the bile of a fanatic—too much blood boiling in the heart of a conqueror—a painful upset in the stomach of a monarch—a fleeting thought in the mind of a woman—can sometimes be enough to spark war—to send millions to their deaths—to eradicate an entire people—to topple walls—to reduce cities to ashes—to plunge nations into slavery—to put a whole population into mourning—to create famine in a land—to bring about disease—to spread disaster—to extend misery—to cover vast areas of our globe in desolation over long ages.

The dominant passion of an individual of the human species, when it disposes of the passions of many others, arrives at combining their will, at uniting their efforts, and thus decides the condition of man. It is after this manner that an ambitious, crafty, and voluptuous Arab, gave to his countrymen an impulse of which the effect was the subjugation and desolation of vast countries in Asia, in Africa, and in Europe; whose consequences were sufficiently potential to erect a new, extensive, but slavish empire; to give a novel system of religion to millions of human beings; to overturn the altars of their former gods; in short, to alter the opinions, to change the customs of a considerable portion of the population of the earth. But in examining the primitive sources of this strange revolution, what were the concealed causes that had an influence over this man—that excited his peculiar passions, and modified his temperament? What was the matter from the combination of which resulted a crafty, ambitious, enthusiastic, and eloquent man; in short, a personage competent to impose on his fellow-creatures—capable of making them concur in his most extravagant views. They were, undoubtedly, the insensible particles of his blood; the imperceptible texture of his fibres; the salts, more or less acrid, that stimulated his nerves; the proportion of igneous fluid that circulated in his system. From whence came these elements? It was from the womb of his mother; from the aliments which nourished him; from the climate in which he had his birth; from the ideas he received; from the air which he respired; without reckoning a thousand inappreciable, a thousand transitory causes, that in the instance given had modified, had determined the passions of this importent being, who had thereby acquired the capacity to change the face of this mundane sphere.

The main drive of a person, when it influences the passions of many others, leads to a unification of their will and efforts, ultimately shaping the human condition. This is how an ambitious, cunning, and pleasure-seeking Arab inspired his countrymen, resulting in the domination and devastation of vast regions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The outcomes were significant enough to establish a new, extensive, yet oppressive empire, introduce a new religion to millions, and overthrow the altars of their old gods; in short, it transformed the beliefs and customs of a substantial part of the world's population. But when we look into the initial sources of this remarkable revolution, what were the hidden factors that influenced this man, that provoked his unique passions and shaped his character? What combination of elements produced a cunning, ambitious, passionate, and persuasive individual—someone capable of convincing others to support his wildest ideas? Undoubtedly, it was the subtle components of his blood; the delicate structure of his fibers; the more or less sharp salts that excited his nerves; the amount of fiery fluid flowing through his body. Where did these elements originate? They came from his mother’s womb; from the nourishment that sustained him; from the climate of his birthplace; from the ideas he absorbed; from the air he breathed; not to mention countless subtle and fleeting influences that, in this particular instance, shaped and drove the passions of this significant figure, enabling him to alter the face of the earth.

To causes so weak in their principles, if in the origin the slightest obstacle had been opposed, these wonderful events, which have astounded man, would never have been produced. The fit of an ague, the consequence of bile a little too much inflamed, had sufficed, perhaps, to have rendered abortive all the vast projects, of the legislator of the Mussulmen. Spare diet, a glass of water, a sanguinary evacuation, would sometimes have been sufficient to have saved kingdoms.

To causes so weak in their principles, if at the beginning the slightest obstacle had been faced, these amazing events, which have shocked humanity, would never have happened. A bout of fever, resulting from slightly elevated bile, might have been enough to derail all the grand plans of the Muslim legislator. A light diet, a glass of water, or a bloody purge could sometimes have been enough to save entire kingdoms.

It will be seen, then, that the condition of the human species, as well as that of each of its individuals, every instant depends on insensible causes, to which circumstances, frequently fugitive, give birth; that opportunity developes, that convenience puts in action: man attributes their effects to chance, whilst these causes operate necessarily, act according to fixed rules: he has frequently neither the sagacity nor the honesty to recur to their true principles; he regards such feeble motives with contempt, because he has been taught to consider them as incapable of producing such stupendous events. They are, however, these motives, weak as they may appear to be, these springs, so pitiful in his eyes, is which according to her necessary laws, suffice in the hands of Nature to move the universe. The conquests of a Gengis-Khan have nothing in them that is more strange to the eye of a philosopher than the explosion of a mine, caused in its principle by a feeble spark, which commences with setting fire to a single grain of powder; this presently communicates itself to many millions of other contiguous grains, of which the united force, the multiplied powers, terminate by blowing up mountains, overthrowing fortifications, or converting populous, well-built cities, into heaps of ruins.

It becomes clear that the state of humanity, along with that of each individual, depends at every moment on subtle causes that circumstances, often fleeting, create; opportunities develop and convenience puts them into action. People often attribute these outcomes to chance, while these causes operate necessarily and follow fixed rules. Many individuals lack the insight or honesty to recognize their true principles; they dismiss these seemingly weak motives because they have been taught to see them as incapable of producing such significant events. However, these motives, as feeble as they may seem, are the driving forces, humble in his eyes, that, according to their necessary laws, allow Nature to move the universe. The conquests of Genghis Khan are no stranger to a philosopher than the explosion of a mine, which is initiated by a tiny spark that ignites a single grain of gunpowder; this quickly spreads to millions of other grains, whose combined force and multiplied power can end up blowing apart mountains, demolishing fortifications, or turning bustling, well-constructed cities into piles of rubble.

Thus, imperceptible causes, concealed in the bosom of Nature, until the moment their action is displayed, frequently decide the fate of man. The happiness or the wretchedness, the prosperity or the misery of each individual, as well as that of whole nations, are attached to powers which it is impossible for him to foresee, which he cannot appreciate, of which he is incapable to arrest the action. Perhaps at this moment atoms are amassing, insensible particles are combining, of which the assemblage shall form a sovereign, who will be either the scourge or the saviour of a mighty empire. Man cannot answer for his own destiny one single instant; he has no cognizance of what is passing within himself; he is ignorant of the causes which act in the interior of his machine; he knows nothing of the circumstances that will give them activity: he is unacquainted with what may develope their energy; it is, nevertheless, on these causes, impossible to be unravelled by him, that depends his condition in life. Frequently, an unforeseen rencontre gives birth to a passion in his soul, of which the consequences shall, necessarily, have an influence over his felicity. It is thus that the most virtuous man, by a whimsical combination of unlooked-for circumstances, may become in an instant the most criminal of his species.

So, hidden causes, tucked away in the heart of Nature until they reveal themselves, often determine a person's fate. The happiness or misery, the success or failure of each individual, as well as entire nations, relies on forces that are impossible to predict, that he can’t fully grasp, and that he can't control. Right now, maybe atoms are coming together, and tiny particles are bonding to create a leader who could either be the ruin or the savior of a vast empire. A person can't guarantee their own fate for even a moment; they have no awareness of what’s happening inside themselves; they are clueless about the forces at play within their own system; they don’t know the conditions that could activate those forces; they are unaware of what could unleash their potential. Yet, it is on these unfathomable causes that their life circumstances depend. Often, an unexpected encounter sparks a passion within them, the effects of which will inevitably impact their happiness. This is how the most virtuous person can, in an instant, become the most wicked among them, due to a bizarre twist of unforeseen circumstances.

This truth, without doubt, will be found frightful—this fact will unquestionably appear terrible: but at bottom, what has it more revolting than that which teaches him that an infinity of accidents, as irremediable as they are unforeseen, may every instant wrest from him that life to which he is so strongly attached? Fatalism reconciles the good man easily to death: it makes him contemplate it as a certain means of withdrawing himself from wickedness; this system shews death, even to the happy man himself, as a medium between him and those misfortunes which frequently terminate by poisoning his happiness; that end with embittering the most fortunate existence.

This truth will undoubtedly seem scary—this fact will definitely appear terrible: but at its core, what is more disturbing than the idea that countless unforeseen events, as unavoidable as they are unpredictable, could take away the life he clings to so tightly at any moment? Fatalism helps the good person accept death more easily: it allows him to see it as a way to free himself from wrongdoing; this perspective presents death, even to the truly happy person, as a bridge between him and the misfortunes that often ruin his happiness; those misfortunes that can taint even the most fortunate life.

Let man, then, submit to necessity: in despite of himself it will always hurry him forward: let him resign himself to Nature, let him accept the good with which she presents him: let him oppose to the necessary evil which she makes him experience, those necessary remedies which she consents to afford him; let him not disturb his mind with useless inquietude; let him enjoy with moderation, because he will find that pain is the necessary companion of excess: let him follow the paths of virtue, because every thing will prove to him, even in this world of perverseness, that it is absolutely necessary to render him estimable in the eyes of others, to make him contented with himself.

Let people accept what they can't change: no matter what, life will always push them along. They should embrace Nature and accept the good she offers. In response to the unavoidable hardships she brings, they should use the necessary solutions she provides. They shouldn't let their minds be troubled by pointless worries; they should enjoy themselves in moderation because they'll find that pain always comes with overindulgence. They should choose the path of virtue, because everything will show them, even in this flawed world, that it's essential to be valued by others and to feel satisfied with themselves.

Feeble, vain mortal, thou pretendest to be a free agent. Alas! dost thou not see all the threads which enchain thee? Dost thou not perceive that they are atoms which form thee; that they are atoms which move thee; that they are circumstances independent of thyself, that modify thy being; that they are circumstances over which thou hast not any controul, that rule thy destiny? In the puissant Nature that environs thee, shalt thou pretend to be the only being who is able to resist her power? Dost thou really believe that thy weak prayers will induce her to stop in her eternal march; that thy sickly desires can oblige her to change her everlasting course?

Weak, arrogant human, you pretend to be in control of your own choices. But don't you see all the forces that bind you? Don't you realize that these are the very elements that shape you; that they are the factors that drive you; that there are circumstances entirely beyond your control, that define your existence; that these are situations you cannot influence, that determine your fate? In the mighty Nature surrounding you, do you really think you can be the only entity capable of resisting her power? Do you actually believe that your feeble prayers will persuade her to pause in her endless journey; that your frail desires can compel her to alter her eternal path?










CHAP. XIII.

Of the Immortality of the Soul;—of the Doctrine of a future State;—of the Fear of Death.

About the Immortality of the Soul;—about the Belief in an Afterlife;—about the Fear of Death.

The reflections presented to the reader in this work, tend to shew what ought to be thought of the human soul, as well as of its operations and faculties: every thing proves, in the most convincing manner, that it acts, that it moves according to laws similar to those prescribed to the other beings of Nature; that it cannot be distinguished from the body; that it is born with it; that it grows up with it; that it is modified in the same progression; in short, every thing ought to make man conclude that it perishes with it. This soul, as well as the body, passes through a state of weakness and infancy; it is in this stage of its existence, that it is assailed by a multitude of modifications; that it is stored with an infinity of ideas, which it receives from exterior objects through the medium of the organs; that it amasses facts, that it collects experience, whether true or false, that it forms to itself a system of conduct, according to which it thinks, in conformity with which it acts, from whence results either its happiness or its misery, its reason or its delirium, its virtues or its vices; arrived with the body at its full powers, having in conjunction with it reached maturity, it does not cease for a single instant to partake in common of its sensations, whether these are agreeable or disagreeable; it participates in all its pleasures; it shares in all its pains; in consequence it conjointly approves or disapproves its state; like it, it is either sound or diseased; active or languishing; awake or asleep. In old age man extinguishes entirely, his fibres become rigid, his nerves loose their elasticity, his senses are obtunded, his sight grows dim, his ears lose their quickness, his ideas become unconnected, his memory fails, his imagination cools: what then becomes of his soul? Alas! it sinks down with the body; it gets benumbed as this loses its feeling; becomes sluggish as this decays in activity; like it, when enfeebled by years it fulfils its functions with pain; this substance, which is deemed spiritual, which is considered immaterial, which it is endeavoured to distinguish from matter, undergoes the same revolutions, experiences the same vicissitudes, submits to the same modifications, as does the body itself.

The reflections presented in this work aim to show what we should think about the human soul, as well as its functions and abilities. Everything clearly proves that it acts and moves according to laws similar to those that govern other beings in nature; it cannot be separated from the body. It is born with the body and grows together with it, undergoing changes in the same way. In short, everything suggests that it dies with the body. This soul, just like the body, goes through a stage of weakness and infancy. It is during this phase of existence that it is influenced by many changes and filled with countless ideas gathered from external objects through the senses. It collects facts and experiences, whether true or false, and forms a system of behavior that guides its thoughts and actions, which ultimately leads to its happiness or misery, reason or madness, virtues or vices. Once reached maturity alongside the body, it constantly shares in its sensations, whether pleasant or unpleasant; it takes part in all its joys and suffers with all its pains. As a result, it either approves or disapproves of its state; like the body, it can be healthy or sick, active or sluggish, awake or asleep. In old age, a person completely diminishes; their fibers stiffen, nerves lose their elasticity, senses become dull, sight fades, hearing weakens, thoughts become scattered, memory declines, and imagination cools. What then happens to the soul? Unfortunately, it fades along with the body; it becomes numb as the body loses sensation; it grows slow as activity decreases. Like the body, when weakened by age, it performs its functions with difficulty. This substance, considered spiritual and immaterial, and often thought to be separate from matter, goes through the same changes, experiences the same ups and downs, and undergoes the same alterations as the body itself.

In despite of this proof of the materiality of the soul, of its identity with the body, so convincing to the unprejudiced, some thinkers have supposed, that although the latter is perishable, the former does not perish: that this portion of man enjoys the especial privilege of immortality; that it is exempt from dissolution: free from those changes of form all the beings in Nature undergo: in consequence of this, man has persuaded himself, that this privileged soul does not die: its immortality, above all, appears indubitable to those who suppose it spiritual: after having made it a simple being, without extent, devoid of parts, totally different from any thing of which he has a knowledge, he pretended that it was not subjected to the laws of decomposition common to all beings, of which experience shews him the continual operation.

Despite the proof that the soul is material and closely tied to the body, which is convincing to neutral observers, some thinkers believe that while the body is perishable, the soul is not. They argue that this aspect of humanity has the special privilege of immortality; that it doesn't face dissolution and is free from the transformations that all beings in nature undergo. As a result, people have convinced themselves that this privileged soul does not die. Its immortality seems undeniable, especially to those who view it as spiritual. They define it as a simple, non-extended entity, lacking parts and entirely different from anything they know, and claim that it isn't subject to the decomposition laws that affect all beings, which experience constantly demonstrates.

Man, feeling within himself a concealed force, that insensibly produced action, that imperceptibly gave direction to the motion of his machine, believed that the entire of Nature, of whose energies he is ignorant, with whose modes of acting he is unacquainted, owed its motion to an agent analogous to his own soul; who acted upon the great macrocosm, in the same manner that this soul acted upon his body. Man, having supposed himself double, made Nature double also: he distinguished her from her own peculiar energy; he separated her from her mover, which by degrees he made spiritual. Thus Nature, distinguished from herself, was regarded as the soul of the world; and the soul of man was considered as opinions emanating from this universal soul. This notion upon the origin of the soul is of very remote antiquity. It was that of the Egyptians, of the Chaldeans, of the Hebrews, of the greater number of the wise men of the east. It should appear that Moses believed with the Egyptians the divine emanation of souls: according to him, "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul:" nevertheless, the Catholic, at this day, rejects this system of divine emanation, seeing that it supposes the Divinity divisible: which would have, been inconvenient to the Romish idea of purgatory, or to the system of everlasting punishment. Although Moses, in the above quotation, seems to indicate that the soul was a portion of the Divinity, it does not appear that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was established in any one of the books attributed to him. It was during the Babylonish captivity, that the Jews learned the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, taught by Zoroaster to the Persians, but which the Hebrew legislator did not understand, or, at least, he left his people ignorant on the subject. It was in those schools, that Pherecydes, Pythagoras, and Plato, drew up a doctrine so flattering to the vanity of human nature—so gratifying to the imagination of mortals. Man thus believed himself a portion of the Divinity; immortal, like the Godhead, in one part of himself: nevertheless, subsequent religions have renounced these advantages, which they judged incompatible with the other parts of their systems; they held forth that the Sovereign of Nature, or her contriver was not the soul of man, but, that, in virtue of his omnipotence, he created human souls, in proportion as he produced the bodies which they must animate; and they taught, that these souls once produced, by an effect of the same omnipotence, enjoyed immortality.

Man, feeling a hidden force within himself that subtly drove his actions and gently guided the motions of his body, believed that all of Nature, the energies of which he didn't understand and the ways it operated that were unfamiliar to him, owed its movement to an agent similar to his own soul, which influenced the larger universe just as his soul influenced his body. Having thought of himself as dual, he made Nature dual as well: he distinguished it from its own inherent energy and separated it from its mover, which he gradually conceptualized as spiritual. Consequently, Nature, seen as distinct from itself, was viewed as the soul of the world, and the human soul was thought to be ideas arising from this universal soul. This idea about the origin of the soul goes back a long way; it was held by the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Hebrews, and most of the wise men of the East. It seems that Moses believed along with the Egyptians in the divine emanation of souls: according to him, "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul:" however, the Catholic Church today rejects this idea of divine emanation since it implies that Divinity is divisible, which would complicate the Catholic view of purgatory or the concept of eternal punishment. Although Moses, in this quote, appears to suggest that the soul was a part of Divinity, there is no indication that the concept of the immortality of the soul was established in any of the texts attributed to him. The Jews learned the doctrine of future rewards and punishments during the Babylonian captivity, taught by Zoroaster to the Persians, but this was not something that the Hebrew legislator seemed to grasp, or at least, he left his people unaware of it. It was in those schools that Pherecydes, Pythagoras, and Plato developed a doctrine that flattered human vanity—so satisfying to the imaginations of mortals. Man then believed he was part of the Divinity, immortal like the Godhead in one aspect of himself; however, later religions abandoned these beliefs, deeming them incompatible with other elements of their teachings. They maintained that the Sovereign of Nature, or its creator, was not the soul of man, but, by virtue of His omnipotence, He made human souls as He created the bodies they would inhabit; and they taught that these souls, once created, enjoyed immortality through the same omnipotence.

However it may be with these variations upon the origin of souls, those who supposed them emanating from the Divinity, believed that after the death of the body, which served them for an envelope, they returned, by refunding to their first source. Those who, without adopting the opinion of divine emanation, admired the spirituality, believed the immortality of the soul, were under the necessity to suppose a region, to find out an abode for these souls, which their imagination painted to them, each according to his fears, his hopes, his desires, and his prejudices.

However it may be with these different views on the origin of souls, those who believed they came from the Divine thought that after the body, which served as their shell, died, they would return to their original source. Those who didn't agree with the idea of divine emanation but appreciated the concept of spirituality and believed in the immortality of the soul had to imagine a place to accommodate these souls. Their imaginations created this place according to their fears, hopes, desires, and biases.

Nothing is more popular than the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; nothing is more universally diffused than the expectation of another life. Nature having inspired man with the most ardent love for his existence, the desire of preserving himself for ever was a necessary consequence; this desire was presently converted into certainty: from that desire of existing eternally which Nature has implanted in him, he made an argument, to prove that man would never cease to exist. Abady says, "our soul has no useless desires, it naturally desires an eternal life;" and by a very strange logic, he concludes that this desire could not fail to be fulfilled. Cicero, before Abady, had declared the immortality of the soul to be an innate idea in man; yet, strange to tell, in another part of his works he considers Pherecydes as the inventor of the doctrine. However this may be, man, thus disposed, listened with avidity to those who announced to him systems so conformable to his wishes. Nevertheless, he ought not to regard as supernatural the desire of existing, which always was, and always will be, of the essence man; it ought not to excite surprise, if he received with eagerness an hypothesis that flattered his hopes, by promising that his desire would one day be gratified; but let him beware how he concludes that this desire itself is an indubitable proof of the reality of this future life, with which at present he seems to be so much occupied. The passion for existence is in man only a natural consequence of the tendency of a sensible being, whose essence it is to be willing to conserve himself: in the human being it follows the energy of his soul—keeps pace with the force of his imagination—always ready to realize that which he strongly desires. He desires the life of the body, nevertheless this desire is frustrated; wherefore should not the desire for the life of the soul be frustrated like the other? The partizans of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul reason thus: "All men desire to live for ever, therefore they will live for ever." Suppose the argument retorted on them; would it be believed? If it was asserted, "All men naturally desire to be rich; therefore all men will one day be rich," how many partizans would this doctrine find?

Nothing is more popular than the belief in the immortality of the soul; nothing is more widespread than the hope for an afterlife. Nature has instilled in humans a deep love for life, so the desire to preserve oneself forever naturally follows; this desire soon turned into a certainty. From that desire for eternal existence that Nature has placed in us, people created arguments to prove that humans will never cease to exist. Abady states, "our soul has no unnecessary desires; it naturally longs for eternal life," and by a rather curious logic, he concludes that this desire must be fulfilled. Cicero, before Abady, declared the immortality of the soul to be an inherent idea in humans; yet, oddly enough, in another part of his writings, he claims Pherecydes as the originator of this belief. Regardless, people, eager for reassurance, listened intently to those who presented ideas that aligned with their wishes. However, one shouldn't see the desire for existence as supernatural; it has always been and will always be essential to being human. There's no surprise in eagerly embracing a theory that promises to satisfy one's hopes for the future; but one should be cautious about concluding that this desire itself is undeniable proof of a future life that currently occupies so much of one's thoughts. The passion for existence in humans is merely a natural outcome of being a sentient being whose essence is to want to preserve itself: in humans, this follows the energy of the soul — keeping pace with the strength of imagination — always ready to pursue what is strongly desired. People desire bodily life, yet that desire often goes unfulfilled; why should the desire for the life of the soul be any different? Proponents of the immortality of the soul argue: "Everyone wants to live forever, so everyone will live forever." But if we flipped that argument on them, would they accept it? If it were claimed, "Everyone naturally wants to be rich; therefore, everyone will eventually be rich," how many supporters would that belief attract?

The most simple reflection upon the nature of his soul, ought to convince man that the idea of its immortality is only an illusion of the brain. Indeed what is his soul, save the principle of sensibility? What is it, to think, to enjoy, to suffer; is it not to feel? What is life, except it be the assemblage of modifications, the congregation of motion, peculiar to an organized being? Thus, as soon as the body ceases to live, its sensibility can no longer exercise itself; when its sensibility is no more, it can no longer have ideas, nor in consequence thoughts. Ideas, as we have proved, can only reach man through his senses; now, how will they have it, that once deprived of his senses, he is yet capable of receiving sensations, of having perceptions, of forming ideas? As they have made the soul of man a being separated from the animated body, wherefore have they not made life a being distinguished from the living body? Life in a body is the totality of this motion; feeling and thought make a part of this motion: thus it is reasonable to suppose, that in the dead man these motions will cease, like all the others.

A simple reflection on the nature of his soul should convince anyone that the idea of its immortality is just a trick of the mind. What is his soul, if not the capacity to feel? To think, to enjoy, to suffer—aren't these all forms of feeling? What is life except a collection of changes and movements unique to a living being? So, when the body stops living, its ability to feel also stops; when it can no longer feel, it can’t have ideas or thoughts either. Ideas, as we’ve shown, only come to us through our senses; so how can anyone believe that once deprived of his senses, he can still receive sensations, have perceptions, or form ideas? If they see the soul as separate from the living body, why don’t they see life as distinct from the living body as well? Life in a body is the totality of this motion; feeling and thought are part of this motion. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that in a dead person, these motions will stop, just like all the others.

Indeed, by what reasoning will it be proved, that this soul, which cannot feel, think, will, or act, but by aid of man's organs, can suffer pain, be susceptible of pleasure, or even have a consciousness of its own existence, when the organs which should warn it of their presence are decomposed or destroyed? Is it not evident, that the soul depends on the arrangement of the various parts of the body; on the order with which these parts conspire to perform their functions; on the combined motion of the whole? Thus the organic structure once destroyed, can it be reasonably doubted the soul will be destroyed also? Is it not seen, that during the whole course of human life this soul is stimulated, changed, deranged, disturbed, by all the changes man's organs experience? And yet it will be insisted, that this soul acts, thinks, subsists, when these same organs have entirely disappeared!

Indeed, how can it be reasonably argued that this soul, which can’t feel, think, will, or act without the aid of the human body, can suffer pain, experience pleasure, or even have awareness of its own existence when the organs that should alert it to their presence are decayed or destroyed? Isn’t it clear that the soul is dependent on the arrangement of the various parts of the body; on the way these parts work together to perform their functions; on the coordinated movement of the whole? So, once the organic structure is gone, is it really reasonable to doubt that the soul will be gone too? Isn’t it obvious that throughout human life, this soul is influenced, altered, disturbed by all the changes that the body undergoes? And yet, it is still argued that this soul can act, think, and exist even when those same organs have completely vanished!

An organized being may be compared to a clock, which once broken, is no longer suitable to the use for which it was designed. To say, that the soul shall feel, shall think, shall enjoy, shall suffer after the death of the body; is to pretend that a clock, shivered into a thousand pieces, will continue to strike the hour; shall yet have the faculty of marking the progress of time. Those who say, that the soul of man is able to subsist, notwithstanding the destruction of the body, evidently support the position, that the modification of a body will be enabled to conserve itself after the subject is destroyed: this on any other occasion would be considered as completely absurd.

An organized being is like a clock; once it’s broken, it can no longer do what it was made for. To claim that the soul can feel, think, enjoy, or suffer after the body dies is like saying that a shattered clock will still strike the hour or keep track of time. Those who argue that a person's soul can exist even after the body is destroyed clearly believe that the state of a body can somehow preserve itself after the subject is gone, which would be considered totally absurd in any other context.

It will be said that the conservation of the soul after the death of the body, is an effect of the Divine Omnipotence: but this is supporting an absurdity by a gratuitous hypothesis. It surely is not meant by Divine Omnipotence, of whatever nature it may be supposed, that a thing shall exist and not exist at the same time: unless this be granted, it will be rather difficult to prove, that a soul shall feel and think without the intermediates necessary to thought.

It will be claimed that the soul's existence after the body dies is a result of God's all-powerful nature: but that just supports a contradiction with an unfounded assumption. It's not meant by God's all-powerful nature, regardless of how it might be defined, that something can exist and not exist at the same time: unless that's accepted, it will be quite challenging to show that a soul can think and feel without the elements needed for thought.

Let them then, at least, forbear asserting, that reason is not wounded by the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; or by the expectation of a future life. These notions, formed to flatter man, to disturb the imagination of the uninformed, who do not reason, cannot appear either convincing or probable to enlightened minds. Reason, exempted from the illusions of prejudice, is, without doubt, wounded by the supposition of a soul, that feels, that thinks, that is afflicted, that rejoices, that has ideas, without having organs; that is to say, destitute of the only known medium, wanting all the natural means, by which, according to what we can understand, it is possible for it to feel sensations, have perceptions, or form ideas. If it be replied, other means are able to exist, which are supernatural or unknown, it may be answered, that these means of transmitting ideas to the soul, separated from the body, are not better known to, or more within the reach of, those who suppose it, that they are of other men. It is, at least, very certain, it cannot admit even of a controversy, that all those who reject the system of innate ideas, cannot, without contradicting their own principles, admit the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

Let them, then, at least, refrain from claiming that reason isn’t challenged by the idea of the soul's immortality or the expectation of an afterlife. These concepts, designed to flatter humanity and unsettle the minds of those who don’t think critically, are unlikely to seem convincing or plausible to those who are enlightened. Reason, free from the illusions of bias, is undoubtedly challenged by the notion of a soul that can feel, think, suffer, rejoice, and have ideas, all without having any physical organs; in other words, lacking the only known means of experiencing sensations, perceptions, or forming ideas according to our understanding. If someone argues that other methods could exist, which are supernatural or unknown, it can be countered that these means of conveying ideas to a soul separated from the body are no better understood or more accessible to those who believe in them than to anyone else. It is, at the very least, quite certain, and beyond dispute, that all those who dismiss the idea of innate ideas cannot accept the belief in the immortality of the soul without contradicting their own principles.

In defiance of the consolation that so many persons pretend to find in the notion of an eternal existence; in despite of that firm persuasion which such numbers of men assure us they have, that their souls will survive their bodies, they seem so very much alarmed at the dissolution of this body, that they do not contemplate their end, which they ought to desire as the period of so many miseries, but with the greatest inquietude; so true it is, that the real, the present, even accompanied with pain, has much more influence over mankind, than the most beautiful chimeras of the future; which he never views but through the clouds of uncertainty. Indeed the most religious men, notwithstanding the conviction they express of a blessed eternity, do not find these flattering hopes sufficiently consoling to repress their fears; to prevent their trembling, when they think on the necessary dissolution of their bodies. Death was always, for mortals, the most frightful point of view; they regard it as a strange phenomenon, contrary to the order of things, opposed to Nature; in a word, as an effect of the celestial vengeance, as the wages of sin. Although every thing proves to man that death is inevitable, he is never able to familiarize himself with its idea; he never thinks on it without shuddering; the assurance of possessing an immortal soul but feebly indemnifies him for the grief he feels in the deprivation of his perishable body. Two causes contribute to strengthen his fears, to nourish his alarm; the one is, that this death, commonly accompanied with pain, wrests from him an existence that pleases him—with which he is acquainted—to which he is accustomed; the other is the uncertainty of the state that must succeed his actual existence.

In defiance of the comfort that many people claim to find in the idea of eternal life, and despite the strong belief that many men tell us they hold—that their souls will outlive their bodies—they seem so disturbed by the end of this life that they don't reflect on their death, which they should see as the end of so much suffering, except with the greatest unease. It’s true that the real and present, even when painful, has a much stronger hold on people than the most beautiful fantasies of the future, which they can only view through a veil of uncertainty. In fact, even the most devout individuals, despite their expressed belief in a blessed eternity, don’t find those comforting hopes enough to calm their fears or stop them from trembling when they think about the unavoidable end of their bodies. For humans, death has always been the most terrifying concept; they see it as an unnatural phenomenon, against the natural order; in short, as a form of divine punishment, the wages of sin. Even though everything shows humans that death is unavoidable, they can never truly come to terms with the idea; they never think about it without feeling a shiver. The belief in an immortal soul barely compensates for the sorrow they feel at losing their fragile bodies. Two main reasons increase their fears and anxieties: first, death often comes with pain and takes away a life they enjoy, one they are familiar with; second, there’s uncertainty about what comes after this life.

The illustrious Bacon has said, that "men fear death for the same reason that children dread being alone in darkness." Man naturally challenges every thing with which he is unacquainted; he is desirous to see clearly to the end, that he may guarantee himself against those objects which may menace his safety; that he may also be enabled to procure for himself those which may be useful to him; the man who exists cannot form to himself any idea of non-existence; as this circumstance disturbs him, for want of experience, his imagination sets to work; this points out to him, either well or ill, this uncertain state: accustomed to think, to feel, to be stimulated into activity, to enjoy society, he contemplates as the greatest misfortune, a dissolution that will strip him of these objects, that will deprive him of those sensations which his present nature has rendered necessary to him; he views with dismay a situation that will prevent his being warned of his own existence—that shall bereave him of his pleasures—to plunge him into nothing. In supposing it even exempt from pain, he always looks upon this nothing as an afflicting solitude—as an heap of profound darkness; he sees himself in a state of general desolation; destitute of all assistance; and he feels keenly all the rigour of this frightful situation. But does not a profound sleep help to give him a true idea of this nothing? Does not that deprive him of every thing? Does it not appear to annihilate the universe to him, and him to the universe? Is death any thing more than a profound, a permanent steep? It is for want of being able to form an idea of death that man dreads it; if he could figure to himself a true image of this state of annihilation, he would from thence cease to fear it; but he is not able to conceive a state in which there is no feeling; he therefore believes, that when he shall no longer exist, he will have the same feelings, the same consciousness of things, which, during his existence, appear so sad to his mind; which his fancy paints in such gloomy colours. Imagination pictures to him his funeral pomp—the grave they are digging for him—the lamentations that will accompany him to his last abode-the epicedium that surviving friendship may dictate; he persuades himself that these melancholy objects will affect him as painfully even after his decease, as they do in his present condition, in which he is in full possession of his senses.

The renowned Bacon said that "men fear death for the same reason that children dread being alone in the dark." People naturally challenge everything they don't understand; they want to see clearly to the end, so they can protect themselves from things that might threaten their safety and also find what might be useful to them. A person who exists can't imagine non-existence; this idea disturbs him because he lacks experience, and his imagination begins to work. This either shows him, positively or negatively, this uncertain state: used to thinking, feeling, being motivated, and enjoying company, he views as the greatest misfortune a fate that would strip him of these experiences and deprive him of the sensations that his current nature has made essential. He looks with dread at a situation that would prevent him from recognizing his own existence, rob him of his pleasures, and plunge him into nothingness. Even if he thinks that this state is free from pain, he still sees nothingness as a painful solitude, a vast void; he imagines himself in complete desolation, without any support, and he feels the harshness of this terrifying situation intensely. But doesn’t a deep sleep give him a clearer idea of this nothing? Doesn’t it take everything away from him? Doesn’t it seem to annihilate the universe and him from the universe? Is death anything more than a deep, lasting sleep? It's because he can't form a clear idea of death that he fears it; if he could truly envision this state of annihilation, he would stop fearing it. But he can't conceive of a state without feeling; thus, he believes that when he no longer exists, he will have the same feelings and awareness of things that, during his life, seem so sorrowful to him, which his imagination paints in such dark colors. His imagination shows him his funeral, the grave being dug for him, the mourning that will follow him to his final resting place, the eulogy that surviving friends might write. He convinces himself that these sad images will affect him as painfully, even after his death, as they do in his current condition, where he fully possesses his senses.

Mortal, led astray by fear! after thy death thine eyes will see no more; thine ears will hear no longer; in the depth of thy grave thou wilt no more be witness to this scene, which thine imagination, at present, represents to thee under such dismal colours; thou wilt no longer take part in what shall be done in the world; thou wilt no more be occupied with what may befal thine inanimate remains, than thou wast able to be the day previous to that which ranked thee among the beings of thy species. To die is to cease to think; to lack feeling; no longer to enjoy; to find a period to suffering; thine ideas will perish with thee; thy sorrows will not follow thee to the silent tomb. Think of death, not to feed thy fears—not to nourish thy melancholy—but to accustom thyself to look upon it with a peaceable eye; to cheer thee up against those false terrors with which the enemies to thy repose labour to inspire thee! The fears of death are vain illusions, that must disappear as soon as we learn to contemplate this necessary event under its true point of view. A great man has defined philosophy to be a meditation on death; he is not desirous by that to have it understood that man ought to occupy himself sorrowfully with his end, with a view to nourish his fears; on the contrary, he wishes to invite him to familiarize himself with an object that Nature has rendered necessary to him; to accustom himself to expect it with a serene countenance. If life is a benefit, if it be necessary to love it, it is no less necessary to quit it; reason ought to teach him a calm resignation to the decrees of fate: his welfare exacts that he should contract the habit of contemplating with placidity, of viewing without alarm, an event that his essence has rendered inevitable: his interest demands that he should not brood gloomily over his misfortune; that he should not, by continual dread, embitter his life; the charms of which he must inevitably destroy, if he can never view its termination but with trepidation. Reason and his interest then, concur to assure him against those vague terrors with which his imagination inspires him, in this respect. If he was to call them to his assistance, they would reconcile him to an object that only startles him, because he has no knowledge of it; because it is only shewn to him with those hideous accompaniments with which it is clothed by superstition. Let him then, endeavour to despoil death of these vain illusions, and he will perceive that it is only the sleep of life; that this sleep will not be disturbed with disagreeable dreams; that an unpleasant awakening is never likely to follow it. To die is to sleep; it is to enter into that state of insensibility in which he was previous to his birth; before he had senses; before he was conscious of his actual existence. Laws, as necessary as those which gave him birth, will make him return into the bosom of Nature, from whence he was drawn, in order to reproduce him afterwards under some new form, which it would be useless for him to know: without consulting him, Nature places him for a season in the order of organized beings; without his consent, she will oblige him to quit it, to occupy some other order.

Human, led astray by fear! After you die, your eyes will see no more; your ears will hear no longer; in the depths of your grave, you will no longer witness this scene, which your imagination currently paints in such dark colors; you will no longer take part in what will happen in the world; you will be as unconcerned about what might happen to your lifeless body as you were the day before your existence was counted among your kind. To die is to stop thinking; to lack feeling; to no longer enjoy; to put an end to suffering; your thoughts will perish with you; your sorrows won’t follow you to the silent tomb. Think of death, not to feed your fears—not to fuel your sadness—but to help you look at it calmly; to comfort yourself against those false terrors that those opposed to your peace try to instill in you! The fears of death are empty illusions that will vanish as soon as we learn to view this inevitable event from its true perspective. A great person defined philosophy as a meditation on death; he doesn’t mean that we should dwell sorrowfully on our end to feed our fears; on the contrary, he wants to invite us to become familiar with an essential part of Nature; to learn to expect it with a calm demeanor. If life is a gift, if we are meant to cherish it, it is equally necessary to let it go; reason should teach us to accept fate with calm resignation: our well-being requires that we develop the habit of viewing, with tranquility and without alarm, an event that is unavoidable; our interests insist that we should not brood sadly over our misfortune; that we should not let constant fear spoil our lives, which we inevitably destroy if we can never see its end without dread. Thus, reason and our interests work together to protect us from those vague fears our imagination stirs within us regarding this matter. If we were to seek their help, they would reconcile us with an object that only frightens us because we know nothing about it; because it is only shown to us wrapped in the ugly clothes of superstition. Let us then try to strip death of these empty illusions, and we will see that it is merely the sleep of life; that this sleep will not be troubled by bad dreams; that an unpleasant awakening is unlikely to happen. To die is to sleep; it is to enter that state of insensitivity we experienced before our birth; before we had senses; before we were aware of our own existence. Laws, as necessary as those which brought us to life, will compel us to return to the bosom of Nature, from which we were drawn, to be recreated later in some new form that it would be pointless for us to know: without asking for our permission, Nature places us for a time among organized beings; without our consent, she will make us leave to inhabit another order.

Let him not complain then, that Nature is callous; she only makes him undergo a law from which she does not exempt any one being she contains. Man complains of the short duration of life—of the rapidity with which time flies away; yet the greater number of men do not know how to employ either time or life. If all are born and perish—if every thing is changed and destroyed—if the birth of a being is never more than the first step towards its end; how is it possible to expect that man, whose machine is so frail, of which the parts are so complicated, the whole of which possesses such extreme mobility, should be exempted from the common law; which decrees, that even the solid earth he inhabits shall experience change—shall undergo alteration—perhaps be destroyed! Feeble, frail mortal! Thou pretendest to exist for ever; whit thou, then, that for thee alone eternal Nature shall change her undeviating course? Dost thou not behold in those eccentric comets with which thine eyes are sometimes astonished, that the planets themselves are subject to death? Live then in peace for the season that Nature permits thee; if thy mind be enlightened by reason thou wilt die without terror!

Don't complain that Nature is unfeeling; she only makes you follow a law that applies to every single being she contains. People complain about life's shortness and how quickly time passes, yet most don't know how to make the most of either. If everyone is born and then dies—if everything changes and gets destroyed—if the birth of a being is just the beginning of its end; how can one expect that man, whose body is so fragile, with so many complicated parts, and so much vulnerability, should be exempt from this universal law? This law even dictates that the solid earth we live on will change, be altered, and perhaps be destroyed! Weak, fragile human! You act as if you exist forever; why should eternal Nature change her unchanging course just for you? Don't you see in those strange comets you sometimes gaze at that even the planets can die? So live in peace for the time that Nature allows you; if your mind is guided by reason, you’ll die without fear!

Notwithstanding the simplicity of these reflections; nothing is more rare than the sight of men truly fortified against the fears of death: the wise man himself turns pale at its approach; he has occasion to collect the whole force of his mind, to expect it with serenity. It cannot then, furnish matter for surprise, if the idea of death is so revolting to the generality of mortals; it terrifies the young—it redoubles the chagrin of the middle-aged—it even augments the sorrow of the old, who are worn down with infirmity: indeed the aged, although enfeebled by time, dread it much more than the young, who are in the full vigour of life; the man of many lustres is more accustomed to live years as they roll over his head, confirm his attachment to existence; nevertheless, long unwearied exertions weaken the powers of his mind; labour, sickness, and pain, waste his animal strength; he has less energy; his volition becomes faint, superstitious terrors easily appal him; at length disease consumes him; sometimes with excruciating tortures: the unhappy wretch, thus plunged into misfortune, has, notwithstanding, scarcely ever dared to contemplate death; which he ought to consider as the period to all his anguish.

Despite the simplicity of these thoughts, nothing is rarer than seeing individuals truly prepared for the fear of death. Even the wise person pales when faced with it; they must gather all their mental strength to face it with calmness. It's not surprising that the concept of death is so disturbing to most people; it terrifies the young, intensifies the worries of the middle-aged, and even increases the sorrow of the elderly, who are already battered by sickness. In fact, older people, despite being weakened by time, fear death much more than the young, who are full of life. The person who has lived many years becomes accustomed to the passing of time, reinforcing their attachment to life; however, prolonged struggles wear down their mental strength. Hardship, illness, and pain deplete their physical resources; they have less energy, their will becomes weak, and superstitious fears easily frighten them. Eventually, illness takes its toll; sometimes with excruciating pain. The unfortunate soul, caught in such suffering, rarely dares to think about death, even though they should see it as an end to all their misery.

If the source of this pusillanimity be sought, it will be found in his nature, which attaches him to life; in that deficiency of energy in his soul, which hardly any thing tends to corroborate, but which every thing strives to enfeeble: which superstition, instead of strengthening, contributes to bruise. Almost all human institutions, nearly all the opinions of man, conspire to augment his fears; to render his ideas of death more terrible; to make them more revolting to his feelings. Indeed, superstition pleases itself with exhibiting death under the most frightful traits: it represents it to man under the most disgusting colours; as a dreadful moment, which not only puts an end to his pleasures, but gives him up without defence to the strange rigour of a pitiless decree, which nothing can soften. According to this superstition, the most virtuous man has reason to tremble for the severity of his fate; is never certain of being happy; the most dreadful torments, endless punishments, await the victim to involuntary weakness; to the necessary faults of a short-lived existence; his infirmities, his momentary offences, the propensities that have been planted in his heart, the errors of his mind, the opinions he has imbibed, even in the society in which he was born without his own consent, the ideas he has formed, the passions he has indulged above all, his not being able to comprehend all the extravagant dogmas offered to his acceptance, are to be implacably avenged with the most severe and never-ending penalties. Ixion is for ever fastened to his wheel; Sisyphus must to all eternity roll his stone without ever being able to reach the apex of his mountain; the vulture must perpetually prey on the liver of the unfortunate Prometheus: those who dare to think for themselves—those who have refused to listen to their enthusiastic guides—those who have not reverenced the oracles—those who have had the audacity to consult their reason—those who have boldly ventured to detect impostors—those who have doubted the divine mission of the Phythonissa—those who believe that Jupiter violated decency in his visit to Danae—those who look upon Apollo as no better than a strolling musician—those who think that Mahomet was an arch knave—are to smart everlastingly in flaming oceans of burning sulpher; are to float to all eternity in the most excruciating agonies on seas of liquid brimstone, wailing and gnashing their teeth: what wonder, then, if man dreads to be cast into these hideous gulfs; if his mind loathes the horrific picture; if he wishes to defer for a season these dreadful punishments; if he clings to an existence, painful as it may be, rather than encounter such revolting cruelties.

If we look for the reason behind this cowardice, we’ll find it in his nature, which ties him to life; in the lack of energy in his spirit, which almost nothing strengthens and which everything tries to weaken; and which superstition, instead of bolstering, only contributes to harm. Nearly all of human institutions and almost all opinions conspire to amplify his fears; to make his views of death more terrifying; to make them more repulsive to his feelings. In fact, superstition enjoys showing death in the most frightening ways: presenting it to people in the most disgusting light; as a dreadful moment that not only ends their pleasures but also leaves them defenseless against the harshness of a merciless decree that nothing can soften. According to this superstition, even the most virtuous person has reason to fear their harsh fate; they are never sure of finding happiness; the most dreadful torments and endless punishments await those who fall victim to involuntary weakness; to the inevitable faults of a short life; their weaknesses, their momentary misdeeds, the tendencies ingrained in their hearts, the mistakes of their minds, the beliefs they’ve absorbed, even from the society they were born into without their choice, the ideas they’ve formed, the passions they’ve indulged in, and especially their inability to understand all the bizarre beliefs offered to them will be mercilessly avenged with the harshest and never-ending penalties. Ixion is eternally bound to his wheel; Sisyphus must roll his stone forever without ever reaching the summit of his mountain; the vulture must continually feast on the liver of unfortunate Prometheus: those who dare to think for themselves—those who have chosen not to follow their zealous leaders—those who have not honored the oracles—those who have had the courage to use their own reasoning—those who have boldly sought to expose frauds—those who have doubted the divine purpose of the oracle—those who believe that Jupiter acted inappropriately during his visit to Danae—those who view Apollo as no more than a street performer—those who think that Mohammed was a cunning impostor—will suffer endlessly in searing oceans of burning sulfur; they will float in excruciating pain on seas of liquid brimstone for all eternity, wailing and grinding their teeth: is it any wonder, then, that humans fear being thrown into these dreadful depths; that their minds recoil at the horrific image; that they wish to postpone these terrible punishments for a while; that they cling to an existence, painful as it may be, rather than face such repulsive tortures?

Such, then, are the afflicting objects with which superstition occupies its unhappy, its credulous disciples; such are the fears which the tyrant of human thoughts points out to them as salutary. In defiance Of the exility of the effect which these notions produce oil the greater number, even of those who say they are, or who believe themselves persuaded, they are held forth as the most powerful rampart that can be opposed to the irregularities of man. Nevertheless, as will be seen presently, it will be found that these systems, or rather these chimeras, so terrible to behold, operate little or nothing on the larger portion of mankind, who dream of them but seldom, never in the moment that passion, interest, pleasure, or example, hurries them along. If these fears act, it is commonly on those, who have but little occasion to abstain from evil; they make honest hearts tremble, but fail of effect on the perverse. They torment sensible souls, but leave those that are hardened in repose; they disturb tractable, gentle minds, but cause no trouble to rebellious spirits: thus they alarm none but those who are already sufficiently alarmed; they coerce only those who are already restrained.

So, these are the troubling things that superstition occupies its unfortunate, gullible followers with; these are the fears that the ruler of human thoughts presents to them as beneficial. In spite of the minimal impact that these ideas have on most people, even on those who claim to be, or who think they are convinced, they are presented as the strongest defense against human irregularities. However, as will be shown shortly, it will be revealed that these systems, or rather these nightmares, which appear so frightening, have little to no effect on the majority of people, who rarely think about them, and never when passion, self-interest, pleasure, or examples propel them forward. If these fears do have an impact, it is usually on those who have little reason to refrain from wrongdoing; they make honest individuals uneasy, but have no effect on the wicked. They torment sensitive souls but leave the hardened untouched; they disturb obedient, gentle minds but cause no distress to rebellious ones: thus, they only alarm those who are already sufficiently anxious; they only restrain those who are already constrained.

These notions, then, impress nothing on the wicked; when by accident they do act on them, it is only to redouble the wickedness of their natural character—to justify them in their own eyes—to furnish them with pretexts to exercise it without fear—to follow it without scruple. Indeed, the experience of a great number of ages has shewn to what excess of wickedness, to what lengths, the passions of man have carried him, when they have been authorized by the priesthood—when they have been unchained by superstition—or, at least, when he has been enabled to cover himself with its mantle. Man has never been more ambitious, never more covetous, never more crafty, never more cruel, never more seditious, than when he has persuaded himself that superstition permitted or commanded him to be so: thus, superstition did nothing more than lend an invincible force to his natural passions, which under its sacred auspices he could exercise with impunity, indulge without remorse; still more, the greatest villains, in giving free vent to the detestable propensities of their natural wickedness, have under its influence believed, that, by displaying an over-heated zeal, they merited well of heaven; that they exempted themselves by new crimes, from that chastisement which they thought their anterior conduct had richly merited.

These ideas don’t have any impact on the wicked; when they do affect them by chance, it only amplifies their natural wickedness—justifying their actions in their own eyes—giving them excuses to act without fear and follow their inclinations without guilt. In fact, throughout many ages, we've seen just how far the passions of man can go when they’re backed by religious authority—when they are unleashed by superstition—or at least when he can cloak himself in its guise. Man has never been more ambitious, greedy, cunning, cruel, or rebellious than when he convinces himself that superstition allows or demands that behavior: in this way, superstition merely gives unstoppable power to his innate desires, allowing him to act without consequence and indulge his impulses guilt-free; moreover, the worst offenders, in openly expressing the despicable tendencies of their wicked nature, have, under its influence, believed that by showing excessive zeal, they have earned favor with heaven, thinking that they could escape punishment for their previous misdeeds.

These, then, are the effects which what are called the salutary notions of superstition, produce on mortals. These reflections will furnish an answer to those who say that, "If heaven was promised equally to the wicked as to the righteous, there would be found none incredulous of another life." We reply, that, in point of fact, superstition does accord heaven to the wicked, since it frequently places in this happy abode the most useless, the most depraved of men. Is not Mahomet himself enthroned in the empyrean by this superstition? If the calendar of the Romish saints was examined, would it be found to contain none but righteous, none but good men? Does not Mahometanism cut off from all chance of future existence, consequently from all hope of reaching heaven, the female part of mankind? Have the Jews exalted no one to the celestial regions, save the virtuous? When the Jew is condemned to the devouring flames, do not the men who thus torture an unhappy wretch, whose only crime is adherence to the religion of his forefathers, expect to be rewarded for the deed with everlasting happiness? Are they not promised eternal salvation for their orthodoxy? Was Constantine, was St. Cyril, was St. Athanasius, was St. Dominic, worthy beatification? Were Jupiter, Thor, Mercury, Woden, and a thousand others, deserving of celestial diadems? Is erring, feeble man, with all his imbecilities, competent to form a judgment of the heavenly deserts of his fellows? Can be, with his dim optics, with his limited vision, fathom the human heart? Can he sound its depths, trace its meanderings, dive into its recesses, with sufficient precision, to determine who amongst his race is or is not possessed of the requisite merit to enjoy a blessed eternity? Thus wicked men are held up as models by superstition, which as we shall see, sharpens the passions of evil-disposed men, by legitimating those crimes, at which, without this sanction, they would shudder; which they would fear to commit; or for which, at least, they would feel shame; for which they would experience remorse. In short, the ministers of superstition furnish to the most profligate men the power of indulging their inflamed passions, and then hold forth to them means of diverting from their own heads the thunderbolt that should strike their crimes, by spreading before them fresh incentives to intolerant persecution, with the promise of a never-fading happiness.

These are the effects that what we call the salutary notions of superstition produce on people. These thoughts will answer those who argue that "if heaven were promised equally to the wicked and the righteous, there would be no one skeptical about an afterlife." Our response is that, in reality, superstition does promise heaven to the wicked, as it often places the most useless and depraved individuals in this happy place. Isn't Mahomet himself celebrated in the highest heaven by this superstition? If we examined the list of Romish saints, would we find only righteous and good people? Doesn’t Mahometanism deny all hope of future existence, and thereby access to heaven, to women? Have the Jews honored anyone in the celestial realms except for the virtuous? When a Jew is condemned to eternal flames, don’t those who torment this unfortunate person, whose only crime is sticking to the faith of his ancestors, expect to be rewarded with everlasting happiness for their actions? Are they not promised eternal salvation for their orthodoxy? Were Constantine, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, and St. Dominic truly worthy of beatification? Were Jupiter, Thor, Mercury, Woden, and many others deserving of heavenly crowns? Is flawed, weak humanity, with all its shortcomings, capable of judging the heavenly worth of others? Can one, with limited sight, understand the human heart? Can one explore its depths, trace its paths, and delve into its hidden spaces with enough accuracy to determine who among us has the merit to enjoy a blessed eternity? Thus, superstition holds up wicked people as models, which, as we will see, fuels the passions of evil individuals by legitimizing crimes that, without this approval, they would hesitate to commit or feel ashamed about; crimes for which they would feel remorse. In short, the agents of superstition provide the most depraved individuals the means to indulge their rampant desires and then offer ways to deflect the punishment that should come for their actions by presenting new incentives for intolerant persecution, along with the promise of everlasting happiness.

With respect to the incredulous, without doubt, there may be amongst them wicked men, as well as amongst the most credulous; but incredulity no more supposes wickedness, than credulity supposes righteousness. On the contrary, the man who thinks, who meditates, knows far better the true motives to goodness, than he who suffers himself to be blindly guided by uncertain motives, or by the interest of others. Sensible men have the greatest advantage in examining opinions, which it is pretended must have an influence over their eternal happiness: if these are found false, if they appear injurious to their present life, they will not therefore conclude, that they have not another life either to fear or to hope; that they are permitted to deliver themselves up with impunity to vice, which would do an injury to themselves, that would draw upon them the contempt of their neighbour, which would subject them to the anger of society: the man who does not expect another life, is only more interested in prolonging his existence in this; in rendering himself dear to his fellows, by cultivating virtue; by performing all his duties with more strictness, in the only life of which he has any knowledge: he has made a great stride towards felicity, in disengaging himself from those terrors which afflict others, which frequently prevent their acting. Such a man has nothing to fear, but every thing to hope; if, contrary to what he is able to judge, there should be an hereafter existence, will not his actions have been so regulated by virtue, will he not have so comported himself in his present existence, as to stand a fair chance of enjoying in their fullest extent those felicities prepared for his species?

Regarding the skeptics, it’s clear that among them there may be some bad people, just like there are among the most gullible; but being skeptical doesn’t imply wickedness any more than being gullible suggests righteousness. On the contrary, a person who thinks and reflects understands the true motives behind goodness much better than someone who blindly follows unclear incentives or the interests of others. Rational individuals have a significant advantage when evaluating beliefs that supposedly affect their eternal happiness: if these beliefs are proven false or harmful to their current life, they won’t simply conclude that they have nothing to fear or hope for in an afterlife; nor will they think they can indulge in vice without consequences, which would harm themselves, invoke scorn from those around them, or bring the wrath of society upon them. A person who doesn’t expect an afterlife is primarily focused on extending their time in this life and earning the affection of others through virtue, while diligently fulfilling their responsibilities in the only life they know: they have taken a big step toward happiness by freeing themselves from the fears that trouble others, often hindering their actions. Such a person has nothing to fear, but everything to hope for; if, contrary to what they can judge, there turns out to be an afterlife, wouldn’t their actions, guided by virtue, position them favorably to fully enjoy the happiness that awaits humanity?

Superstition, in fact, takes a pride in rendering man slothful, in moulding him to credulity, in making him pusillanimous. It is its principle to afflict him without intermission; to redouble in him the horrors of death: ever ingenious in tormenting him, it has extended his inquietudes beyond even his own existence; its ministers, the more securely to dispose of him in this world, invented, in future regions, a variety of rewards and punishments, reserving to themselves the privilege of awarding these heavenly recompences to those who yielded most implicitly to their arbitrary laws; of decreeing punishment to those refractory beings who rebelled against their power: thus, according to them, Tantalus for divulging their secrets, must eternally fear, engulphed in burning sulphur, the stone ready to fall on his devoted head; whilst Romulus was beatified and worshipped as a god under the name of Quirinus. The same system of superstition caused the philosopher Callisthenes to be put to death, for opposing the worship of Alexander; and elevated the monk Athanasius to be a saint in heaven. Far from holding forth consolation to mortals, far from cultivating man's reason, far from teaching him to yield under the hands of necessity, superstition, in a great many countries, strives to render death still more bitter to him; to make its yoke sit heavy; to fill up its retinue with a multitude of hideous phantoms; to paint it in the most frightful colours; to render its approach terrible: by this means it has crowded the world with enthusiasts, whom it seduces by vague promises; with contemptible slaves, whom it coerces with the fear of imaginary evils: it has at length persuaded man, that his actual existence is only a journey, by which he will arrive at a more important life: this doctrine, whether it be rational or irrational, prevents him from occupying himself with his true happiness; from even dreaming of ameliorating his institutions, of improving his laws, of advancing the progress of science, of perfectioning his morals. Vain and gloomy ideas have absorbed his attention: he consents to groan under fanatical tyranny—to writhe under political inflictions—to live in error—to languish in misfortune—in the hope, when he shall be no more, of being one day happier; in the firm confidence, that after he has disappeared, his calamities, his patience, will conduct him to a never-ending felicity: he has believed himself submitted to cruel priests, who are willing to make him purchase his future welfare at the expence of every thing most dear to his peace, most valuable to his existence here below: they have pictured heaven as irritated against him, as disposed to appease itself by punishing him eternally, for any efforts he should make to withdraw himself from, their power. It is thus the doctrine of a future life has been made fatal to the human species: it plunged whole nations into sloth, made them languid, filled them with indifference to their present welfare, or else precipitated them, into the most furious enthusiasm, which hurried them on to such lengths that they tore each other in pieces in order to merit the promised heaven.

Superstition takes pride in making people lazy, shaping them to be gullible, and turning them timid. Its main goal is to constantly torment people, amplifying their fears of death. Always clever in its cruelty, it has extended anxiety beyond just living; its agents, to better control people in this world, invented various rewards and punishments for the afterlife, reserving the right to bestow these heavenly rewards on those who obeyed their arbitrary rules and to punish those who defied their authority. So, according to them, Tantalus, for revealing their secrets, must forever suffer in boiling sulfur, with a stone ready to crush his head, while Romulus is deified and worshipped as Quirinus. This same system of superstition led to the philosopher Callisthenes being executed for opposing the worship of Alexander, and raised the monk Athanasius to sainthood. Rather than offering comfort to people, nurturing human reason, or teaching them to accept the harsh realities of life, superstition, in many countries, tries to make death even more painful, to weigh heavily on them, to surround it with ghastly phantoms, to depict it in terrifying ways, and to make its approach dreadful. Because of this, the world is filled with fanatics, lured by vague promises, and pitiful slaves, bound by fear of imaginary threats. Ultimately, it has convinced people that their current lives are merely a journey to a more significant existence; whether this belief is logical or illogical keeps them from focusing on their true happiness, from even dreaming of improving their institutions, laws, scientific progress, or moral standards. Empty and gloomy thoughts have consumed their attention: they accept suffering under fanatic tyranny, endure political oppression, live in ignorance, and languish in misery, hoping that once they’re gone, they will be happier; firmly believing that after they disappear, their suffering and patience will lead them to everlasting joy. They see themselves as subjected to cruel priests who want them to buy their future well-being at the cost of everything most precious to their peace and essential to their current lives. These priests have painted heaven as angry with them, ready to appease itself by punishing them forever for any attempt to break free from their grasp. Thus, the idea of an afterlife has been detrimental to humanity: it has plunged entire nations into laziness, made them apathetic about their current well-being, or driven them into violent fanaticism, leading them to tear each other apart to earn the promised heaven.

It will be asked, perhaps, by what road has man been conducted to form to himself these gratuitous ideas of another world? I reply, that it is a truth man has no idea of a future life, they are the ideas of the past and the present that furnish his imagination with the materials of which he constructs the edifice of the regions of futurity. Hobbes says, "We believe that, that which is will always be, and that the same causes will have the same effects." Man in his actual state, has two modes of feeling, one that he approves, another that he disapproves: thus, persuaded that these two modes of feeling must accompany him, even beyond his present existence, he placed in the regions of eternity two distinguished abodes, one destined to felicity, the other to misery: the one must contain those who obey the calls of superstition, who believe in its dogmas; the other is a prison, destined to avenge the cause of heaven, on all those who shall not faithfully believe the doctrines promulgated by the ministers of a vast variety of superstitions. Has sufficient attention been paid to the fact that results as a necessary consequence from this reasoning; which on examination will be found to have rendered the first place entirely useless, seeing, that by the number and contradiction of these various systems, let man believe which ever he may, let him follow it in the most faithful manner, still he must be ranked as an infidel, as a rebel to the Divinity, because he cannot believe in all; and those from which he dissents, by a consequence of their own creed, condemn him to the prison-house?

It might be asked how humans came to develop these unnecessary ideas of another world. I respond that it's true humans have no real notion of an afterlife; instead, it's their ideas from the past and present that provide the building blocks for the concept of future realms. Hobbes states, "We believe that what is now will always be, and that the same causes will have the same effects." In his current state, a person has two feelings: one he approves of and another he disapproves of. Convinced that these feelings will follow him even after his current life, he has imagined two distinct places in eternity: one for happiness and the other for suffering. The first is meant for those who heed superstition and believe its doctrines, while the other serves as a prison to punish those who do not sincerely accept the beliefs promoted by various superstitions. Has enough attention been given to the implications of this reasoning? Upon closer inspection, it seems to render the first place completely irrelevant, as the multitude and contradictions of these different systems mean that no matter what someone believes or how faithfully they follow it, they will still be labeled an unbeliever or a rebel against the divine, because it’s impossible to accept all of them; and those beliefs he disagrees with will, according to their own tenets, condemn him to the prison.

Such is the origin of the ideas upon a future life, so diffused among mankind. Every where may be seen an Elysium and a Tartarus; a Paradise and a Hell; in a word, two distinguished abodes, constructed according to the imagination of the enthusiasts who have invented them, who have accommodated them to their own peculiar prejudices, to the hopes, to the fears, of the people who believe in them. The Indian figures the first of these abodes as one of in-action, of permanent repose, because, being the inhabitant of a hot climate, he has learned to contemplate rest as the extreme of felicity: the Mussulman promises himself corporeal pleasures, similar to those that actually constitute the object of his research in this life: each figures to himself, that on which he has learned to set the greatest value.

This is the origin of the ideas about an afterlife, which are so widespread among people. Everywhere you can find an Elysium and a Tartarus; a Paradise and a Hell; in other words, two distinct places imagined by those who created them, tailored to their own specific biases, hopes, and fears of the believers. The Indian envisions the first of these places as one of inactivity and eternal rest, because living in a hot climate, he sees rest as the ultimate happiness: the Muslim expects physical pleasures similar to those that he seeks in this life: each person imagines what they value the most.

Of whatever nature these pleasures may be, man apprehended that a body was needful, in order that his soul might be enabled to enjoy the pleasures, or to experience the pains in reserve for him: from hence the doctrine of the resurrection; but as he beheld this body putrify, as he saw it dissolve, as he witnessed its decomposition, after death, he was at a loss how to form anew what he conceived so necessary to his system he therefore had recourse to the Divine Omnipotence, by whose interposition he now believes it will be effected. This opinion, so incomprehensible, is said to have originated in Persia, among the Magi, and finds a great number of adherents, who have never given it a serious examination: but the doctrine of the resurrection appears perfectly useless to all those, who believe in the existence of a soul that feels, thinks, suffers, and enjoys, after a separation from the body: indeed, there are already sects who begin to maintain, that the body is not necessary; that therefore it will not be resurrected. Like Berkeley, they conceive that "the soul has need neither of body nor any exterior being, either to experience sensations, or to have ideas:" the Malebranchists, in particular, must suppose that the rejected souls will see every thing in the Divinity; will feel themselves burn, without having occasion for bodies for that purpose. Others, incapable of elevating themselves to these sublime notions, believed, that under divers forms, man animated successively different animals of various species; that he never ceased to be an inhabitant of the earth; such was the opinion of those who adopted the doctrine of Metempsychosis.

No matter what kind of pleasures these may be, humanity understood that a body was necessary for the soul to experience pleasure or endure the pains that awaited it. This led to the belief in the resurrection. However, as people saw their bodies decay, dissolve, and decompose after death, they struggled with how to recreate what they believed was essential to their being. So, they turned to Divine Omnipotence, believing that through this higher power, the resurrection would be achieved. This belief, which many find hard to grasp, is thought to have originated in Persia among the Magi and has a considerable following, even among those who haven’t thoroughly examined it. But the idea of resurrection seems pointless to those who believe in a soul that can feel, think, suffer, and experience joy even after separating from the body. In fact, some groups have begun to argue that the body isn't necessary and therefore will not be resurrected. Like Berkeley, they believe that "the soul does not need a body or any external being to experience sensations or form ideas." The Malebranchists, in particular, must think that rejected souls can perceive everything within the Divine and feel torment without needing bodies for that purpose. Others, unable to grasp such lofty ideas, believed that humans successively animated various animals, never truly leaving the earth. This was the view of those who embraced the doctrine of Metempsychosis.

As for the miserable abode of souls, the imagination of fanatics, who were desirous of governing the people, strove to assemble the most frightful images, to render it still more terrible: fire is of all beings that which produces in man the most pungent sensation; not finding any thing more cruel, the enemies to the several dogmas were to be everlastingly punished with this torturing element: fire, therefore, was the point at which their imagination was obliged to stop. The ministers of the various systems agreed pretty generally, that fire would one day avenge their offended divinities: thus they painted the victims to the anger of the gods, or rather those who questioned their own creeds, as confined in fiery dungeons, as perpetually rolling in a vortex of bituminous flames, as plunged in unfathomable gulphs of liquid sulphur, making the infernal caverns resound with their useless groanings, with their unavailing gnashing of teeth.

As for the terrible place for souls, the imagination of fanatics, who wanted to control people, tried to put together the most horrifying images to make it even scarier: fire is the element that brings the strongest sensation in humans; not finding anything more brutal, the enemies of different beliefs were to be endlessly punished with this torturous element. Fire, therefore, was where their imagination had to stop. The leaders of the various faiths generally agreed that fire would one day take revenge on their offended deities: they depicted the victims of the gods' anger, or rather those who questioned their own beliefs, as trapped in fiery prisons, constantly swirling in a whirlpool of burning flames, plunged into endless depths of molten sulfur, making the hellish caves echo with their pointless moans and futile grinding of teeth.

But it will, perhaps, be enquired, how could man reconcile himself to the belief of an existence accompanied with eternal torments; above all, as many according to their own superstitions had reason to fear it for themselves? Many causes have concurred to make him adopt so revolting an opinion: in the first place, very few thinking men have ever believed such an absurdity, when they have deigned to make use of their reason; or, when they have accredited it, this notion was always counterbalanced by the idea of the goodness, by a reliance on the mercy, which they attributed to their respective divinities: in the second place, those who were blinded by their fears, never rendered to themselves any account of these strange doctrines, which they either received with awe from their legislators, or which were transmitted to them by their fathers: in the third place, each sees the object of his terrors only at a favourable distance: moreover, superstition promises him the means of escaping the tortures he believes he has merited. At length, like those sick people whom we see cling with fondness, even to the most painful life, man preferred the idea of an unhappy, though unknown existence, to that of non-existence, which he looked upon as the most frightful evil that could befal him; either because he could form no idea of it, or because his imagination painted to him this non-existence this nothing, as the confused assemblage of all evils. A known evil, of whatever magnitude, alarmed him less (above all, when there remained the hope of being able to avoid it), than an evil of which he knew nothing, upon which, consequently, his imagination was painfully employed, but to which he knew not how to oppose a remedy.

But it might be asked, how could someone accept the idea of a life filled with eternal suffering, especially since many had reason to fear this for themselves based on their own beliefs? Several factors have contributed to this disturbing viewpoint: first, very few rational people truly believe such an absurdity if they actually use their reasoning; or, when they do accept it, they typically balance this idea with their belief in the goodness and mercy attributed to their gods. Second, those blinded by fear never really reflected on these strange teachings, which they either accepted in awe from their leaders or inherited from their ancestors. Third, individuals only view the source of their fears from a safe distance; additionally, superstition promises them ways to escape the punishments they think they deserve. Ultimately, similar to how sick individuals cling to even the most painful existence, people prefer the idea of a miserable, unknown reality over complete non-existence, which they see as the worst possible fate; either because they can't imagine it at all or because their minds depict this non-existence as a confusing mix of all evils. A known evil, no matter how great, worries them less (especially if there's hope of avoiding it) than an unknown evil, which their imagination struggles with but for which they can’t find a solution.

It will be seen, then, that superstition, far from consoling man upon the necessity of death, only redoubles his terrors, by the evils with which it pretends his decease will be followed; these terrors are so strong, that the miserable wretches who believe strictly in these formidable doctrines, pass their days in affliction, bathed in the most bitter tears. What shall be said of an opinion so destructive to society, yet adopted by so many nations, which announces to them, that a severe fate may at each instant take them unprovided; that at each moment they are liable to pass under the most rigorous judgment? What idea can be better suited to terrify man—what more likely to discourage him—what more calculated to damp the desire of ameliorating his condition—than the afflicting prospect of a world always on the brink of dissolution; of a Divinity seated upon the ruins of Nature, ready to pass judgment on the human species? Such are, nevertheless, the fatal opinions with which the mind of nations has been fed for thousands of years: they are so dangerous, that if by a happy want of just inference, he did not derogate in his conduct from these afflicting ideas, he would fall into the most abject stupidity. How could man occupy himself with a perishable world, ready every moment to crumble into atoms? How dream of rendering himself happy on earth, when it is only the porch to an eternal kingdom? Is it then, surprising, that the superstitions to which similar doctrines serve for a basis, have prescribed to their disciples a total detachment from things below—an entire renunciation of the most innocent pleasures; have given birth to a sluggishness, to a pusillanimity, to an abjection of soul, to an insociability, that renders him useless to himself, dangerous to others? If necessity did not oblige man to depart in his practice from these irrational systems—if his wants did not bring him back to reason, in despite of these superstitious doctrines—the whole world would presently become a vast desert, inhabited by some few isolated savages, who would not even have courage to multiply themselves. What are these, but notions which he must necessarily put aside, in order that human association may subsist?

It will be clear, then, that superstition, instead of comforting people about the inevitability of death, only amplifies their fears with the horrors it claims will follow their demise; these fears are so intense that the unfortunate souls who strictly believe in these frightening beliefs spend their days in distress, shedding the most bitter tears. What can be said about an idea so harmful to society, yet embraced by so many cultures, which tells them that a harsh fate could come upon them at any moment, unprepared, and that they are constantly at risk of facing the most severe judgment? What concept could be more terrifying for humanity—what could discourage them more—what could extinguish the desire to improve their situation—than the disheartening vision of a world always on the verge of collapse; of a Deity looming over the ruins of Nature, ready to judge humanity? Yet, these are the deadly beliefs that have influenced the minds of nations for thousands of years: they are so perilous that if, by a fortunate lack of accurate reasoning, individuals didn’t act contrary to these distressing ideas, they would fall into the most utter ignorance. How could anyone focus on a fragile world, set to break apart at any moment? How could they dream of finding happiness on earth if it’s just the entrance to an eternal realm? Is it any wonder that the superstitions supported by such doctrines have instructed their followers to completely detach from worldly things—completely renouncing even the most innocent pleasures; that they lead to apathy, cowardice, a dejection of spirit, and social isolation, making them useless to themselves and harmful to others? If necessity didn’t drive people to stray from these irrational beliefs—if their needs didn’t bring them back to reason despite these superstitious teachings—then the entire world would soon become a vast desert, inhabited only by a few isolated savages, who wouldn’t even have the courage to reproduce. What are these but concepts that must be cast aside for human society to thrive?

Nevertheless, the doctrine of a future life, accompanied with rewards and punishments, has been regarded for a great number of ages as the most powerful, or even as the only motive capable of coercing the passions of man; as the sole means that can oblige him to be virtuous: by degrees, this doctrine has become the basis of almost all religions and political systems, so much so, that at this day it is said, this prejudice cannot be attacked without absolutely rending asunder the bonds of society. The founders of superstition have made use of it to attach their credulous disciples; legislators have looked upon it as the curb best calculated to keep mankind under discipline; religion considers it necessary to his happiness; many philosophers themselves have believed with sincerity, that this doctrine was requisite to terrify man, was the only means to divert him from crime: notwithstanding, when the doctrine of the immortality of the soul first came out of the school of Plato; when it first diffused itself among the Greeks, it caused the greatest ravages; it determined a multitude of men, who were discontented with their condition, to terminate their existence: Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, seeing the effect this doctrine, which at the present day is looked upon as so salutary, produced on the brains of his subjects, prohibited the teaching of it under the penalty of death.

However, the belief in an afterlife, along with its rewards and punishments, has been seen for many ages as the most powerful, or even the only, motivating force capable of controlling human passions; the only way to compel someone to be virtuous. Over time, this belief has become the foundation of nearly all religions and political systems, to the point that today it is said that challenging this idea could completely tear apart the fabric of society. The founders of superstition have used it to bind their gullible followers; lawmakers have viewed it as the best way to keep people in check; religions see it as essential for happiness; and many philosophers have genuinely believed that this belief was necessary to frighten people, the only way to steer them away from wrongdoing. Yet, when the idea of the immortality of the soul first emerged from Plato's school and spread among the Greeks, it caused significant harm; it led many dissatisfied individuals to choose to end their lives. Ptolemy Philadelphus, the king of Egypt, witnessing the impact this belief—which is now considered beneficial—had on his subjects’ minds, banned its teaching under the threat of death.

It must, indeed, be allowed that this doctrine has been of the greatest utility to those who have given superstitions to nations, who at the same time made themselves its ministers; it was the foundation of their power, the source of their wealth, the permanent cause of that blindness, the solid basis of those terrors, which it was their interest to nourish in the human race. It was by this doctrine the priest became first the rival, then the master of kings: it is by this dogma that nations are filled with enthusiasts inebriated with superstition, always more disposed to listen to its menaces, than to the counsels of reasons, to the orders of the sovereign, to the cries of Nature, or to the laws of society. Politics itself was enslaved to the caprice of the priest; the temporal monarch was obliged to bend under the yoke of the monarch of superstition; the one only disposed of this perishable world, the other extended his power into the world to come; much more important for man than the earth, on which he is only a pilgrim, a mere passenger. Thus the doctrine of another life placed the government itself in a state of dependance upon the priest; the monarch was nothing more than his first subject; he was never obeyed, but when the two were in accord. Nature in vain cried out to man, to be careful of his present happiness; the priest ordered him to be unhappy, in the expectation of future felicity; reason in vain exhorted him to be peaceable; the priest breathed forth fanaticism, fulminated fury, obliged him to disturb the public tranquillity, every time there was a question of the supposed interests of the invisible monarch of another life, and the real interests of his ministers in this.

It must be acknowledged that this belief has greatly benefited those who imposed superstitions on nations, simultaneously positioning themselves as the enforcers of those beliefs; it was the foundation of their power, the source of their wealth, and the ongoing cause of the blindness and fears they cultivated in humanity. Through this belief, the priest first became the rival and then the master of kings: it is this belief that filled nations with enthusiasts intoxicated by superstition, always more willing to heed its threats than the guidance of reason, the commands of the ruler, the calls of Nature, or the laws of society. Politics itself was controlled by the whims of the priest; the earthly ruler had to submit to the authority of the ruler of superstition; one had sway over this temporary world, while the other extended their power into the afterlife; far more significant for humans than the earth, where they are merely travelers, passing through. Thus, the belief in another life placed governance itself in a dependent position on the priest; the monarch was nothing more than his top subject; he was only obeyed when both were in agreement. Nature called out in vain to humanity, urging them to care for their present happiness; the priest commanded them to be unhappy, waiting for future bliss; reason urged them to be peaceful in vain; the priest incited fanaticism, unleashed rage, and compelled them to disrupt public peace whenever there was a question of the supposed interests of the invisible ruler of another life, and the real interests of his ministers in this one.

Such is the fruit that politics has gathered from the doctrine of a future life; the regions of the world to come have enabled the priesthood to conquer the present world. The expectation of celestial happiness, and the dread of future tortures, only served to prevent man from seeking after the means to render himself happy here below. Thus error, under whatever aspect it is considered, will never be more than a source of evil for mankind. The doctrine of another life, in presenting to mortals an ideal happiness, will render them enthusiasts; in overwhelming them with fears, it will make useless beings; generate cowards; form atrabilarious or furious men; who will lose sight of their present abode, to occupy themselves with the pictured regions of a world to come, with those dreadful evils which they must fear after their death.

This is the outcome of politics exploiting the idea of an afterlife; the promise of a future world has allowed religious leaders to dominate the present one. The hope of heavenly joy and the fear of future suffering only stop people from finding ways to be happy in this life. Thus, no matter how you look at it, misunderstanding will always be harmful to humanity. The belief in another life, by offering an ideal happiness, turns people into dreamers; by overwhelming them with fears, it makes them useless, breeds cowards, and creates melancholy or angry individuals who lose sight of their current lives, becoming obsessed with the imagined realms of an afterlife and the terrifying punishments that await them after death.

If it be insisted that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments is the most powerful curb to restrain the passions of man, we shall reply by calling in daily experience. If we only cast our eyes around, if for a moment we examine what passes in review before us, we shall see this assertion contradicted; we shall find that these marvellous speculations do not in any manner diminish the number of the wicked, because they are incapable of changing the temperament of man, of annihilating those passions which the vices of society engender in his heart. In those nations who appear the most thoroughly convinced of this future punishment, may be seen assassins, thieves, crafty knaves, oppressors, adulterers, voluptuaries; all these pretend they are firmly persuaded of the reality of an hereafter; yet in the whirlwind of dissipation, in the vortex of pleasure, in the fury of their passions, they no longer behold this formidable future existence, which in those moments has no kind of influence over their earthly conduct.

If it's argued that the belief in future rewards and punishments is the strongest way to control human passions, we can counter that with everyday experiences. Just by looking around and taking a moment to observe what's happening around us, we see this claim proven wrong; those grand ideas don't reduce the number of wrongdoers at all. They can't change human nature or eliminate the desires that society's vices stir in people's hearts. In societies that seem most convinced of future punishments, we find murderers, thieves, cunning tricksters, oppressors, adulterers, and pleasure-seekers; all of them claim to truly believe in an afterlife. Yet, in the chaos of indulgence, in the whirlwind of pleasure, and in the heat of their desires, they no longer recognize this daunting future existence, which has no impact on how they live their lives now.

In short, in many of those countries where the doctrine of another life is so firmly established, that each individual irritates himself against whoever may have the temerity to combat the opinion, or even to doubt it, we see that it is utterly incapable of impressing any thing on rulers who are unjust, who are negligent of the welfare of their people, who are, debauched, on courtezans who are lewd in their habits, on covetous misers, on flinty extortioners who fatten on the substance of a nation, on women without modesty, on a vast multitude of drunken, intemperate, vicious men, on great numbers even amongst those priests, whose function it is to preach this future state, who are paid to announce the vengeance of heaven, against vices which they themselves encourage by their example. If it be enquired of them, how they dare to give themselves up to such scandalous actions, which they ought to know are certain to draw upon them eternal punishment? They will reply, that the madness of their passions, the force of their habits, the contagion of example, or even the power of circumstances, have hurried them along; have made them forget the dreadful consequences in which their conduct is likely to involve them; besides, they will say, that the treasures of the divine mercy are infinite; that repentance suffices to efface the foulest transgressions; to cleanse the blackest guilt; to blot out the most enormous crimes: in this multitude of wretched beings, who each after his own manner desolates society with his criminal pursuits, you will find only a small number who are sufficiently intimidated by the fears of the miserable hereafter, to resist their evil propensities. What did I say? These propensities are in themselves too weak to carry them forward without the aid of the doctrine of another life; without this, the law and the fear of censure would have been motives sufficient to prevent them from rendering themselves criminal.

In short, in many countries where the belief in an afterlife is deeply rooted, individuals become frustrated with anyone who dares to challenge or even question this opinion. We see that it has no impact on rulers who are unjust, neglectful of their people, corrupt, promiscuous, greedy, or ruthless extortionists who thrive on the nation’s resources. It also doesn’t affect women lacking modesty, a huge number of drunken, reckless, or immoral men, or even many priests who are supposed to preach about this afterlife but instead set a bad example by indulging in the very vices they condemn. If you ask them how they justify their scandalous behavior, knowing it could lead to eternal punishment, they will say that their passions, habits, the influence of others, or even the circumstances have pushed them into it. They may claim that they forget the severe consequences of their actions because they believe in the infinite mercy of God, that repentance can erase even the worst sins, and that it’s possible to cleanse the deepest guilt and wipe away the most significant crimes. Among this multitude of lost souls, only a small fraction is truly scared of the potential misery in the afterlife enough to fight their bad impulses. What did I just say? These impulses are, in fact, too weak to propel them forward without the belief in an afterlife; without this, fear of the law and social disapproval would have been enough to stop them from becoming criminals.

It is indeed, fearful, timorous souls, upon whom the terrors of another life make a profound impression; human beings of this sort come into the world with moderate passions, are of a weakly organization, possess a cool imagination; it is not therefore surprising, that in such men, who are already restrained by their nature, the fear of future punishment counterbalances the weak efforts of their feeble passions; but it is by no means the same with those determined sinners, with those hardened criminals, with those men who are habitually vicious, whose unseemly excesses nothing can arrest, who in their violence shut their eyes to the fear of the laws of this world, despising still more those of the other. Nevertheless, how many persons say they are, and even believe themselves, restrained by the fears of the life to come? But, either they deceive us, or they impose upon themselves, by attributing to these fears, that which is only the effect of motives much nearer at hand; such as the feebleness of their machine, the mildness of their temperament, the slender energy of their souls, their natural timidity, the ideas imbibed in their education, the fear of consequences immediately resulting from criminal actions, the physical evils attendant on unbridled irregularities: these are the true motives that restrain them; not the notions of a future life: which men, who say they are most firmly persuaded of its existence, forget whenever a powerful interest solicits them to sin. If for a time man would pay attention to what passes before his eyes, he would perceive that he ascribes to the fear of the gods that which is in reality only the effect of peculiar weakness, of pusillanimity, of the small interest found to commit evil: these men would not act otherwise than they do, if they had not this fear before them; if, therefore he reflected, he would feel that it is always necessity that makes men act as they do.

It's truly those fearful, anxious souls who are deeply affected by the terrors of an afterlife; these individuals enter the world with moderate passions, have a delicate constitution, and a cool imagination. It’s no surprise that for these people, who are already naturally restrained, the fear of future punishment overpowers the weak efforts of their frail passions. However, this isn’t the case for determined sinners, hardened criminals, or those who are habitually vicious, whose outrageous behaviors nothing can stop. They ignore the fear of the laws of this world and even more so those of the next. Still, many claim to be, and even believe they are, held back by fears of the life to come. Either they’re deceiving us or fooling themselves, attributing to these fears what is really driven by more immediate motives—like their physical weakness, gentle temperament, limited energy, natural timidity, ideas instilled in their upbringing, fear of consequences from their criminal actions, and the physical harms that come from unchecked behavior. These are the real motives holding them back, not beliefs about a future life, which people who profess to strongly believe in tend to forget when a strong temptation leads them to sin. If a person could just pay attention to what is right in front of them, they would realize that they attribute to the fear of the gods what is actually just a result of unique weaknesses, cowardice, and the minimal interest in committing wrongs. These individuals would behave no differently if they weren’t afraid of these consequences; if they reflected on this, they would understand that it is necessity that drives people's actions.

Man cannot be restrained, when he does not find within himself motives sufficiently powerful to conduct him back to reason. There is nothing, either in this world or in the other, that can render him virtuous, when an untoward organization—a mind badly cultivated—a violent imagination—inveterate habits—fatal examples—powerful interests—invite him from every quarter to the commission of crime. No speculations are capable of restraining the man who braves public opinion, who despises the law, who is careless of its censure, who turns a deaf ear to the cries of conscience, whose power in this world places him out of the reach of punishment; in the violence of his transports, he will fear still less a distant futurity, of which the idea always recedes before that which he believes necessary to his immediate interests, consistent with his present happiness. All lively passions blind man to every thing that is not its immediate object; the terrors of a future life, of which his passions always possess the secret to diminish to him the probability, can effect nothing upon the wicked man, who does not fear even the much nearer punishment of the law; who sets at nought the assured hatred of those by whom he is surrounded. Man, when he delivers himself up to crime, sees nothing certain except the supposed advantage which attends it; the rest always appear to him either false or problematical.

A person can't be restrained when they don't have strong enough reasons within themselves to bring them back to reason. There’s nothing in this world or the next that can make them virtuous when they face a difficult mindset—a poorly trained mind—a wild imagination—deep-rooted habits—bad examples—strong interests—tempting them from all sides to commit crimes. No arguments can hold back someone who defies public opinion, who disregards the law, who doesn't care about its criticism, who ignores their conscience, and whose power in this world escapes them from punishment; in their emotional outbursts, they fear even less a distant future, which always seems less urgent compared to what they believe is necessary for their immediate gain, aligned with their current happiness. Strong passions blind a person to everything except their immediate desires; the fears of an afterlife, which their passions always find ways to downplay, have no effect on the wicked person, who doesn't even fear the much closer punishment of the law, who disregards the certain hatred of those around them. When someone gives in to crime, the only certainty they see is the supposed benefit that comes with it; everything else appears to them either false or uncertain.

If man would but open his eyes, even for a moment, he would clearly perceive, that to effect any thing upon hearts hardened by crime, he must not reckon upon the chastisement of an avenging Divinity, which the self-love natural to man always shews him as pacified in the long run. He who has arrived at persuading himself he cannot be happy without crime, will always readily deliver himself up to it, notwithstanding the menaces of religion. Whoever is sufficiently blind not to read his infamy in his own heart, to see his own vileness in the countenances of his associates, his own condemnation in the anger of his fellow-men, his own unworthiness in the indignation of the judges established to punish the offences he may commit: such a man, I say, will never feel the impression his crimes shall make on the features of a judge, that is either hidden from his view, or that he only contemplates at a distance. The tyrant who with dry eyes can hear the cries of the distressed, who with callous heart can behold the tears of a whole people, of whose misery he is the cause, will not see the angry countenance of a more powerful master: like another Menippus, he may indeed destroy himself from desperation, to avoid reiterated reproach; which only proves, that when a haughty, arrogant despot pretends to be accountable for his actions to the Divinity alone, it is because he fears his nation more than he does his God.

If people would just open their eyes, even for a moment, they would clearly see that to change the hearts hardened by wrongdoing, they can't count on the punishment from a vengeful God, which human self-love always allows them to believe is eventually appeased. Anyone who convinces themselves that they can't be happy without committing crimes will always easily give in to that temptation, regardless of the threats from religion. Those who are blind enough not to recognize their own shame in their hearts, not to see their own wickedness in the faces of their peers, not to acknowledge their own condemnation in the anger of others, and not to perceive their own unworthiness in the outrage of judges set to punish their offenses: such a person will never feel the impact their crimes have on a judge's demeanor, whether that judge is out of sight or just observed from a distance. The tyrant who can listen to the cries of the suffering without shedding a tear, who can witness the tears of an entire people, whose suffering he causes, will not notice the wrath of a more powerful ruler: like another Menippus, he might indeed end his own life out of despair to escape constant reproach; this only shows that when an arrogant despot claims he answers only to God, it’s because he fears his own people more than he fears God.

On the other hand, does not superstition itself, does not even religion, annihilate the effects of those fears which it announces as salutary? Does it not furnish its disciples with the means of extricating themselves from the punishments with which it has so frequently menaced them? Does it not tell them, that a steril repentance will, even at the moment of death, disarm the celestial wrath; that it will purify the filthy souls of sinners? Do not even the priests, in some superstitions, arrogate to themselves the right of remitting to the dying the punishment due to the crimes committed during the course of a disorderly life? In short, do not the most perverse men, encouraged in iniquity, countenanced in debauchery, upheld in crime, reckon, even to the last moment, either upon the assistance of superstition, or upon the aid of religion, that promises them the infallible means of reconciling themselves to the Divinity, whom they have irritated; of avoiding the rigorous punishments pronounced against their enormities?

On the other hand, doesn't superstition itself, and even religion, eliminate the effects of the fears it claims are beneficial? Doesn't it provide its followers with ways to escape the punishments it often threatens them with? Doesn't it suggest that a hollow repentance can, even at the moment of death, calm divine anger and cleanse the sinful souls of wrongdoers? Don't even the priests, in some superstitions, claim the right to relieve the dying of the punishment due for the sins they've committed throughout their chaotic lives? In short, don't the most immoral individuals, encouraged in their wrongdoing, supported in their excesses, and upheld in their crimes, still rely, even at the last moment, on the help of superstition or the assistance of religion, which promises them a guaranteed way to make peace with the Divinity they have angered and to escape the harsh punishments declared against their offenses?

In consequence of these notions, so favourable to the wicked, so suitable to tranquillize their fears, we see that the hope of an easy expiation, far from correcting man, engages him to persist, until death, in the most crying disorders. Indeed, in despite of the numberless advantages which he is assured flows from the doctrine of a life to come, in defiance of its pretended efficacy to repress the passions of men, do not the priests themselves, although so interested in the maintenance of this system, every day complain of its insufficiency? They acknowledge, that mortals, who from their infancy they have imbued with these ideas, are not less hurried forward by their evil propensities—less sunk in the vortex of dissipation—less the slaves to their pleasures—less captivated by bad habits—less driven along by the torrent of the world—less seduced by their present interest—which make them forget equally the recompense and the chastisement of a future existence. In a word, the interpreters of superstition, the ministers of religion themselves, allow that their disciples, for the greater part, conduct themselves in this world as if they had nothing either to hope or fear in another.

Because of these ideas that support the wicked and help calm their fears, we see that the hope for an easy way to make things right, rather than correcting people, actually encourages them to continue in their bad behavior until death. Even with the countless benefits they claim come from the belief in an afterlife, and despite its supposed power to control human passions, don’t the priests—who have a lot at stake in keeping this belief alive—complain every day about its weaknesses? They admit that people, raised with these beliefs from childhood, are still driven by their bad inclinations—still caught up in a cycle of excess—still enslaved by their pleasures—still trapped by bad habits—still swept away by the pressures of the world—still swayed by their immediate interests, which lead them to forget both the rewards and punishments of an afterlife. In short, the very agents of superstition, the ministers of religion, themselves recognize that most of their followers behave in this world as if they have nothing to expect or fear in the next.

In short, let it be supposed for a moment, that the doctrine of eternal punishments was of some utility; that it really restrained a small number of individuals; what are these feeble advantages compared to the numberless evils that flow from it? Against one timid man whom this idea restrains, there are thousands upon whom it operates nothing; there are thousands whom it makes irrational; whom it renders savage persecutors; whom it converts into fanatics; there are thousands whose mind it disturbs; whom it diverts from their duties towards society; there are an infinity whom it grievously afflicts, whom it troubles without producing any real good for their associates.

In short, let’s assume for a moment that the idea of eternal punishment is somewhat useful; that it actually keeps a small number of people in check. What are these minor benefits compared to the countless problems that arise from it? For every timid person restrained by this belief, there are thousands who aren’t affected at all; thousands who become irrational; who turn into ruthless persecutors; who transform into fanatics; there are thousands whose minds are troubled; who are distracted from their responsibilities to society; and there’s an infinite number who suffer greatly, who are troubled without bringing any real benefit to those around them.

Notwithstanding so many are inclined to consider those who do not fall in with this doctrine as the enemies of society; it will be found on examination that the wisest the most enlightened men of antiquity, as well as many of the moderns, have believed not only that the soul is material and perishes with the body, but also that they have attacked without subterfuge the opinion of future everlasting punishments; it will also be found that many of the systems, set up to establish the immortality of the soul, are in themselves the best evidence that can be adduced of the futility of this doctrine; if for a moment we only follow up the natural the just inferences that are to be drawn from them. This sentiment was far from being, as some have supposed, peculiar to the Epicureans, it has been adopted by philosophers of all sects, by Pythagoreans, by Stoics, by Peripatetics, by Academics; in short by the most godly the most virtuous men of Greece and of Rome.

Even though many tend to see those who don't agree with this belief as threats to society, a closer look reveals that some of the smartest and most enlightened thinkers from ancient times, as well as many modern ones, have not only believed that the soul is material and dies with the body, but they've also directly challenged the idea of everlasting punishments after death. It's also evident that many arguments made to support the immortality of the soul actually serve as strong evidence against this belief if we simply follow the logical conclusions from them. This view was not, as some have thought, limited to the Epicureans; it has been embraced by philosophers from all different schools of thought, including Pythagoreans, Stoics, Peripatetics, and Academics, in short, by the most devout and virtuous figures in Greece and Rome.

Pythagoras, according to Ovid, speaks strongly to the fact. Timaeus of Locris, who was a Pythagorean, admits that the doctrine of future punishments was fabulous, solely destined for the imbecility of the uninformed; but little calculated for those who cultivate their reason.

Pythagoras, as Ovid states, makes a strong case for this. Timaeus of Locris, a follower of Pythagoras, acknowledges that the idea of future punishments is just a myth, meant only for the ignorance of the uninformed; but it hardly applies to those who use their reason.

Aristotle expressly says, that "man has neither good to hope nor evil to fear after death."

Aristotle clearly states that "a person has neither good to hope for nor evil to fear after death."

Zeno, according to Cicero, supposed the soul to be an igneous substance, from whence he concluded it destroyed itself.

Zeno, according to Cicero, thought the soul was a fiery substance, which led him to conclude that it could destroy itself.

Cicero, the philosophical orator, who was of the sect of Academics, although he is not on all occasions, in accord with himself, treats openly as fables the torments of Hell; and looks upon death as the end of every thing for man.

Cicero, the philosophical speaker, who belonged to the Academic school, although he doesn’t always agree with himself, openly treats the torments of Hell as fables and views death as the end of everything for humans.

Seneca, the philosopher, is filled with passages which contemplate death as a state of total annihilation, particularly in speaking of it to his brother: and nothing can be more decisive of his holding this opinion, than what he writes to Marcia, to console him.

Seneca, the philosopher, includes many passages that think about death as a complete end, especially when discussing it with his brother: and nothing confirms his belief in this view more than what he writes to Marcia to comfort her.

Seneca, the tragedian, explains himself in the same manner as the philosopher.

Seneca, the playwright, explains himself the same way as the philosopher.

The Platonists, who made the soul immortal, could not have an idea of future punishments, because the soul according to them was a portion of the divinity which after the dissolution of the body it returned to rejoin.

The Platonists, who believed the soul was immortal, could not envision future punishments, because they thought the soul was a part of divinity that returned to it after the body dissolved.

Epictetus has the same idea. In a passage reported by Arrian, he says, "but where are you going? It cannot be to a place of suffering: you will only return to the place from whence you came; you are about to be again peaceably associated with the elements from which you are derived. That which in your composition, is of the nature of fire, will return to the element of fire; that which is of the nature of earth, will rejoin itself to the earth; that which is air, will re-unite itself with air; that which is water, will resolve itself into water; there is no Hell, no Acheron, no Cocytus, no Phlegethon."

Epictetus shares the same thought. In a passage noted by Arrian, he says, "But where are you headed? It can't be to a place of suffering: you'll only go back to the source from which you came; you are about to be peacefully connected with the elements that make you up. What is made of fire will return to fire; what is made of earth will go back to the earth; what is air will rejoin the air; what is water will become water again; there is no Hell, no Acheron, no Cocytus, no Phlegethon."

In another place he says, "the hour of death approaches; but do not aggravate your evil, nor render things worse than they are: represent them to yourself under their true point of view. The time is come when the materials of which you are composed, go to resolve themselves into the elements from whence they were originally borrowed. What is there that is terrible or grievous in that? Is there any thing in the world that perishes totally?"

In another place he says, "the hour of death is near; but don't make your situation worse than it is: see things as they truly are. The time has come when your body will break down into the elements it originally came from. What’s so terrible or hard about that? Is there anything in the world that completely disappears?"

The sage and pious Antoninus says, "he who fears death, either fears to be deprived of all feeling, or dreads to experience different sensations. If you lose all feeling, you will no longer be subject either to pain or to misery. If you are provided with other senses of a different nature, you will become a creature of a different species." This great emperor further says, "that we must expect death with tranquillity, seeing, that it is only a dissolution of the elements of which each animal is composed."

The wise and devout Antoninus says, "If someone fears death, they either fear losing all feeling or worry about experiencing different sensations. If you lose all feeling, you won't have to endure pain or suffering. If you gain new senses of a different kind, you will become a different being." This great emperor also says, "We should face death calmly since it’s just a breakdown of the elements that make up every living creature."

To the evidence of so many great men of Pagan antiquity, may be joined, that of the author of Ecclesiastes, who speaks of death, and of the condition of the human soul, like an epicurean; he says, "for that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." And further, "wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him."

To the evidence of so many great men from Pagan antiquity, we can also add the perspective of the author of Ecclesiastes, who talks about death and the state of the human soul, much like an epicurean; he says, "what happens to the sons of men happens to animals; the same fate awaits them: as one dies, so does the other; they all breathe the same breath: a person has no advantage over an animal; everything is meaningless. They all go to the same place; they all come from the dust, and they all return to dust." He also says, "therefore, I see that there's nothing better for a person than to enjoy their own work; for that is their share: who can bring them to see what comes after them?"

In short, how can the utility or the necessity of this doctrine be reconciled with the fact, that the great legislator of the Jews; who is supposed to have been inspired by the Divinity, should have remained silent on a subject, that is said to be of so much importance? In the third chapter of Genesis it, is said, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

In short, how can we reconcile the usefulness or necessity of this doctrine with the fact that the great legislator of the Jews, who is believed to have been inspired by God, remained silent on such an important subject? In the third chapter of Genesis, it says, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return."










CHAP. XIV.

Education, Morals, and the Laws suffice to restrain Man.—Of the desire of Immortality.—Of Suicide.

Education, morals, and the law are enough to keep people in check. — About the desire for immortality. — About suicide.

It is not then in an ideal world, existing no where perhaps, but in the imagination of man, that he must seek to collect motives calculated to make him act properly in this; it is in the visible world that will be found incitements to divert him from crime; to rouse him to virtue. It is in Nature,—in experience,—in truth, that he must search out remedies for the evils of his species; for motives suitable to infuse into the human heart, propensities truely useful to society; calculated to promote its advantage; to conduce to the end for which it was designed.

It’s not in some ideal world that might not exist anywhere, but rather in the imagination of people, that one should try to gather motives that encourage proper behavior; it’s in the real world that we find reasons to steer us away from crime and inspire us towards virtue. It’s in Nature—in our experiences—in reality that we should look for solutions to the problems faced by humanity; for motives that truly benefit society; that are meant to enhance its well-being; to help achieve the purpose for which it was created.

If attention has been paid to what has been said In the course of this work, it will be seen that above all it is education that will best furnish the true means of rectifying the errors, of recalling the wanderings of mankind. It is this that should scatter the Seeds in his heart; cultivate the tender shoots; make a profitable use of his dispositions; turn to account those faculties, which depend on his organization: which should cherish the fire of his imagination, kindle it for useful objects; damp it, or extinguish it for others; in short, it is this which should make sensible souls contract habits which are advantageous for society and beneficial to the individual. Brought up in this manner, man would not have occasion for celestial punishments, to teach him the value of virtue; he would not need to behold burning gulphs of brimstone under his feet, to induce him to feel horror for crime; Nature without these fables, would teach much better what he owes to himself; the law would point out what he owes to the body politic, of which he is a member. It is thus, that education grounded upon utility, would form valuable citizens to the state; the depositaries of power would distinguish those whom education should have thus formed, by reason of the advantages which they would procure for their country; they would punish those who should be found injurious to it; it would make the citizens see, that the promises of reward which education held forth, the punishments denounced by morals, are by no means vain; that in a state well constituted, virtue is the true, the only road to happiness; talents the way to gain respect; that inutility conducts to misfortune: that crime leads to contempt.

If you've been paying attention to what’s been said throughout this work, it will be clear that above all, it's education that provides the real means to correct mistakes and bring back humanity from its wayward paths. Education should plant seeds in people's hearts, nurture their early potential, make good use of their natural inclinations, and develop their abilities based on who they are. It should encourage their imagination, ignite it for worthwhile purposes and dampen or extinguish it for others; in short, education should help individuals develop habits that benefit society and themselves. Raised this way, a person wouldn’t need divine punishment to understand the value of virtue; they wouldn’t need to see fiery pits of brimstone beneath them to feel horror for wrongdoing. Nature, without these tales, would teach them better what they owe to themselves; the law would clarify what they owe to the community they belong to. This is how education based on practical benefits would create valuable citizens for the state; those in power would recognize individuals shaped by education because of the advantages they would bring to their country; they would punish anyone found to be harmful to it. Citizens would understand that the rewards promised by education and the punishments outlined by morals are not empty threats; that in a well-functioning state, virtue is the true, the only path to happiness; talents lead to respect; uselessness leads to misfortune; and crime results in contempt.

A just, enlightened, virtuous, and vigilant government, who should honestly propose the public good, would have no occasion either for fables or for falsehoods, to govern reasonable subjects; it would blush to make use of imposture, to deceive its citizens; who, instructed in their duties, would find their interest in submitting to equitable laws; who would be capable of feeling the benefit these have the power of conferring on them; it would feel, that habit is sufficient to inspire them with horror, even for those concealed crimes that escape the eyes of society; it would understand that the visible punishments of this world impose much more on the generality of men, than those of an uncertain and distant futurity: in short, it would ascertain that the sensible benefits within the compass of the sovereign power to distribute, touch the imagination of mortals more keenly, than those vague recompences which are held forth to them in a future existence: above all, it would discover that those on whom these distant advantages do operate, would be still more attached to virtue by receiving their reward both here and hereafter.

A fair, knowledgeable, moral, and watchful government, which truly aims for the public good, wouldn’t need to use myths or lies to lead reasonable people; it would be embarrassed to resort to deception to mislead its citizens. Those citizens, aware of their responsibilities, would see their benefit in following fair laws and would recognize the advantages those laws can provide. It would realize that the habit of wrongdoing would create a strong aversion to hidden crimes that society overlooks. It would understand that the visible punishments of this world have a much greater impact on most people than the uncertain punishments of an afterlife. In short, it would recognize that the tangible benefits within the ruler's power to offer affect people’s minds more intensely than the vague rewards promised in the future. Most importantly, it would find that those who are influenced by these distant rewards would be even more committed to virtue by receiving their benefits both now and later.

Man is almost every where so wicked, so corrupt, so rebellious to reason, only because he is not governed according to his Nature, nor properly instructed in her necessary laws: he is almost in every climate fed with superstitious chimeras; submitted to masters who neglect his instruction or who seek to deceive him. On the face of this globe, may be frequently witnessed unjust sovereigns, who, enervated by luxury, corrupted by flattery, depraved by licentiousness, made wicked by impunity, devoid of talents, without morals, destitute of virtue, are incapable of exerting any energy for the benefit of the states they govern; they are consequently but little occupied with the welfare of their people; indifferent to their duties; of which indeed they are often ignorant. Such governors suffer their whole attention to be absorbed by frivolous amusement; stimulated by the desire of continually finding means to feed their insatiable ambition they engage in useless depopulating wars; and never occupy their mind with those objects which are the most important to the happiness of their nation: yet these weak men feel interested in maintaining the received prejudices, and visit with severity those who consider the means of curing them: in short themselves deprived of that understanding, which teaches man that it is his interest to be kind, just, and virtuous; they ordinarily reward only those crimes which their imbecility makes them imagine as useful to them; they generally punish those virtues which are opposed to their own imprudent passions, but which reason would point out as truly beneficial to their interests. Under such masters is it surprising that society should be ravaged; that weak beings should be willing to imitate them; that perverse men should emulate each other in oppressing its members; in sacrificing its dearest interests; in despoiling its happiness? The state of society in such countries, is a state of hostility of the sovereign against the whole, of each of its members the one against the other. Man is wicked, not because he is born so, but because he is rendered so; the great, the powerful, crush with impunity the indigent and the unhappy; these, at the risk of their lives seek to retaliate, to render back the evil they have received: they attack either openly or in secret a country, who to them is a step-mother, who gives all to some of her children, and deprives the others of every thing: they punish it for its partiality, and clearly shew that the motives borrowed from a life hereafter are impotent against the fury of those passions to which a corrupt administration has given birth; that the terror of the punishments in this world are too feeble against necessity; against criminal habits; against dangerous organization uncorrected by education.

Man is pretty much everywhere so wicked, so corrupt, and so rebellious against reason, mainly because he isn’t governed according to his true nature and isn’t properly taught the essential laws that come with it. In almost every region, he is fed superstitious nonsense and is under the control of leaders who either ignore his education or aim to deceive him. Across this globe, we often see unjust rulers who, weakened by luxury, corrupted by flattery, degraded by excess, made evil by their unchecked power, lacking in skills, morals, and virtue, are incapable of taking any action for the benefit of the states they control. As a result, they care very little about the well-being of their people, neglecting their responsibilities, of which they are often completely unaware. These leaders allow their attention to be consumed by trivial entertainment; driven by a desire to constantly find ways to satisfy their insatiable ambition, they engage in pointless wars that depopulate their lands, never focusing on what truly matters for their nation’s happiness. Yet these weak individuals feel compelled to uphold existing prejudices and harshly punish those who seek to challenge them. In short, deprived of the understanding that teaches people to be kind, fair, and virtuous, they typically reward only those actions they mistakenly believe serve their interests and punish the virtues that contradict their reckless desires, even if those virtues would genuinely benefit their goals. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that society becomes a battleground; that weak individuals are eager to imitate them; that corrupt individuals compete with each other to oppress their fellow members; to sacrifice what is most precious; to destroy happiness? The state of society in these countries is characterized by a conflict in which the ruler is hostile towards everyone and each individual is at odds with one another. Man is not wicked because he is born that way, but because he is made so; the powerful crush the needy and the unfortunate without any consequences. These victims, risking their lives, seek to retaliate and give back the harm they have received: they attack either openly or secretly a land that treats them like an unloving stepmother, giving everything to some of her children while leaving the rest with nothing: they punish her for her favoritism and clearly demonstrate that the motivations drawn from an afterlife are powerless against the rage of passions ignited by a corrupt system; that the fear of punishments in this world is too weak against urgent needs; against criminal behaviors; against harmful structures not corrected by education.

In many countries the morals of the people are neglected; the government is occupied only with rendering them timid; with making them miserable. Man is almost every where a slave; it must then follow of necessity, that he is base, interested, dissimulating, without honour, in a word that he has the vices of the state of which he is a citizen. Almost every where he is deceived; encouraged in ignorance; prevented from cultivating his reason; of course he must be stupid, irrational, and wicked almost every where he sees vice applauded, and crime honoured; thence he concludes vice to be a good; virtue, only a useless sacrifice of himself: almost every where he is miserable, therefore he injures his fellow-men in a fruitless attempt to relieve his own anguish: it is in vain to shew him heaven in order to restrain him; his views presently descend again to earth; he is willing to be happy at any price; therefore, the laws which have neither provided for his instruction, for his morals, nor his happiness, menace him uselessly; he plunges on in his pursuits, and these ultimately punish him, for the unjust negligence of his legislators. If politics more enlightened, did seriously occupy itself with the instruction, with the welfare of the people; if laws were more equitable; if each society, less partial, bestowed on its members the care, the education, and the assistance which they have a right to expect; if governments less covetous, and more vigilant, were sedulous to render their subjects more happy, there would not be seen such numbers of malefactors, of robbers, of murderers, who every where infest society; they would not be obliged to destroy life, in order to punish wickedness; which is commonly ascribable to the vices of their own institutions: it would be unnecessary to seek in another life for fanciful chimeras, which always prove abortive against the infuriate passions; against the real wants of man. In short, if the people were instructed, they would be more happy; politics would no longer be reduced to the exigency of deceiving them, in order to restrain them; nor to destroy so many unfortunates, for having procured necessaries, at the expence of their hard-hearted fellow-citizens.

In many countries, people's morals are ignored; the government focuses only on making them fearful and unhappy. People are almost everywhere like slaves, which means they become dishonest, selfish, deceitful, and lacking in honor—they carry the vices of their society. Almost everywhere, they are misled; they are kept in ignorance and prevented from developing their minds, so it's no surprise they become stupid, irrational, and wicked. They often see vice celebrated and crime admired; from this, they conclude that vice is good and virtue is just a pointless sacrifice. Almost everywhere, they are miserable, leading them to harm others in a hopeless attempt to ease their own suffering. It's pointless to show them heaven to keep them in line; their thoughts quickly return to earthly concerns. They are willing to be happy at any cost; therefore, the laws that fail to provide for their education, morals, or happiness threaten them in vain. They continue their pursuits, which ultimately punish them for the careless neglect of their lawmakers. If politics were more enlightened and genuinely focused on educating and improving people's lives; if laws were fairer; if each community treated its members with the care, education, and assistance they deserve; if governments were less greedy and more watchful in making their citizens happier, there wouldn't be so many criminals, robbers, and murderers plaguing society. They wouldn’t have to take lives to punish wrongdoing, often caused by the flaws in their own systems. It wouldn’t be necessary to look for imaginary hopes in the afterlife that always fall short against people's intense passions and real needs. In short, if people were educated, they would be happier; politics would no longer have to deceive them to control them, nor would it have to condemn so many unfortunate souls for trying to secure their basic needs at the expense of their cold-hearted fellow citizens.

When it shall be desired to enlighten man, let him always have truth laid before him. Instead of kindling his imagination by the idea of those punishments that a future state has in reserve for him, let him be solaced—let him be succoured; or, at least, let him be permitted to enjoy the fruit of his labour—let not his substance be ravished from him by cruel imposts—let him not be discouraged from work, by finding all his labour inadequate to support his existence; let him not be driven into that idleness, that will surely lead him on to crime: let him consider his present existence, without carrying his views to that which may attend him after his death; let his industry be excited—let his talents be rewarded—let him be rendered active, laborious, beneficent, and virtuous, in the world he inhabits; let it be shewn to him, that his actions are capable of having an influence over his fellow-men. Let him not be menaced with the tortures of a future existence when he shall be no more; let him behold society armed against those who disturb its repose; let him see the consequence of the hatred of his associates; let him learn to feel the value of their affection; let him be taught to esteem himself; let him understand, that to obtain it, he must have virtue; above all, that the virtuous man in society has nothing to fear, but every thing to hope.

When someone wants to enlighten a person, they should always present the truth to him. Instead of sparking his imagination with thoughts of the punishments awaiting him in the afterlife, he should be comforted—he should be helped; or at the very least, he should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor—his resources shouldn't be taken away by harsh taxes—he shouldn't be discouraged from working because it feels like all his effort is just enough to survive; he shouldn't be pushed into idleness, which could lead to crime. He should be encouraged to focus on his current life without worrying about what might happen after death; his hard work should be stimulated—his talents should be recognized—he should be motivated, hardworking, generous, and good in the world he lives in; he should see that his actions can influence others. He shouldn't be threatened with the torture of an afterlife when he’s gone; he should witness society standing against those who disrupt its peace; he should understand the consequences of his friends’ hatred; he should learn to appreciate their love; he should be taught to value himself; he should realize that to gain it, he must have virtue; and most importantly, that a virtuous person in society has nothing to fear and everything to hope for.

If it be desired to form honest, courageous, industrious citizens, who may be useful to their country, let them beware of inspiring man from his infancy with an ill-founded dread of death; of amusing his imagination with marvellous fables; of occupying his mind with his destiny in a future life, quite useless to be known, which has nothing in common with his real felicity. Let them speak of immortality to intrepid, noble souls; let them shew it as the price of their labours to energetic minds, who are solely occupied with virtue; who springing forward beyond the boundaries of their actual existence—who, little satisfied with eliciting the admiration, with gaining the love of their contemporaries, are will also to wrest the homage, to secure the affection of future races. Indeed, this is an immortality to which genius, talents, above all virtue, has a just right to pretend; do not therefore let them censure—do not let them endeavour to stifle so noble a passion in man; which is founded upon his nature; which is so calculated to render him happy; from which society gather the most advantageous fruits.

If we want to create honest, brave, hard-working citizens who can contribute to their country, we should avoid filling people's minds from an early age with a baseless fear of death; entertaining them with fantastic tales; or preoccupying them with concerns about an unknown afterlife, which does nothing for their actual happiness. Let's talk about immortality to bold, noble souls and show it as the reward for their efforts to those driven individuals who focus solely on virtue; those who aspire beyond their current existence—who want more than just admiration or love from their peers but also seek respect and affection from future generations. Indeed, this is the kind of immortality that genius, talent, and especially virtue rightly deserve; so let’s not criticize or try to suppress such a noble passion in people, as it is inherent to their nature and contributes to their happiness, while bringing society invaluable benefits.

The idea of being buried in total oblivion, of having nothing in common after his death with the beings of his species; of losing all possibility of again having any influence over them, is a thought extremely painful to man; it is above all afflicting to those who possess an ardent imagination. The desire of immortality, or of living in the memory of his fellow men, was always the passion of great souls; it was the motive to the actions of all those who have played a great part on the earth. Heroes whether virtuous or criminal, philosophers as well as conquerors, men of genius and men of talents, those sublime personages who have done honor to their species, as well as those illustrious villains who have debased and ravaged it, have had an eye to posterity in all their enterprises; have flattered themselves with the hope of acting upon the souls of men, even when they themselves should no longer exist. If man in general does not carry his views so far, he is at least sensible to the idea of seeing himself regenerated in his children; whom he knows are destined to survive him; to transmit his name; to preserve his memory; to represent him in society; it is for them that he rebuilds his cottage; it is for them that he plants the tree which his eyes will never behold in its vigour; it is that they may be happy that he labours. The sorrow which embitters the life of those rich men, frequently so useless to the world, when they have lost the hope of continuing their race, has its source in the fear of being entirely forgotten: they feel that the useless man dies entirely. The idea that his name will be in the mouths of men, the thought that it will be pronounced with tenderness, that it will be recollected with kindness, that it will excite in their hearts favourable sentiments, is an illusion that is useful; is a vision suitable to flatter even those who know that nothing will result from it. Man pleases himself with dreaming that he shall have power, that he shall pass for something in the universe, even after the term of his human existence; he partakes by imagination in the projects, in the actions, in the discussions of future ages, and would be extremely unhappy if he believed himself entirely excluded from their society. The laws in all countries have entered into these views; they have so far been willing to console their citizens for the necessity of dying, by giving them the means of exercising their will, even for a long time after their death: this condescension goes to that length, that the dead frequently regulate the condition of the living during a long series of years.

The idea of being buried in complete oblivion, of having nothing in common with humanity after death, and losing all chance to influence them again is a thought that is extremely painful for people; it's especially distressing for those who have a vivid imagination. The desire for immortality, or the hope of living on in the memory of others, has always been a passion for great minds; it has driven the actions of everyone who has made a significant impact on the earth. Heroes, whether they are virtuous or villainous, philosophers as well as conquerors, geniuses and talented individuals, those remarkable figures who have brought honor to their species, along with the notorious villains who have degraded and ravaged it, have always kept an eye on how they will be remembered; they have consoled themselves with the hope of influencing people’s souls, even when they themselves no longer exist. While not everyone thinks this far ahead, most people still feel a sense of pride in seeing themselves continue through their children; they know their kids will outlive them, carry on their name, preserve their memory, and represent them in society. It's for them that they build their homes and plant trees they won’t see grow; it’s for their happiness that they work hard. The sadness that taints the lives of wealthy individuals, who are often so unproductive for the world, when they lose hope of continuing their lineage, stems from the fear of being completely forgotten: they realize that a useless person dies without a trace. The thought that their name will be spoken by others, that it will be said with affection, remembered kindly, and will stir positive feelings in people’s hearts is a comforting illusion; it flatters even those who know it won’t make a real difference. People enjoy imagining they will have power, that they will mean something in the universe, even after their human life ends; they engage in the ambitions, actions, and discussions of future generations in their minds and would be very unhappy if they believed they would be entirely excluded from that society. Laws in every country have embraced these ideas; they have tried to comfort citizens about the inevitability of death by allowing them to exert their will long after they're gone: this concession is so generous that the deceased often influence the lives of the living for many years to come.

Every thing serves to prove the desire in man of surviving himself. Pyramids, mausoleums, monuments, epitaphs, all shew that he is willing to prolong his existence even beyond his decease. He, is not insensible to the judgment of posterity; it is for him the philosopher writes; it is to astonish him that the monarch erects sumptuous edifices, gorgeous palaces; it is his praises, it is his commendations, that the great man already hears echo in his ears; it is to him that the virtuous citizen appeals from unjust laws; from prejudiced contemporaries—happy chimera! generous illusion! mild vision! its power is so consoling, so bland, that it realizes itself to ardent imaginations; it is calculated to give birth, to sustain, to nurture, to mature enthusiasm of genius, constancy of courage, grandeur of soul, transcendency of talent; its force is so gentle, its influence so pleasing, that it is sometimes able to repress the vices, to restrain the excesses of the most powerful men; who are, as experience has shewn, frequently very much disquieted for the judgment of their posterity; from a conviction that this will sooner or later avenge the living of the foul injustice which they may be inclined to make them suffer.

Everything serves to prove the desire in humans to outlive themselves. Pyramids, mausoleums, monuments, epitaphs, all show that people are eager to extend their existence even after they die. They are not indifferent to how future generations will judge them; it is for them that philosophers write; it is to impress them that rulers build lavish structures and beautiful palaces. It is their praises and commendations that great individuals hear echoing in their minds. It is to them that the virtuous citizen appeals against unfair laws and biased contemporaries—such a happy fantasy! Such a generous illusion! Such a gentle vision! Its power is so comforting, so sweet, that it feels real to passionate imaginations; it has the ability to inspire, sustain, nurture, and develop enthusiasm for genius, steadfastness of courage, greatness of spirit, and exceptional talent. Its influence is so gentle, its effect so pleasant, that it can sometimes curb the vices and control the excesses of even the most powerful people, who, as experience has shown, are often very concerned about how they will be judged by future generations, believing that this judgment will eventually correct the injustices they might inflict on the living.

No man, therefore, can consent to be entirely effaced from the remembrance of his fellows; some men have not the temerity to place themselves above the judgment of the future human species, to degrade themselves in his eyes. Where is the being who is insensible to the pleasure of exciting the tears of those who shall survive him; of again acting upon their souls; of once more occupying their thoughts; of exercising upon them his power even from the bottom of his grave? Let then eternal silence be imposed upon those superstitious beings, upon those melancholy men, upon those furious bigots, who censure a sentiment from which society derives so many real advantages; let not mankind listen to those passionless philosophers who are willing to smother this great, this noble spring of his soul; let him not be seduced by the sarcasms of those voluptuaries, who pretend to despise an immortality, towards which they lack the power to set forward; the desire of pleasing posterity, of rendering his name agreeable to generations yet to come, is a respectable, a laudable motive, when it causes him to undertake those things, of which the utility may be felt, of which the advantages may have an influence not only over his contemporaries, but also over nations who have not yet an existence. Let him not treat as irrational, the enthusiasm of those beneficent beings, of those mighty geniuses, of those stupendous talents, whose keen, whose penetrating regards, have foreseen him even in their day; who have occupied themselves for him; for his welfare; for his happiness; who have desired his suffrage; who have written for him; who have enriched him by their discoveries; who have cured him of some of his errors. Let him render them the homage which they have expected at his hands; let him, at least, reverence their memory for the benefits he has derived from them; let him treat their mouldering remains with respect, for the pleasure he receives from their labours; let him pay to their ashes a tribute of grateful recollection, for the happiness they have been sedulous to procure for him. Let him sprinkle with his tears, let him hallow with his remembrance, let him consecrate with his finest sensibilities, the urns of Socrates, of Phocion; of Archimedes; of Anaxarchus; let him wash out the stain that their punishment has made on the human species; let him expiate by his regret the Athenian ingratitude, the savage barbarity of Nicocreon; let him learn by their example to dread superstitious fanaticism; to hold political intolerance in abhorrence; let him fear to harrass merit; let him be cautious how he insults virtue, in persecuting those who may happen to differ from him in his prejudices.

No one can truly agree to be completely forgotten by others; some people don't have the audacity to see themselves as above the judgment of future generations or to lower themselves in their eyes. Who can be indifferent to the pleasure of stirring the emotions of those who will live on after them, to once again impact their souls, to be in their thoughts, exerting influence even from beyond the grave? Let eternal silence fall upon those superstitious people, those gloomy individuals, those angry bigots, who criticize a feeling from which society gains so much; let humanity not heed those unemotional philosophers who want to stifle this great and noble driving force of the human spirit; let them not be swayed by the sarcasm of those pleasure-seekers who pretend to scorn a form of immortality they can't achieve; the wish to please future generations and to make their name cherished by those to come is a noble and commendable motivation, especially when it prompts actions with benefits felt not just by their peers but also by future nations that haven't even come into existence yet. Let them not dismiss as irrational the enthusiasm of those kind souls, those great minds, those extraordinary talents, whose sharp insights have anticipated his existence even in their lifetime; who have devoted themselves to him, his welfare, his happiness; who have sought his approval; who have written for him; who have enriched his life through their discoveries; who have corrected some of his mistakes. Let him honor them as they expected from him; let him at least hold their memories in reverence for the good he's gained from them; let him treat their decaying remains with respect for the joy derived from their work; let him offer a tribute of gratitude to their ashes for the happiness they've worked so hard to provide for him. Let him sprinkle them with his tears, honor them with his remembrance, consecrate them with his deepest feelings, the urns of Socrates, Phocion, Archimedes, Anaxarchus; let him wash away the mark that their punishment has left on humanity; let him atone for the ingratitude of Athens and the cruel barbarity of Nicocreon with his sorrow; let him learn from their example to fear superstitious fanaticism, to detest political intolerance; let him be wary of harassing those with talent; let him be mindful of how he insults virtue by persecuting those who may differ from him in their beliefs.

Let him strew flowers over the tombs of an Homer—of a Tasso—of a Shakespeare—of a Milton—of a Goldsmith; let him revere the immortal shades of those happy geniuses, whose songs yet vibrate on his ears; whose harmonious lays excite in his soul the most tender sentiments; let him bless the memory of all those benefactors to the people, who were the delight of the human race; let him adore the virtues Of a Titus—of a Trajan—of an Antoninus—of a Julian: let him merit in his sphere, the eulogies of future ages; let him always remember, that to carry with him to the grave the regret of his fellow man, he must display talents; evince integrity; practice virtue. The funeral ceremonies of the most powerful monarchs, have rarely been wetted with the tears of the people, they have commonly drained them while living. The names of tyrants excite the horror of those who bear them pronounced. Tremble then cruel kings! ye who plunge your subjects into misery; who bathe them with bitter tears—who ravage nations—who deluge the land with the vital stream—who change the fruitful earth into a barren cemetery; tremble for the sanguinary traits under which the future historian will paint you, to generations yet unborn: neither your splendid monuments—your imposing victories—your innumerable armies, nor your sycophant courtiers, can prevent posterity from avenging their grandfathers; from insulting your odious manes; from treating your execrable memories with scorn; from showering their contempt on your transcendant crimes.

Let him scatter flowers over the graves of a Homer—of a Tasso—of a Shakespeare—of a Milton—of a Goldsmith; let him honor the immortal spirits of those great geniuses, whose songs still resonate in his ears; whose beautiful verses stir the most tender feelings in his soul; let him cherish the memory of all those who benefited the people, who brought joy to humanity; let him admire the virtues of a Titus—of a Trajan—of an Antoninus—of a Julian: let him earn in his time the praise of future generations; let him always remember that to carry the regret of his fellow humans to the grave, he must showcase talent; demonstrate integrity; practice virtue. The funeral ceremonies of the most powerful monarchs have rarely been moistened by the tears of the people; they usually drained them while still alive. The names of tyrants provoke horror in those who hear them spoken. So tremble, cruel kings! You who plunge your subjects into misery; who drown them in bitter tears—who devastate nations—who flood the land with blood—who turn fertile earth into a lifeless graveyard; tremble for the bloody legacy under which future historians will portray you to generations yet unborn: neither your grand monuments—your impressive victories—your countless armies, nor your flattering courtiers, can stop posterity from avenging their ancestors; from condemning your loathsome spirits; from treating your despicable memories with disdain; from raining their scorn down upon your horrific crimes.

Not only man sees his dissolution with pain, but again, he wishes his death may be an interesting event for others. But, as we have already said, he must have talents—he must have beneficence—he must have virtue, in order, that those who surround him, may interest themselves in his condition; that those who survive him, may give regret to his ashes. Is it, then, surprising if the greater number of men, occupied entirely with themselves, completely absorbed by their own vanity, devoted to their own puerile objects, for ever busied with the care of gratifying their vile passions, at the expence, perhaps, of their family happiness, unheedful of the wants of a wife, unmindful of the necessity of their children, careless of the calls of friendship, regardless of their duty to society, do not by their death excite the sensibilities of their survivors; or that they should be presently forgotten? There is an infinity of monarchs of which history does not tell us any thing, save that they have lived. In despite of the inutility in which men for the most part pass their existence, maugre the little care they bestow, to render themselves dear to the beings who environ them; notwithstanding the numerous actions they commit to displease their associates; the self love of each individual, persuades him, that his death must be an interesting occurrence: few men but think themselves an Euryalus in friendship, all expect to find a Nisus, thus man's over-weening philauty shews him to say thus the order of things are overturned at his decease. O mortal! feeble and vain! Dost thou not know the Sesostris's, the Alexanders, the Caesars are dead? Yet the course of the universe is not arrested; the demise of those famous conquerors, afflicting to some few favoured slaves, was a subject of delight for the whole human race. Dost thou then foolishly believe that thy talents ought to interest thy species, that they are of sufficient extent to put it into mourning at thy decease? Alas! The Corneilles, the Lockes, the Newtons, the Boyles, the Harveys, the Montesquieus, the Sheridans are no more! Regretted by a small number of friends, who have presently consoled themselves by their necessary avocations, their death was indifferent to the greater number of their fellow citizens. Darest thou then flatter thyself, that thy reputation, thy titles, thy riches, thy sumptuous repasts, thy diversified pleasures, will make thy funeral a melancholy event! It will be spoken of by some few for two days, and do not be at all surprised: learn that there have died in former ages, in Babylon, in Sardis, in Carthage, in Athens, in Rome, millions of citizens more illustrious, more powerful, more opulent, more voluptuous, than thou art; of whom, however, no one has taken care to transmit to thee even the names. Be then virtuous, O man! in whatever station thy destiny assigns thee, and thou shalt be happy in thy life time; do thou good and thou shalt be cherished; acquire talents and thou shalt be respected; posterity shall admire thee, if those talents, by becoming beneficial to their interests, shall bring them acquainted with the name under which they formerly designated thy annihilated being. But the universe will not be disturbed by thy loss; and when thou comest to die, whilst thy wife, thy children, thy friends, fondly leaning over thy sickly couch, shall be occupied with the melancholy task of closing thine eyes, thy nearest neighbour shall perhaps be exulting with joy!

Not only does a person feel pain at the thought of their own death, but they also hope that their passing will be significant to others. However, as we've mentioned before, one must have talents, be kind, and possess virtues for those around them to care about their situation and for those who remain to mourn their loss. Is it really surprising that most people, caught up in their own lives, consumed by vanity, focused solely on trivial pursuits, constantly seeking to satisfy their base desires—perhaps at the cost of their family’s happiness, oblivious to their wife’s needs, careless of their children’s necessities, neglectful of friendships, and indifferent to their responsibilities to society—fail to stir any feelings in others at their death, or that they are quickly forgotten? There are countless rulers about whom history tells us nothing except that they existed. Despite how most individuals waste their lives, largely unconcerned with how to endear themselves to those around them, and despite their many actions that annoy others, each person naively believes their death will be significant: few doubt their own worth and everyone expects to have loyal friends. Yet, this excessive self-love leads them to think that everything will change with their passing. Oh, mortal being! Fragile and vain! Do you not realize that the Sesostris, Alexanders, and Caesars have died? Yet, the world keeps moving; the deaths of those famous conquerors may sadden a handful of favored servants but were celebrated by the rest of humanity. Do you foolishly imagine that your talents should captivate others, that they are important enough to warrant mourning at your death? Alas! The Corneilles, Lockes, Newtons, Boyles, Harveys, Montesquieus, and Sheridans are gone! Remembered by a few friends who quickly find solace in their necessary tasks, their deaths were indifferent to most of their fellow citizens. Do you dare to believe that your reputation, titles, riches, lavish feasts, and varied pleasures will make your funeral a somber occasion? It will be talked about for a couple of days by a few, and don't be surprised. Know that in ages past, in Babylon, Sardis, Carthage, Athens, and Rome, millions more illustrious, powerful, wealthy, and indulgent than you have died, yet no one has bothered to pass down even their names. So be virtuous, oh man! In whatever position life puts you, and you will find happiness while alive; do good and you will be cherished; gain talents and you will be respected. Future generations will admire you if those talents serve their interests and connect them to the name that once identified your extinguished existence. But the universe will remain unaffected by your loss; and when you come to die, while your wife, children, and friends, tenderly gathered around your sickbed, are focused on the sorrowful task of closing your eyes, your closest neighbor might very well be celebrating with joy!

Let not then man occupy himself with his condition that may be to come, but let him sedulously endeavour to make himself useful, to those with whom he lives; let him for his own peculiar happiness render himself dutiful to his parents—faithful to his wife—attentive to his children—kind to his relations—-true to his friends—lenient to his servants; let him strive to become estimable in the eyes of his fellow citizens; let him faithfully serve a country which assures to him his welfare; let the desire of pleasing posterity, of meriting its applause, excite him to those labours that shall elicit their eulogies: let a legitimate self-love, when he shall be worthy of it, make him taste in advance those commendations which he is willing to deserve; let him learn to love himself—to esteem himself; but never let him consent that concealed vices, that sacred crimes, shall degrade him in his own eyes; shall oblige him to be ashamed of his own conduct.

Let people not focus on what might happen in the future, but instead, let them work hard to be helpful to those around them. They should strive to bring joy to their lives by being respectful to their parents, loyal to their spouse, attentive to their kids, kind to their relatives, true to their friends, and understanding toward their employees. They should aim to be respected by their fellow citizens and serve a country that ensures their well-being. The desire to make a positive impact and earn the approval of future generations should inspire them to do meaningful work that will earn their praise. Let a healthy self-love, when deserved, allow them to appreciate the praise they’re aiming for. They should learn to value and love themselves, but never allow hidden flaws or serious wrongdoings to diminish their self-respect or force them to feel ashamed of their actions.

Thus disposed, let him contemplate his own decease with the same indifference, that it will be looked upon by the greater number of his fellows; let him expect death with constancy; wait for it with calm resignation; let him learn to shake off those vain terrors with which superstition, would overwhelm him; let him leave to the enthusiast his vague hopes; to the fanatic his mad-brained speculations; to the bigot those fears with which he ministers to his own melancholy; but let his heart, fortified by reason, corroborated by a love of virtue, no longer dread a dissolution that will destroy all feeling.

With this mindset, he should face his own death with the same indifference that most of his peers will have towards it; he should welcome death with strength and wait for it with calm acceptance. He must learn to dismiss the pointless fears that superstition tries to impose on him. He should leave the vague hopes to the dreamers, the wild ideas to the fanatics, and the fears that fuel the bigots' sorrow to them. Instead, he should let his heart, strengthened by reason and supported by a love of virtue, no longer fear a finality that will end all sensation.

Whatever may be the attachment man has to life, whatever may be his fear of death, it is every day witnessed, that habit, that opinion, that prejudice, are motives sufficiently powerful to annihilate these passions in his breast; to make him brave danger; to cause him to hazard his existence. Ambition, pride, jealousy, love, vanity, avarice, the desire of glory, that deference of opinion which is decorated with the sounding title of a point of honour, have the efficacy to make him shut his eyes to danger; to laugh at peril; to push him on to death: vexation, anxiety of mind, disgrace, want of success, softens to him its hard features; makes him regard it as a door that will afford him shelter from the injustice of mankind: indigence, trouble, adversity, familiarizes him with this death, so terrible to the happy. The poor man, condemned to labour, inured to privations, deprived of the comforts of life, views its approach with indifference: the unfortunate, when he is unhappy, when he is without resource, embraces it in despair; the wretched accelerates its march as soon as he sees that happiness is no longer within his grasp.

No matter how attached a person might be to life or how scared they are of death, it's clear every day that habits, opinions, and prejudices are strong enough to overpower these feelings. They can make someone brave in the face of danger, leading them to risk their lives. Ambition, pride, jealousy, love, vanity, greed, the quest for glory, and the need for social approval—often referred to as a matter of honor—can blind them to danger, make them laugh at risk, and push them towards death. Frustration, mental anguish, shame, and failure can soften the harsh reality of death, making it seem like a refuge from the unfairness of the world. When faced with poverty, hardship, and adversity, people often become accustomed to this once-dreaded death. A poor person, forced to work and used to deprivation, faces death with indifference; meanwhile, the unfortunate, when they are truly unhappy and have no options left, may embrace death in despair. Those who are miserable quicken death’s approach as soon as they realize happiness is out of reach.

Man in different ages, in different countries, has formed opinions extremely various upon the conduct of those, who have had the temerity to put an end to their own existence. His ideas upon this subject, as upon all others, have taken their tone from his religion, have been governed by his superstitious systems, have been modified by his political institutions. The Greeks, the Romans, and other nations, which every thing conspired to make intrepid, to render courageous, to lead to magnanimity, regarded as heroes, contemplated as Gods, those who voluntarily cut the thread of life. In Hindoostan, the Brahmin yet knows how to inspire even women with sufficient fortitude to burn themselves upon the dead bodies of their husbands. The Japanese, upon the most trifling occasion, takes no kind of difficulty in plunging a dagger into his bosom.

People in different eras and countries have formed very different opinions about those who have dared to end their own lives. Their views on this topic, like their views on many others, have been shaped by their religions, governed by their superstitions, and influenced by their political systems. The Greeks, Romans, and other cultures, which seemed to encourage bravery and nobility, viewed those who chose to end their lives as heroes and even gods. In India, the Brahmin still inspires women to gather the courage to self-immolate on their husbands’ funeral pyres. The Japanese, even over trivial matters, find it easy to stab themselves.

Among the people of our own country, religion renders man less prodigal of life; it teaches that it is offensive to the Deity that he should destroy himself. Some moralists, abstracting the height of religious ideas, have held that it is never permitted to man to break the conditions of the covenant that he has made with society. Others have looked upon suicide as cowardice; they have thought that it was weakness, that it displayed pusillanimity, to suffer, himself to be overwhelmed with the shafts of his destiny; and have held that there would be much more courage, more elevation of soul, in supporting his afflictions, in resisting the blows of fate.

In our country, religion makes people value life more; it teaches that it's wrong in the eyes of God to take one's own life. Some moral philosophers, stepping back from lofty religious ideas, argue that a person should never break the social contract they have with society. Others view suicide as an act of cowardice; they believe that succumbing to life's hardships reveals weakness and a lack of courage, and that it shows more strength and nobility to endure suffering and fight against the challenges life presents.

If nature be consulted upon this point, it will be found that all the actions of man, that feeble plaything in the hands of necessity, are indispensable; that they depend on causes which move him in despite of himself—that without his knowledge, make him accomplish at each moment of his existence some one of its decrees. If the same power that obliges all intelligent beings to cherish their existence, renders that of man so painful, so cruel, that he finds it insupportable he quits his species; order is destroyed for him, he accomplishes a decree of Nature, that wills he shall no longer exist. This Nature has laboured during thousands of years, to form in the bowels of the earth the iron that must number his days.

If we look to nature on this matter, it becomes clear that all human actions, that fragile plaything in the grip of necessity, are essential; they rely on forces that drive him despite his own will—forces that, without his awareness, lead him to fulfill one of its mandates at every moment of his life. If the same power that causes all intelligent beings to value their existence makes human life so painful and cruel that he can no longer bear it, he separates himself from his species; order is disrupted for him, and he fulfills a decree of Nature that desires him to cease to exist. Nature has spent thousands of years working to forge in the depths of the earth the iron that will mark the end of his days.

If the relation of man with Nature be examined, it will be found that his engagement was neither voluntary on his part, nor reciprocal on the part of Nature. The volition of his will had no share in his birth; it is commonly against his will that he is obliged to finish life; his actions are, as we have proved, only the necessary effects of unknown causes which determine his will. He is, in the hands of Nature, that which a sword is in his own hands; he can fall upon it without its being able to accuse him with breaking his engagements; or of stamping with ingratitude the hand that holds it: man can only love his existence on condition of being happy; as soon as the entire of nature refuses him this happiness; as soon as all that surrounds him becomes incommodious to him, as soon as his melancholy ideas offer nothing but afflicting pictures to his imagination; he already exists no longer; he is suspended in the void; he quits a rank which no longer suits him; in which he finds no one interest; which offers him no protection; which overwhelms him with calamity; in which he can no more be useful either to himself or to others.

If we look at the relationship between humans and Nature, we can see that it’s neither voluntary on our part nor mutual on Nature’s side. We had no say in our birth, and it’s often against our will that we must end our lives. Our actions, as we've shown, are merely the unavoidable results of unknown causes that shape our will. In Nature’s hands, we’re like a sword in our own hands; we can turn against it without it being able to blame us for breaking our commitments or for being ungrateful to the one who wields it. A person can only appreciate their existence if they are happy; once Nature denies them that happiness, when everything around them becomes uncomfortable, and when their gloomy thoughts provide nothing but distressing images, they no longer truly exist. They are suspended in emptiness, leaving a position that no longer fits them, where they find no interest, receive no protection, are overwhelmed by hardship, and can no longer be of use to themselves or others.

If the covenant which unites man to society be considered, it will be obvious that every contract is conditional, must be reciprocal; that is to say, supposes mutual advantages between the contracting parties. The citizen cannot be bound to his country, to his associates, but by the bonds of happiness. Are these bonds cut asunder? He is restored to liberty. Society, or those who represent it, do they use him with harshness, do they treat him with injustice, do they render his existence painful? Does disgrace hold him out to the finger of scorn; does indigence menace him in an obdurate world? Perfidious friends, do they forsake him in adversity? An unfaithful wife, does she outrage his heart? Rebellious, ungrateful children, do they afflict his old age? Has he placed his happiness exclusively on some object which it is impossible for him to procure? Chagrin, remorse, melancholy, and despair, have they disfigured to him the spectacle of the universe? In short, for whatever cause it may be: if he is not able to support his evils, he quits a world, which from henceforth, is for him only a frightful desert he removes himself for ever from a country he thinks no longer willing to reckon him amongst the number of her children—he quits a house that to his mind is ready to bury him under its ruins—he renounces a society, to the happiness of which he can no longer contribute; which his own peculiar felicity alone can render dear to him: and could the man be blamed, who, finding himself useless; who being without resources, in the town where destiny gave him birth, should quit it in chagrin, to plunge himself in solitude? Death appears to the wretched the only remedy for despair; it is then the sword seems the only friend, the only comfort that is left to the unhappy: as long as hope remains the tenant of his bosom—as long as his evils appear to him at all supportable—as long as he flatters himself with seeing them brought to a termination—as long as he finds some comfort in existence, however slender, he will not consent to deprive himself of life: but when nothing any longer sustains in him the love of this existence, then to live, is to him the greatest of evils; to die, the only mode by which he can avoid the excess of despair. This has been the opinion of many great men: Seneca, the moralist, whom Lactantius calls the divine Pagan, who has been praised equally by St. Austin and St. Augustine, endeavours by every kind of argument to make death a matter of indifference to man. Cato has always been commended, because he would not survive the cause of liberty; for that he would not live a slave. Curtius, who rode voluntarily into the gap, to save his country, has always been held forth as a model of heroic virtue. Is it not evident, that those martyrs who have delivered themselves up to punishment, have preferred quitting the world to living in it contrary to their own ideals of happiness? When Samson wished to be revenged on the Philistines, did he not consent to die with them as the only means? If our country is attacked, do we not voluntarily sacrifice our lives in its defence?

If we look at the agreement that connects people to society, it’s clear that every contract is conditional and should benefit both parties involved. A citizen can only be tied to their country and community through shared happiness. If those ties are severed, they are free again. If society, or its representatives, treat him harshly, act unjustly, or make his life miserable, if disgrace points a finger at him, or poverty threatens him in a cruel world, if deceitful friends abandon him in tough times, if an unfaithful partner breaks his heart, or if ungrateful children bring him grief in old age, if he has pinned all his hopes on something unattainable, if sorrow, regret, sadness, and despair have distorted his view of the world, then for whatever reason, if he cannot bear his suffering, he leaves a world that has turned into a terrifying wasteland for him. He removes himself from a country he believes no longer sees him as one of its own, he departs from a home that he feels is ready to collapse on him, and he turns away from a society to which he can no longer contribute happiness, a society whose happiness solely depends on his own joy. Can we blame a man for feeling useless and, lacking resources in the town where he was born, choosing to leave in despair for solitude? To those who are suffering, death often seems like the only escape from despair; it then appears that the sword is the only friend and comfort left to the unhappy. As long as hope lingers in his heart, as long as his troubles seem manageable, as long as he believes there’s a chance they will come to an end, and as long as he finds even a small comfort in existence, he will not agree to give up his life. But when nothing keeps alive his love for this life, then living becomes the worst of all evils, and dying is the only way to escape intense despair. This view has been echoed by many great thinkers: Seneca, the moralist called the divine Pagan by Lactantius, praised by both St. Augustine and St. Austin, tried to argue that death should be seen as indifferent to humanity. Cato is often celebrated for refusing to live after the cause of liberty was lost; he wouldn’t be a slave. Curtius, who willingly jumped into the gap to save his country, is seen as a model of heroic virtue. Isn’t it clear that those martyrs who faced punishment chose to leave the world rather than live in it against their ideals of happiness? When Samson sought revenge on the Philistines, didn’t he agree to die with them as the only option? When our country is under attack, don’t we willingly sacrifice our lives to defend it?

That society who has not the ability, or who is not willing to procure man any one benefit, loses all its rights over him; Nature, when it has rendered his existence completely miserable, has in fact, ordered him to quit it: in dying he does no more than fulfil one of her decrees, as he did when he first drew his breath. To him who is fearless of death, there is no evil without a remedy; for him who refuses to die, there yet exists benefits which attach him to the world; in this case let him rally his powers—let him oppose courage to a destiny that oppresses him—let him call forth those resources with which Nature yet furnishes him; she cannot have totally abandoned him, while she yet leaves him the sensation of pleasure; the hopes of seeing a period to his pains.

A society that cannot or is not willing to provide any benefits to a person loses all its rights over that individual. When nature has made someone's life completely miserable, it essentially instructs them to leave it; in dying, they are merely following one of its laws, just as they did when they first took a breath. For someone who isn’t afraid of death, there’s no problem without a solution; for someone who refuses to die, there are still benefits that keep them attached to the world. In this case, let them gather their strength—let them face their oppressive fate with courage—let them tap into the resources that nature still provides. Nature cannot have completely abandoned them as long as they still feel pleasure and hold onto the hope of an end to their suffering.

Man regulates his judgment on his fellows, only by his own peculiar mode of feeling; he deems as folly, he calls delirium all those violent actions which he believes but little commensurate with their causes; or which appear to him calculated to deprive him of that happiness, towards which he supposes a being in the enjoyment of his senses, cannot cease to have a tendency: he treats his associate as a weak creature, when he sees him affected with that which touches him but lightly; or when he is incapable of supporting those evils, which his self-love flatters him, he would himself be able to endure with more fortitude. He accuses with madness whoever deprives himself of life, for objects that he thinks unworthy so dear a sacrifice; he taxes him with phrenzy, because he has himself learned to regard this life as the greatest blessing. It is thus that he always erects himself into a judge of the happiness of others—of their mode of seeing—of their manner of feeling: a miser who destroys himself after the loss of his treasure, appears a fool in the eyes of him who is less attached to riches; he does not feel, that without money, life to this miser is only a continued torture; that nothing in the world is capable of diverting him from his painful sensations: he will proudly tell you, that in his place he had not done so much; but to be exactly in the place of another man, it is needful to have his organization—his temperament—his passions—his ideas; it is in fact needful to be that other; to be placed exactly in the same circumstances; to be moved by the same causes; and in this case all men, like the miser, would sacrifice their life, after being deprived of the only source of their happiness.

A person judges others based on their own unique feelings; they see as foolish or insane any intense actions that don't seem justified by their causes, or that they think might take away happiness, which they believe everyone should naturally seek. They see their peers as weak when they're upset by things that only slightly bother them, or when they can't handle hardships that their ego convinces them they could endure better. They label anyone who takes their own life for what they consider unworthy reasons as mad, because they've learned to see life as the greatest gift. In this way, they constantly position themselves as the judge of others' happiness, perspectives, and feelings. A miser who ends his life after losing his wealth seems foolish to someone who cares less about money; they don't realize that, for the miser, life without riches is just ongoing suffering, and nothing can distract him from that pain. They might confidently claim they wouldn't act the same way, but to truly be in another person's shoes, you need to have their makeup, temperament, passions, and ideas. You need to actually be that person, facing the exact same situation and moved by the same factors. In this sense, everyone, like the miser, would sacrifice their life if they lost the only source of their happiness.

He who deprives himself of his existence, does not adopt this extremity, so repugnant to his natural tendency; but when nothing in this world has the faculty of rejoicing him; when no means are left of diverting his affliction; when reason no longer acts; his misfortune whatever it may be, for him is real; his organization, be it strong, or be it weak, is his own, not that of another: a man who is sick only in imagination, really suffers considerably; even troublesome dreams place him in a very uncomfortable situation. Thus when a man kills himself, it ought to be concluded, that life, in the room of being a benefit, had become a very great evil to him; that existence had lost all its charms in his eyes; that the entire of nature was to him destitute of attraction; that it no longer contained any thing that could seduce him; that after the comparison which his disturbed imagination had made of existence with non-existence, the latter appeared to him preferable to the first.

The person who ends their own life doesn’t do so lightly, as it goes against their natural instincts. But when nothing in this world brings them joy, when there are no ways left to ease their pain, when reason breaks down, their misfortune feels very real to them; their condition, whether strong or weak, is their own and not someone else's. A person who is only unwell in their mind can still suffer greatly; even distressing dreams can put them in an uncomfortable place. So, when someone takes their own life, it should be understood that life, instead of being a benefit, has become a significant burden for them; that they see existence as having lost all its appeal; that the whole of nature seems devoid of attraction; that nothing remains to entice them; and that, after comparing existing with not existing, the latter seems preferable to them.

Many will consider these maxims as dangerous; they certainly account why the unhappy cut the thread of life, in a manner not corresponding with the received prejudices; but, nevertheless, it is a temperament soured by chagrin, a bilious constitution, a melancholy habit, a defect in the organization, a derangement in the mind; it is in fact necessity and not reasonable speculations, that breed in man the design of destroying himself. Nothing invites him to this step so long as reason remains with him; or whilst he yet possesses hope, that sovereign balm for every evil: as for the unfortunate, who cannot lose sight of his sorrows—who cannot forget his pains—who has his evils always present to his mind; he is obliged to take counsel from these alone: besides, what assistance, what advantage can society promise to himself, from a miserable wretch reduced to despair; from a misanthrope overwhelmed with grief; from a wretch tormented with remorse, who has no longer any motive to render himself useful to others—who has abandoned himself—who finds no more interest in preserving his life? Frequently, those who destroy themselves are such, that had they lived, the offended laws must have ultimately been obliged to remove them from a society which they disgraced; from a country which they had injured.

Many will see these sayings as dangerous; they certainly explain why the unhappy choose to end their lives in ways that go against common beliefs. However, it’s really a mindset tainted by disappointment, a troubled constitution, a persistent gloom, a flaw in their makeup, or a disturbance in their mind. It’s actually necessity, not rational thoughts, that drives someone to consider taking their own life. As long as reason is with them, or they still have hope—the ultimate remedy for every problem—nothing pushes them towards that decision. But for those who can’t escape their sorrows—who can’t forget their pain—who are constantly reminded of their troubles, they can only consult these feelings. Moreover, what help or benefit can society expect from a wretched soul plunged into despair; from someone filled with grief; from a person tortured by remorse, who no longer feels compelled to be of service to others—who has given up on themselves—who has lost all interest in keeping their life? Often, those who take their own lives are the very ones who, had they lived, would have ultimately been removed from society by the laws they offended; from a country they harmed.

As life is commonly the greatest blessing for man, it is to be presumed that he who deprives himself of it, is compelled to it by an invincible force. It is the excess of misery, the height of despair, the derangement of his brain, caused by melancholy, that urges man on to destroy himself. Agitated by contrary impulsions, he is, as we have before said, obliged to follow a middle course that conducts him to his death; if man be not a free-agent, in any one instant of his life, he is again much less so in the act by which it is terminated.

As life is often considered the greatest gift for humanity, we can assume that someone who chooses to end their life must be driven by an overwhelming force. It's the extreme pain, the peak of hopelessness, and the turmoil in their mind, caused by deep sadness, that pushes a person to take their own life. Torn by conflicting urges, they, as we've mentioned before, feel forced to take a path that leads them to death; if a person isn’t in control of even a single moment of their life, they are even less so in the act that ends it.

It will be seen then, that he who kills himself, does not, as it is pretended, commit an outrage on nature. He follows an impulse which has deprived him of reason; adopts the only means left him to quit his anguish; he goes out of a door which she leaves open to him; he cannot offend in accomplishing a law of necessity: the iron hand of this having broken the spring that renders life desirable to him; which urged him to self-conservation, shews him he ought to quit a rank or system where he finds himself too miserable to have the desire of remaining. His country or his family have no right to complain of a member, whom it has no means of rendering happy; from whom consequently they have nothing more to hope: to be useful to either, it is necessary he should cherish his own peculiar existence; that he should have an interest in conserving himself—that he should love the bonds by which he is united to others—that he should be capable of occupying himself with their felicity—that he should have a sound mind. That the suicide should repent of his precipitancy, he should outlive himself, he should carry with him into his future residence, his organs, his senses, his memory, his ideas, his actual mode of existing, his determinate manner of thinking.

It will be clear then that someone who takes their own life does not, as some claim, harm nature. They are acting on an impulse that has clouded their judgment; they choose the only way left to escape their pain. They leave through a door that has been left open for them; they are not offending anyone by fulfilling a necessity: the harsh reality has removed the reasons that make life appealing to them; it has pushed them towards self-preservation, showing them they need to leave a situation or environment where they feel too miserable to want to stay. Their country or family has no right to complain about a member who they have no ability to make happy; from whom they can therefore expect nothing: to be of help to either, it’s essential that they value their own existence; that they have a reason to keep themselves alive—that they should love the connections they share with others—that they should be able to think about their happiness—that they should have a clear mind. For the person who commits suicide to regret their rashness, they would need to outlive their own decision; they would need to carry with them to their future place all their senses, memories, ideas, their current way of living, and their fixed way of thinking.

In short, nothing is more useful for society, than to inspire man with a contempt for death; to banish from his mind the false ideas he has of its consequences. The fear of death can never do more than make cowards; the fear of its consequences will make nothing but fanatics or melancholy beings, who are useless to themselves, unprofitable to others. Death is a resource that ought not by any means to be taken away from oppressed virtue; which the injustice of man frequently reduces to despair. If man feared death less, he would neither be a slave nor superstitious; truth would find defenders more zealous; the rights of mankind would be more hardily sustained; virtue would be intrepidly upheld: error would be more powerfully opposed; tyranny would be banished from nations: cowardice nourishes it, fear perpetuates it. In fact, man can neither be contented nor happy whilst his opinions shall oblige him to tremble.

In short, nothing is more beneficial for society than inspiring people to feel contempt for death and to eliminate the false beliefs they have about its consequences. The fear of death only creates cowards; the fear of its consequences produces nothing but fanatics or depressed individuals, who end up being useless to themselves and unhelpful to others. Death is a resource that should never be taken away from oppressed virtue, which the injustice of humanity often drives to despair. If people feared death less, they wouldn’t be slaves or superstitious; the truth would have more passionate defenders; human rights would be more boldly upheld; virtue would be fearlessly championed; error would be more vigorously challenged; tyranny would be expelled from nations: cowardice feeds it, and fear keeps it alive. In fact, people cannot be content or happy as long as their beliefs make them tremble.










CHAP. XV.

Of Man's true Interest, or of the Ideas he forms to himself of Happiness.—Man cannot be happy without Virtue.

About Man's True Interest, or the Ideas He Has about Happiness.—A person cannot be happy without Virtue.

Utility, as has been before observed, ought to be the only standard of the judgment of man. To be useful, is to contribute to the happiness of his fellow creatures; to be prejudicial, is to further their misery. This granted, let us examine if the principles we have hitherto established be prejudicial or advantageous, useful or useless, to the human race. If man unceasingly seeks after his happiness, he can only approve of that which procures for him his object, or furnishes him the means by which it is to be obtained.

Utility, as mentioned before, should be the only standard for judging humanity. To be useful means to contribute to the happiness of others; to be harmful means to increase their suffering. With that in mind, let’s examine whether the principles we've established are harmful or beneficial, useful or pointless, for humanity. If people are constantly seeking their happiness, they can only support what helps them achieve it or provides them the means to obtain it.

What has been already said will serve in fixing our ideas upon what constitutes this happiness: it has been already shewn that it is only continued pleasure: but in order that an object may please, it is necessary that the impressions it makes, the perceptions it gives, the ideas which it leaves, in short, that the motion it excites in man should be analogous to his organization; conformable to his temperament; assimilated to his individual nature:—modified as it is by habit, determined as it is by an infinity of circumstances, it is necessary that the action of the object by which he is moved, or of which the idea remains with him, far from enfeebling him, far from annihilating his feelings, should tend to strengthen him; it is necessary, that without fatiguing his mind, exhausting his faculties, or deranging his organs, this object should impart to his machine that degree of activity for which it continually has occasion. What is the object that unites all these qualities? Where is the man whose organs are susceptible of continual agitation without being fatigued; without experiencing a painful sensation; without sinking? Man is always willing to be warned of his existence in the most lively manner, as long as he can be so without pain. What do I say? He consents frequently to suffer, rather than not feel. He accustoms himself to a thousand things which at first must have affected him in a disagreeable manner; but which frequently end either by converting themselves into wants, or by no longer affecting him any way: of this truth tobacco, coffee, and above all brandy furnish examples: this is the reason he runs to see tragedies; that he witnesses the execution of criminals. In short, the desire of feeling, of being powerfully moved, appears to be the principle of curiosity; of that avidity with which man seizes on the marvellous; of that earnestness with which he clings to the supernatural; of the disposition he evinces for the incomprehensible. Where, indeed, can he always find objects in nature capable of continually supplying the stimulus requisite to keep him in activity, that shall be ever proportioned to the state of his own organization; which his extreme mobility renders subject to perpetual variation? The most lively pleasures are always the least durable, seeing they are those which exhaust him most.

What has already been said will help clarify what happiness consists of: it's been shown that it’s about experiencing ongoing pleasure. However, for something to be pleasing, the impressions it creates, the perceptions it offers, and the ideas it leaves behind—essentially, the way it moves a person—must align with their nature. It should match their temperament and be in tune with their individual character. This character is shaped by habits and influenced by countless circumstances. For the thing that stirs him, or the idea that lingers, to be effective, it shouldn't weaken him or diminish his feelings; instead, it should strengthen him. It should engage him without exhausting his mind, draining his faculties, or disturbing his body, giving him just the right boost he needs. What is the thing that brings together all these qualities? Who among us can endure constant stimulation without feeling tired, without discomfort, without collapse? People want to feel the intensity of existence as vividly as possible, as long as it doesn’t hurt. In fact, they often choose to endure pain rather than feel nothing at all. They become accustomed to many experiences that initially bother them but eventually transform into needs or stop affecting them altogether: tobacco, coffee, and especially brandy are good examples of this. This explains why they flock to watch tragedies and attend executions. Ultimately, the desire to feel deeply and to be moved intensely seems to drive curiosity; it's the eagerness that leads people to latch onto the marvelous, the seriousness with which they pursue the supernatural, and their inclination toward the incomprehensible. Where, after all, can one consistently find natural objects that provide the necessary stimulation to keep him active, in a way that's always suited to his own ever-changing nature? The most intense pleasures tend to be the least lasting, as they are the ones that wear him out the most.

That man should be uninterruptedly happy, it would be requisite that his powers were infinite; it would require that to his mobility he joined a vigor, attached a solidity, which nothing could change; or else it is necessary that the objects from which he receives impulse, should either acquire or lose properties, according to the different states through which his machine is successively obliged to pass; it would need that the essences of beings should be changed in the same proportion as his dispositions; should be submitted to the continual influence of a thousand causes, which modify him without his knowledge, and in despite of himself. If, at each moment, his machine undergoes changes more or less marked, which are ascribable to the different degrees of elasticity, of density, of serenity of the atmosphere; to the portion of igneous fluid circulating through his blood; to the harmony of his organs; to the order that exists between the various parts of his body; if, at every period of his existence, his nerves have not the same tensions, his fibres the same elasticity, his mind the same activity, his imagination the same ardour, &c. it is evident that the same causes in preserving to him only the same qualities, cannot always affect him in the same manner. Here is the reason why those objects that please him in one season displease him in another: these objects have not themselves sensibly changed; but his organs, his dispositions, his ideas, his mode of seeing, his manner of feeling, have changed:—such is the source of man's inconstancy.

For a person to be continuously happy, they would need to have limitless abilities; they would require a strength and stability that nothing could alter. Alternatively, the things that influence them would need to either gain or lose qualities based on the different states their body goes through. The very nature of beings would have to change in proportion to their moods, constantly impacted by countless factors that affect them without their awareness and against their will. If, in every moment, their body experiences more or less significant changes due to varying degrees of elasticity, density, and calmness of the atmosphere; the amount of warmth circulating in their blood; the harmony of their organs; and the balance between different parts of their body; if, at each point in their life, their nerves don’t have the same tension, their fibers don’t have the same elasticity, their mind isn’t as active, and their imagination doesn’t have the same spark, then it’s clear that the same factors that preserve their qualities can’t always affect them the same way. This is why the things that once please them in one season can become unappealing in another: those objects haven’t noticeably changed, but their organs, moods, ideas, perspective, and feelings have—this is the source of human inconsistency.

If the same objects are not constantly in that state competent to form the happiness of the same individual, it is easy to perceive that they are yet less in a capacity to please all men; or that the same happiness cannot be suitable to all. Beings already various by their temperament, unlike in their faculties, diversified in their organization, different in their imagination, dissimilar in their ideas, of distinct opinions, of contrary habits, which an infinity of circumstances, whether physical or moral, have variously modified, must necessarily form very different notions of happiness. Those of a MISER cannot be the same as those of a PRODIGAL; those of a VOLUPTUARY, the same as those of one who is PHLEGMATIC; those of an intemperate, the same as those of a rational man, who husbands his health. The happiness of each, is in consequence composed of his natural organization, and of those circumstances, of those habits, of those ideas, whether true or false, that have modified him: this organization and these circumstances, never being the same in any two men, it follows, that what is the object of one man's views, must be indifferent, or even displeasing to another; thus, as we have before said, no one can be capable of judging of that which may contribute to the felicity of his fellow man.

If the same things aren't consistently in a state that brings happiness to a specific individual, it’s clear that they're even less likely to please everyone; or that the same happiness can't suit everyone. People are already different in their temperaments, varying in their abilities, having diverse physical makeups, unique imaginations, differing ideas, distinct opinions, and opposing habits, all shaped by countless factors, whether physical or moral. Each person will have very different ideas of happiness. The happiness of a miser will not be the same as that of a prodigal; the desires of a sensualist will differ from those of someone who is calm and reserved; and the wants of someone who indulges excessively won't match those of a rational person who takes care of their health. Each person's happiness is shaped by their natural traits and the circumstances, habits, and beliefs—true or false—that have influenced them. Since no two people are identical in these aspects, what one person desires may be irrelevant or even unpleasant to another; therefore, as we've mentioned before, no one can truly judge what contributes to someone else's happiness.

Interest is the object to which each individual according to his temperament and his own peculiar ideas, attaches his welfare; from which it will be perceived that this interest is never more than that which each contemplates as necessary to his happiness. It must, therefore, be concluded, that no man is totally without interest. That of the miser to amass wealth; that of the prodigal to dissipate it: the interest of the ambitious is to obtain power; that of the modest philosopher to enjoy tranquillity; the interest of the debauchee is to give himself up, without reserve, to all sorts of pleasure; that of the prudent man, to abstain from those which may injure him: the interest of the wicked is to gratify his passions at any price: that of the virtuous to merit by his conduct the love, to elicit by his actions the approbation of others; to do nothing that can degrade himself in his own eyes.

Interest is what each person values based on their personality and individual beliefs; it's clear that this interest is always tied to what they see as essential for their happiness. Therefore, we can conclude that no one is completely without interest. The miser's interest is in accumulating wealth, while the prodigal's is in wasting it; the ambitious seek power, and the modest philosopher seeks peace; the debauchee's interest is to indulge in all kinds of pleasures without restraint, while the prudent person aims to avoid those that could harm him. The wicked are driven by their desires at any cost, while the virtuous strive to earn love through their actions and seek the approval of others, aiming to never do anything that would lower their own self-respect.

Thus, when it is said that Interest is the only motive of human actions; it is meant to indicate that each man labours after his own manner, to his own peculiar happiness; that he places it in some object either visible or concealed; either real or imaginary; that the whole system of his conduct is directed to its attainment. This granted, no man can be called disinterested; this appellation is only applied to those of whose motives we are ignorant; or whose interest we approve. Thus the man who finds a greater pleasure in assisting his friends in misfortune than preserving in his coffers useless treasure, is called generous, faithful, and disinterested; in like manner all men are denominated disinterested, who feel their glory far more precious than their fortune. In short, all men are designated disinterested who place their happiness in making sacrifices which man considers costly, because he does not attach the same value to the object for which the sacrifice is made.

So, when we say that Interest is the only motive of human actions; we mean that each person works in their own way to achieve their unique happiness. They focus on something, whether it's visible or hidden, real or imagined, and their entire behavior is geared towards reaching that goal. Given this, no one can be called disinterested; that term only applies to those whose motives we don’t understand or whose interests we approve of. For example, someone who finds more joy in helping friends during tough times than in keeping useless wealth is seen as generous, loyal, and disinterested. Similarly, anyone who values their reputation more than their fortune is called disinterested. Essentially, people are labeled disinterested when they find happiness in making sacrifices that others view as costly because they don’t value the things for which those sacrifices are made in the same way.

Man frequently judges very erroneously of the interest of others, either because the motives that animate them are too complicated for him to unravel; or because to be enabled to judge of them fairly, it is needful to have the same eyes, the same organs the same passions, the same opinions: nevertheless, obliged to form his judgment of the actions of mankind, by their effect on himself, he approves the interest that actuates them whenever the result is advantageous for his species: thus, he admires valour, generosity, the love of liberty, great talents, virtue, &c. he then only approves of the objects in which the beings he applauds have placed their happiness; he approves these dispositions even when he is not in a capacity to feel their effects; but in this judgment he is not himself disinterested; experience, reflection, habit, reason, have given him a taste for morals, and he finds as much pleasure in being witness to a great and generous action, as the man of virtu finds in the sight of a fine picture of which he is not the proprietor. He who has formed to himself a habit of practising virtue, is a man who has unceasingly before his eyes the interest that he has in meriting the affection, in deserving the esteem, in securing the assistance of others, as well as to love and esteem himself: impressed with these ideas which have become habitual to him, he abstains even from concealed crimes, since these would degrade him in his own eyes: he resembles a man who having from his infancy contracted the habit of cleanliness, would be painfully affected at seeing himself dirty, even when no one should witness it. The honest man is he to whom truth has shewn his interest or his happiness in a mode of acting that others are obliged to love, are under the necessity to approve for their own peculiar interest.

People often misjudge what others truly care about, either because their motives are too complex to understand or because to judge them fairly, one would need to share the same perspective, feelings, and beliefs. Still, forced to form opinions about people's actions based on how they affect him, he tends to approve of the interests that drive them whenever the outcome benefits his kind. Therefore, he admires bravery, generosity, love of freedom, great talents, virtue, etc. He only appreciates the things that those he admires find happiness in; he approves of these traits even when he can't personally feel their impact. However, his judgment isn't entirely unbiased; experience, reflection, habit, and reason have given him a sense of morals, and he derives as much pleasure from witnessing a great act of kindness as an art lover does from seeing a beautiful painting they don't own. A person who has made a habit of practicing virtue constantly thinks about the value of earning the affection, respect, and support of others, as well as nurturing his own self-love and esteem. With these ideas ingrained in him, he even avoids hidden crimes, as they would lower his self-image. He is like someone who, having developed a habit of cleanliness since childhood, feels uncomfortable seeing himself dirty, even if no one is watching. An honest person is someone who recognizes that acting truthfully leads to their own well-being in a way that others are compelled to appreciate and approve for their own benefit.

These principles, duly developed, are the true basis of morals; nothing is more chimerical than those which are founded upon imaginary motives placed out of nature; or upon innate sentiments; which some speculators have regarded as anterior to man's experience; as wholly independant of those advantages which result to him from its use: it is the essence of man to love himself; to tend to his own conservation; to seek to render his existence happy: thus interest, or the desire of happiness, is the only real motive of all his actions; this interest depends upon his natural organization, rests itself upon his wants, is bottomed upon his acquired ideas, springs from the habits he has contracted: he is without doubt in error, when either a vitiated organization or false opinions shew him his welfare in objects either useless or injurious to himself, as well as to others; he marches steadily in the paths of virtue when true ideas have made him rest his happiness on a conduct useful to his species; in that which is approved by others; which renders him an interesting object to his associates. Morals would be a vain science if it did not incontestibly prove to man that his interest consists in being virtuous. Obligation of whatever kind, can only be founded upon the probability or the certitude of either obtaining a good or avoiding an evil.

These principles, fully developed, are the true foundation of morals; nothing is more unrealistic than those based on imaginary motives that are outside nature, or on innate feelings, which some thinkers have considered to be prior to human experience and completely independent of the benefits that come from using them. It is in human nature to love oneself, to focus on self-preservation, and to seek happiness in life. Therefore, personal interest, or the desire for happiness, is the only real motivation behind all actions. This interest relies on natural instincts, is rooted in personal needs, is based on acquired ideas, and comes from established habits. A person is certainly mistaken when a flawed nature or false beliefs lead them to see their well-being in harmful or useless pursuits, both for themselves and for others. They follow the path of virtue when true ideas encourage them to align their happiness with behavior that benefits their community, behavior that's recognized and appreciated by others, making them a valued member of their social group. Morals would be a meaningless pursuit if it did not clearly show people that their best interest lies in being virtuous. Any kind of obligation can only be based on the likelihood or certainty of achieving a benefit or avoiding harm.

Indeed, in no one instant of his duration, can a sensible, an intelligent being, either lose sight of his own preservation or forget his own welfare; he owes happiness to himself; but experience quickly proves to him, that bereaved of assistance, quite alone, left entirely to himself, he cannot procure all those objects which are requisite to his felicity: he lives with sensible, with intelligent beings, occupied like himself with their own peculiar happiness; but capable of assisting him, in obtaining those objects he most desires; he discovers that these beings will not be favorable to his views, but when they find their interest involved; from which he concludes, that his own happiness demands, that his own wants render it necessary he should conduct himself at all times in a manner suitable to conciliate the attachment, to obtain the approbation, to elicit the esteem, to secure the assistance of those beings who are most capacitated to further his designs. He perceives, that it is man who is most necessary to the welfare of man: that to induce him to join in his interests, he ought to make him find real advantages in recording his projects: but to procure real advantages to the beings of the human species, is to have virtue; the reasonable man, therefore, is obliged to feel that it is his interest to be virtuous. Virtue is only the art of rendering himself happy, by the felicity of others. The virtuous man is he who communicates happiness to those beings who are capable of rendering his own condition happy; who are necessary to his conservation; who have the ability to procure him a felicitous existence.

Indeed, at no point in his life can a sensible, intelligent being lose sight of his own well-being or forget his own welfare; he is responsible for his happiness. However, experience quickly shows him that, without help, completely on his own, he cannot secure everything he needs for his happiness. He lives among other sensible, intelligent beings who are also focused on their own happiness, but who can help him obtain what he desires most. He learns that these beings will only support his goals when their interests align with his. This leads him to conclude that his own happiness requires him to behave in ways that win the affection, approval, and respect of those who can most help him achieve his aims. He realizes that humans are essential for each other's well-being: to get them to support his interests, he must offer them real benefits in joining him. To provide real advantages to others is to be virtuous; thus, a reasonable person understands that it is in his best interest to be virtuous. Virtue is simply the skill of making oneself happy by contributing to the happiness of others. A virtuous person is someone who spreads happiness to those capable of improving his own situation, who are necessary for his survival, and who can help him lead a happy life.

Such, then, is the true foundation of all morals; merit and virtue are founded upon the nature of man; have their dependance upon his wants. It is virtue alone that can render him truly happy: without virtue society can neither be useful nor indeed subsist; it can only have real utility when it assembles beings animated with the desire of pleasing each other, and disposed to labour to their reciprocal advantage: there exists no comfort in those families whose members are not in the happy disposition to lend each other mutual succours; who have not a reciprocity of feeling that stimulates them to assist one another; that induces them to cling to each other, to support the sorrows of life; to unite their efforts, to put away those evils to which nature has subjected them; the conjugal bonds, are sweet only in proportion as they identify the interest of two beings, united by the want of legitimate pleasure; from whence results the maintenance of political society, and the means of furnishing it with citizens. Friendship has charms only when it more particularly associates two virtuous beings; that is to say, animated with the sincere desire of conspiring to their reciprocal happiness. In short, it is only by displaying virtue, that man can merit the benevolence, can win the confidence, can gain the esteem, of all those with whom he has relation; in a word, no man can be independently happy.

This is the true foundation of all morals: merit and virtue are based on human nature and depend on our needs. Only virtue can make a person truly happy; without virtue, society can neither be helpful nor survive. It only has real value when it brings together individuals who want to please each other and are willing to work for each other's benefit. There is no comfort in families where members are not inclined to support one another; where there isn’t a shared sense of feeling that encourages them to help each other, to stick together through life's troubles, to combine their efforts to overcome the hardships that nature imposes. Marital bonds are enjoyable only to the extent that they align the interests of two individuals who seek genuine pleasure; this leads to the foundation of political society and the means to provide it with citizens. Friendship is appealing when it connects two virtuous individuals who genuinely desire to contribute to each other's happiness. In short, a person can only earn the goodwill, trust, and respect of those around them by displaying virtue; ultimately, no one can be truly happy on their own.

Indeed, the happiness of each human individual depends on those sentiments to which he gives birth, on those feelings which he nourishes in the beings amongst whom his destiny has placed him; grandeur may dazzle them; power may wrest from them an involuntary homage; force may compel an unwilling obedience; opulence may seduce mean, may attract venal souls; but it is humanity, it is benevolence, it is compassion, it is equity, that unassisted by these, can without efforts obtain for him, from those by whom he is surrounded, those delicious sentiments of attachments, those soothing feelings of tenderness, those sweet ideas of esteem, of which all reasonable men feel the necessity. To be virtuous then, is to place his interest in that which accords with the interest of others; it is to enjoy those benefits, to partake of that pleasure which he himself diffuses over his fellows. He whom, his nature, his education, his reflections, his habits, have rendered susceptible of these dispositions, and to whom his circumstances have given him the faculty of gratifying them, becomes an interesting object to all those who approach him: he enjoys every instant, he reads with satisfaction the contentment, he contemplates with pleasure the joy which he has diffused over all countenances: his wife, his children, his friends, his servants greet him with gay, serene faces, indicative of that content, harbingers of that peace, which he recognizes for his own work: every thing that environs him is ready to partake his pleasures; to share his pains; cherished, respected, looked up to by others, every thing conducts him to agreeable reflections; he knows the rights he has acquired over their hearts; he applauds himself for being the source of a felicity that captivates all the world; his own condition, his sentiments of self-love, become an hundred times more delicious when he sees them participated by all those with whom his destiny has connected him. The habit of virtue creates for him no wants but those which virtue itself suffices to satisfy; it is thus that virtue is always its own peculiar reward, that it remunerates itself with all the advantages which it incessantly procures for others.

Indeed, the happiness of each person depends on the feelings they create and nurture in those around them. Grandeur can impress them; power can demand their involuntary respect; force can enforce reluctant obedience; wealth can entice the greedy and attract corrupt souls. But it is humanity, benevolence, compassion, and fairness that, without any assistance from these, can effortlessly earn from those around him the joyful feelings of attachment, the comforting emotions of tenderness, and the sweet feelings of esteem that all sensible people recognize as essential. To be virtuous is to align one's interests with the interests of others; it is to enjoy the benefits and share in the joy that one brings to others. A person shaped by their nature, upbringing, thoughts, and habits to be open to these sentiments, and who has the ability to fulfill them through their circumstances, becomes an intriguing presence to everyone around them: they enjoy every moment, feeling satisfied by the happiness they spread. Their wife, children, friends, and servants greet them with joyful, calm expressions that reflect the contentment and peace they recognize as their own doing. Everything around them is ready to share in their happiness and to help ease their suffering; cherished, respected, and admired by others, everything leads them to pleasant reflections. They understand the rights they have earned over the hearts of those around them; they take pride in being the source of happiness that captivates everyone. Their own state of being and self-love feel a hundred times sweeter when they see those feelings reciprocated by all whom life has connected them with. The habit of virtue creates no desires other than those that virtue itself can satisfy. This is how virtue is always its own reward, constantly rewarding itself with all the benefits it brings to others.

It will be said, and perhaps even proved, that under the present constitution of things, virtue far from procuring the welfare of those who practice it frequently plunges man into misfortune; often places continual obstacles to his felicity; that almost every where it is without recompence. What do I say? A thousand examples could be adduced as evidence, that in almost every country it is hated, persecuted, obliged to lament the ingratitude of human nature. I reply with avowing, that by a necessary consequence of the errors of his race, virtue rarely conducts man to those objects in which the uninformed make their happiness consist. The greater number of societies, too frequently ruled by those whose ignorance makes them abuse their power,—whose prejudices render them enemies of virtue,—who flattered by sycophants, secure in the impunity their actions enjoy, commonly lavish their esteem, bestow their kindness, on none but the most unworthy objects; reward only the most frivolous, recompence none but the most prejudicial qualities; and hardly ever accord that justice to merit which is unquestionably its due. But the truly honest man, is neither ambitious of renumeration, nor sedulous of the suffrages of a society thus badly constituted: contented with domestic happiness, he seeks not to augment relations, which would do no more than increase his danger; he knows that a vitiated community is a whirlwind, with which an honest man cannot co-order himself: he therefore steps aside; quits the beaten path, by continuing in which he would infallibly be crushed. He does all the good of which he is capable in his sphere; he leaves the road free to the wicked, who are willing to wade through its mire; he laments the heavy strokes they inflict on themselves; he applauds mediocrity that affords him security: he pities those nations made miserable by their errors,—rendered unhappy by those passions which are the fatal but necessary consequence; he sees they contain nothing but wretched citizens, who far from cultivating their true interest, far from labouring to their mutual felicity, far from feeling the real value of virtue, unconscious how dear it ought to be to them, do nothing but either openly attack, or secretly injure it; in short, who detests a quality which would restrain their disorderly propensities.

It can be said, and maybe even proven, that in our current system, being virtuous often doesn't bring happiness to those who try to be good; instead, it often leads to misfortune and continuously creates barriers to their joy. Virtue seems to go unrewarded almost everywhere. What’s more, there are countless examples showing that in nearly every country, virtue is despised, persecuted, and must mourn the ungratefulness of human nature. I respond by acknowledging that due to the mistakes of humanity, virtue seldom leads people to what the uninformed consider true happiness. Most societies are often led by those whose ignorance causes them to misuse their power—those whose prejudices turn them against virtue. Flattered by yes-men and secure in the protection their actions enjoy, they typically shower their approval and kindness only on the most undeserving; they reward only the most trivial qualities and hardly ever give true merit the justice it deserves. However, the genuinely honest person doesn’t crave rewards or seek approval from a poorly structured society; satisfied with personal happiness, he doesn’t seek to expand his relationships, as that would only increase his risks. He understands that a corrupt community is like a storm, one where an honest man cannot thrive. So he steps aside, leaving the usual path, which would inevitably crush him. He does as much good as he can within his circle; he lets the wicked travel through their own muck; he grieves the painful consequences they bring upon themselves; he values the safety that mediocrity offers him. He feels compassion for those nations suffering due to their mistakes—made miserable by passions that are a tragic but unavoidable outcome. He sees that they consist of nothing but wretched citizens who, instead of pursuing their true interests or working towards collective happiness, stay oblivious to the real worth of virtue, unaware of how precious it should be to them, and do nothing but openly attack or undermine it; in short, they despise a quality that would suppress their chaotic desires.

In saying that virtue is its own peculiar reward, it is simply meant to announce, that in a society whose views were guided by truth, trained by experience, conducted by reason, each individual would be acquainted with his real interests; would understand the true end of association; would have sound motives to perform his duties; find real advantages in fulfilling them; in fact, it would be convinced, that to render himself solidly happy, he should occupy his actions with the welfare of his fellows; by their utility merit their esteem, elicit their kindness, and secure their assistance. In a well-constituted society, the government, the laws, education, example, would all conspire to prove to the citizen, that the nation of which he forms a part, is a whole that cannot be happy, that cannot subsist without virtue; experience would, at each step, convince him that the welfare of its parts can only result from that of the whole body corporate; justice would make him feel, that no society, can be advantageous to its members, where the volition of wills in those who act, is not so conformable to the interests of the whole, as to produce an advantageous re-action.

Saying that virtue is its own unique reward means that in a society guided by truth, shaped by experience, and led by reason, each person would know their real interests; they would grasp the true purpose of coming together; they would have solid reasons to do their duties and find real benefits in fulfilling them. In fact, they would realize that to be truly happy, they should focus their actions on the well-being of others, earn their respect through their usefulness, inspire their kindness, and secure their support. In a well-structured society, the government, laws, education, and role models would all work together to show citizens that the nation they belong to is a whole that cannot be happy or thrive without virtue. With each experience, they would be convinced that the well-being of its parts depends on the well-being of the whole community; justice would help them understand that no society can truly benefit its members unless the actions of individuals align with the interests of the whole, resulting in a positive reaction.

But, alas! by the confusion which the errors of man have carried into his ideas: virtue disgraced, banished, and persecuted, finds not one of those advantages it has a right to expect: man is indeed shewn those rewards for it in a future life, of which he is almost always deprived in his actual existence. It is thought necessary to deceive, considered proper to seduce, right to intimidate him, in order to induce him to follow that virtue which every thing renders incommodious to him; he is fed with distant hopes, in order to solicit him to practice virtue, while contemplation of the world makes it hateful to him; he is alarmed by remote terrors, to deter him from committing evil, which his associates paint as amiable; which all conspires to render necessary. It is thus that politics, thus that superstition, by the formation of chimeras, by the creation of fictitious interests pretend to supply those true, those real motives which nature furnishes,—which experience would point out,—which an enlightened government should hold forth,—which the law ought to enforce,—which instruction should sanction,—which example should encourage,-which rational opinions would render pleasant. Man, blinded by his passions, not less dangerous than necessary, led away by precedent, authorised by custom, enslaved by habit, pays no attention to these uncertain promises, is regardless of the menaces held out; the actual interests of his immediate pleasures, the force of his passions, the inveteracy of his habits, always rise superior to the distant interests pointed out in his future welfare, or the remote evils with which he is threatened; which always appear doubtful, whenever he compares them with present advantages.

But, unfortunately, because of the confusion caused by human errors in thinking, virtue, which is disrespected, exiled, and persecuted, does not receive any of the benefits it should expect. People are promised rewards for virtue in the afterlife, but they are usually deprived of these in their current lives. It seems necessary to deceive him, seen as acceptable to seduce him, and right to intimidate him to follow a virtue that everything makes inconvenient. He is fed distant hopes to encourage him to practice virtue, while the reality of the world makes it repulsive. He is scared by distant threats to keep him from doing wrong, which his peers portray as appealing, and that everyone seems to conspire to make necessary. This is how politics and superstition, through the creation of illusions and fictitious interests, pretend to provide the true and real motivations that nature provides, that experience highlights, that an enlightened government should promote, that the law should enforce, that education should support, that examples should inspire, and that rational ideas would make attractive. People, blinded by their passions, which are just as dangerous as they are essential, are led by tradition, sanctioned by custom, and enslaved by habit; they ignore these uncertain promises and disregard the threats presented to them. Instead, they focus on their immediate pleasures, the strength of their passions, and the stubbornness of their habits, which always take precedence over the distant interests of their future well-being or the vague dangers that threaten them, which always seem uncertain when compared to current benefits.

Thus superstition, far from making man virtuous by principle, does nothing more than impose upon him a yoke as severe as it is useless; it is borne by none but enthusiasts, or by the pusillanimous; who, without becoming better, tremblingly champ the feeble bit put into their mouth; who are either rendered unhappy by their opinions, or dangerous by their tenets; indeed, experience, that faithful monitor, incontestibly proves, that superstition is a dyke inadequate to resist the torrent of corruption, to which so many accumulated causes give an irresistible force: nay more, does not this superstition itself augment the public disorder, by the dangerous passions which it lets loose, by the conduct which it sanctions, by the actions which it consecrates? Virtue, in almost every climate, is confined to some few rational souls, who have sufficient strength of mind to resist the stream of prejudice; who are contented by remunerating themselves with the benefits they difuse over society: whose temperate dispositions are gratified with the suffrages of a small number of virtuous approvers; in short, who are detached from those frivolous advantages which the injustice of society but too commonly accords only to baseness, which it rarely bestows, except to intrigue, with which in general it rewards nothing but crime.

Thus superstition, instead of making people virtuous by principle, does nothing more than impose a burden that is as harsh as it is pointless; it is only carried by enthusiasts or the timid, who, without becoming better, nervously munch on the weak reins placed in their mouths; who are either made unhappy by their beliefs or dangerous by their doctrines; indeed, experience, that honest guide, unquestionably shows that superstition is a barrier that fails to hold back the flood of corruption, which so many combined factors give an unstoppable force: moreover, doesn’t this very superstition increase public chaos, by the harmful passions it unleashes, by the behavior it allows, by the actions it endorses? Virtue, in nearly every place, is limited to a few rational individuals who have enough strength of character to resist the current of prejudice; who are satisfied by rewarding themselves with the benefits they spread throughout society: whose measured dispositions are pleased by the approval of a small number of virtuous supporters; in short, who are detached from those trivial rewards that society's injustice often grants only to the corrupt, which it rarely gives, except to schemers, with which it generally rewards nothing but wrongdoing.

In despite of the injustice that reigns in the world, there are, however, some virtuous men in the bosom even of the most degenerate nations; notwithstanding the general depravity, there are some benevolent beings, still enamoured of virtue; who are fully acquainted with its true value; who are sufficiently enlightened to know that it exacts homage even from its enemies; who to use the language of ECCLESIASTES, "rejoice in their own works;" who are, at least, happy in possessing contented minds, who are satisfied with concealed pleasures, those internal recompences of which no earthly power is competent to deprive them. The honest man acquires a right to the esteem, has a just claim to the veneration, wins the confidence, gains the love, even of those whose conduct is exposed by a contrast with his own. In short, vice is obliged to cede to virtue; of which it blushingly, though unwillingly, acknowledges the superiority. Independent of this ascendancy so gentle, of this superiority so grand, of this pre-eminence so infallible, when even the whole universe should be unjust to him, when even every tongue should cover him with venom, when even every arm should menace him with hostility, there yet remains to the honest man the sublime advantage of loving his own conduct; the ineffable pleasure of esteeming himself; the unalloyed gratification of diving with satisfaction into the recesses of his own heart; the tranquil delight of contemplating his own actions with that delicious complacency that others ought to do, if they were not hood-winked, No power is adequate to ravish from him the merited esteem of himself; no authority is sufficiently potent to give it to him when he deserves it not; the mightiest monarch cannot lend stability to this esteem, when it is not well founded; it is then a ridiculous sentiment: it ought to be considered, it really is "vanity and vexation of spirit," it is not wisdom, but folly in the extreme; it ought to be censured when it displays itself in a mode that is mortifying to its neighbour, in a manner that is troublesome to others; it is then called ARROGANCE; it is called VANITY; but when it cannot be condemned, when it is known for legitimate when it is discovered to have a solid foundation, when it bottoms itself upon talents, when it rises upon great actions that are useful to the community, when it erects its edifice upon virtue; even though society should not set these merits at their just price, it is NOBLE PRIDE, ELEVATION OF MIND, and GRANDEUR OF SOUL.

Despite the injustice that exists in the world, there are still some virtuous people among even the most corrupt nations. Regardless of the general decline in morality, there are benevolent individuals who remain committed to virtue and understand its true value. They are enlightened enough to realize that virtue demands respect, even from its opponents. To use the words of ECCLESIASTES, they "rejoice in their own works." They find happiness in their contented minds and are satisfied by hidden joys—those inner rewards that no earthly power can take away. An honest person earns respect, has a rightful claim to admiration, gains trust, and wins love, even from those whose actions contrast sharply with theirs. In short, vice must yield to virtue, which it reluctantly acknowledges as superior. Beyond this gentle ascendancy, this grand superiority, and this undeniable preeminence, even if the entire universe turns against him, if every voice hurls accusations, and every hand threatens him, the honest person still possesses the profound advantage of loving his own actions. He enjoys the indescribable pleasure of valuing himself and the pure satisfaction of exploring the depths of his heart. He finds serene joy in reflecting on his actions with the kind of comforting pride that others should have if they weren't blinded by their own biases. No power can strip away his rightful self-esteem; no authority can give it to him when he doesn’t deserve it. Even the most powerful ruler cannot provide stability to respect that lacks a solid foundation; such respect becomes a foolish sentiment. It should be seen as "vanity and vexation of spirit," not wisdom but utter folly. It deserves criticism when it manifests in ways that undermine others or cause trouble; this is labeled ARROGANCE or VANITY. However, when it cannot be condemned, when it is recognized as legitimate and based on true merit—when it's supported by abilities or great deeds that benefit the community, when it stands on a foundation of virtue—then, even if society fails to value these qualities appropriately, it is seen as NOBLE PRIDE, ELEVATION OF MIND, and GRANDEUR OF SOUL.

Of what consequence then, is it to listen to those superstitious beings, those enemies to man's happiness, who have been desirous of destroying it, even in the inmost recesses of his heart; who have prescribed to him hatred of his follower; who have filled him with contempt for himself; who pretend to wrest from the honest man that self-respect which is frequently the only reward that remains to virtue, in a perverse world. To annihilate in him this sentiment, so full in justice, this love of himself, is to break the most powerful spring, to weaken the most efficacious stimulus, that urges him to act right; that spurs him on to do good to his fellow mortals. What motive, indeed, except it be this, remains for him in the greater part of human societies? Is not virtue discouraged? Is not honesty contemned? Is not audacious crime encouraged? Is not subtle intrigue eulogized? Is not cunning vice rewarded? Is not love of the public weal taxed as folly; exactitude in fulfilling duties looked upon as a bubble? Is not compassion laughed to scorn? ARE NOT TRAITORS DISTINGUISHED BY PUBLIC HONORS? Is not negligence of morals applauded,—sensibility derided,—tenderness scoffed,—conjugal fidelity jeered,—sincerity despised,—enviolable friendship treated with ridicule: while seduction, adultery, hard-heartedness, punic faith, avarice, and fraud, stalk forth unabashed, decked in gorgeous array, lauded by the world? Man must have motives for action: he neither acts well nor ill, but with a view to his own happiness: that which he judges will conduce to this "consummation so devoutly to be wished," he thinks his interest; he does nothing gratuitously; when reward for useful actions is withheld from him, he is reduced either to become as abandoned as others, or else to remunerate himself with his own applause.

What does it matter then, to listen to those superstitious people, those enemies of human happiness, who want to destroy it even in the deepest part of the heart; who have told him to hate his followers; who have filled him with self-contempt; who pretend to take away from the honest person that self-respect, which is often the only reward left for virtue in a corrupt world? To eliminate this feeling, which is so just, this love of self, is to break the strongest motivation, to weaken the most effective urge that pushes him to do what is right; that drives him to be good to his fellow humans. What reason, in fact, besides this, remains for him in most human societies? Isn't virtue discouraged? Isn't honesty looked down upon? Isn't bold crime encouraged? Isn't clever deceit praised? Isn't wicked cunning rewarded? Isn't love for the public good seen as foolish; is obeying duties not considered trivial? Isn't compassion mocked? AREN'T TRAITORS HONORED BY PUBLIC RECOGNITION? Isn't neglecting morals celebrated—sensitivity ridiculed—tenderness scoffed at—marital fidelity teased—sincerity disdained—unbreakable friendship laughed at: while seduction, adultery, callousness, betrayal, greed, and deceit strut forward unashamed, dressed in fine clothes, praised by society? People need reasons to act: they do not act well or poorly, but with an eye on their own happiness: what they believe will lead to this "consummation so devoutly to be wished" they consider in their interest; they do nothing for free; when rewards for their good deeds are denied, they either become as reckless as others or find satisfaction in their own self-praise.

This granted; the honest man can never be completely unhappy; he can never be entirely deprived of the recompence which is his due; virtue is competent to repay him for all the benefits he may bestow on others; can amply make up to him all the happiness denied him by public opinion; but nothing can compensate to him the want of virtue. It does not follow that the honest man will be exempted from afflictions: like, the wicked, he is subject to physical evils; he may pine in indigence; he may be deprived of friendship; he may be worn down with disease; he may frequently be the subject of calumny; he may be the victim to injustice; he may be treated with ingratitude; he may be exposed to hatred; but in the midst of all his misfortunes, in the very bosom of his sorrows, in the extremity of his vexation, he finds support in himself; he is contented with his own conduct; he respects himself; he feels his own dignity; he knows the equity of his rights; he consoles himself with the confidence inspired by the justness of his cause; he cheers himself amidst the most sullen circumstances. These supports are not calculated for the wicked; they avail him nothing: equally liable with the honest man to infirmities, equally submitted to the caprices of his destiny, equally the sport of a fluctuating world, he finds the recesses of his own heart filled with dreadful alarms; diseased with care; cankered with solitude; corroded with regret; gnawed by remorse; he dies within himself; his conscience sustains him not but loads him with reproach; his mind, overwhelmed, sinks beneath its own turpitude; his reflection is the bitter dregs of hemlock; maddening anguish holds him to the mirror that shews him his own deformity; that recalls unhallowed deeds; gloomy thoughts rush on his too faithful memory; despondence benumbs him; his body, simultaneously assailed on all sides, bends under the storm of—his own unruly passions; at last despair grapples him to her filthy bosom, he flies from himself. The honest man is not an insensible Stoic; virtue does not procure impassibility; honesty gives no exemption from misfortune, but it enables him to bear cheerly up against it; to cast off despair, to keep his own company: if he is infirm, if he is worn with disease, he has less to complain of than the vicious being who is oppressed with sickness, who is enfeebled by years; if he is indigent, he is less unhappy in his poverty; if he is in disgrace, he can endure it with fortitude, he is not overwhelmed by its pressure, like the wretched slave to crime.

Given this, an honest person can never be completely unhappy; they can never be fully denied the reward they deserve; their virtue can repay them for all the good they’ve done for others; it can significantly compensate for the happiness lost due to public opinion; but nothing can make up for the lack of virtue. It doesn't mean that an honest person will be free from suffering: like the wicked, they are subject to physical hardships; they may struggle with poverty; they may lose friendships; they may suffer from illness; they may often face slander; they may be victims of injustice; they may be treated poorly; they may be met with hatred; but amid all their misfortunes, in the heart of their sorrows, and in the depths of their frustration, they find strength in themselves; they are satisfied with their actions; they respect themselves; they recognize their own dignity; they understand the fairness of their rights; they find solace in the confidence that comes from the righteousness of their cause; they uplift themselves even in the darkest situations. These sources of support are not meant for the wicked; they serve them not at all: just like the honest person, they are prone to weaknesses, subjected to the whims of fate, and tossed around by a changing world, but they find the depths of their own heart filled with terrible fears; troubled by worry; scarred by loneliness; haunted by regret; tormented by guilt; they feel dead inside; their conscience doesn’t uplift them but burdens them with shame; their mind, overwhelmed, sinks under its own wrongdoing; their thoughts are the bitter residue of poison; maddening anguish forces them to face a reflection that reveals their own ugliness; it reminds them of their sinful acts; dark thoughts flood their too-reliable memory; despair numbs them; their body, attacked from all sides, buckles under the storm of their own unchecked desires; in the end, despair clutches them close, and they escape from themselves. The honest person is not an unfeeling Stoic; virtue doesn’t bring emotional numbness; honesty doesn’t exempt them from misfortune, but it helps them face it with resilience; to shake off despair, to enjoy their own company: if they are weak, if they are worn down by illness, they have less to complain about than a vicious person who suffers sickness, who is weakened by age; if they are poor, they are less miserable in their poverty; if they are disgraced, they can bear it with strength; they are not overwhelmed by its weight, like a miserable slave to wrongdoing.

Thus the happiness of each individual depends on the cultivation of his temperament; nature makes both the happy and the unhappy; it is culture that gives value to the soil nature has formed; it is instruction that makes the fruit it produces palatable; It is reflection that makes it useful. For man to be happily born, is to have received from nature a sound body, organs that act with precision—a just mind, a heart whose passions are analogous, whose desires are conformable to the circumstances in which his destiny has placed him: nature, then, has done every thing for him, when she has joined to these faculties the quantum of vigour, the portion of energy, sufficient to enable him to obtain those Proper things, which his station, his mode of thinking, his temperament, have rendered desirable. Nature has made him a fatal present, when she has filled his sanguinary vessels with an over-heated fluid; when she has given him an imagination too active; when she has infused into him desires too impetuous; when he has a hankering after objects either impossible or improper to be obtained under his circumstances; or which at least he cannot procure without those incredible efforts, that either place his own welfare in danger or disturb the repose of society. The most happy man, is commonly he who possesses a peaceful soul; who only desires those things which he can procure by labour, suitable to maintain his activity; which he can obtain without causing those shocks, that are either too violent for society, or troublesome to his associates. A philosopher whose wants are easily satisfied, who is a stranger, to ambition, who is contented with the limited circle of a small number of friends, is, without doubt a being much more happily constituted than an ambitious conqueror, whose greedy imagination is reduced to despair by having only one world to ravage. He who is happily born, or whom nature has rendered susceptible of being conveniently modified, is not a being injurious to society: it is generally disturbed by men who are unhappily born, whose organization renders them turbulent; who are discontented with their destiny; who are inebriated with their own licentious passions; who are infatuated with their own vile schemes; who are smitten with difficult enterprises; who set the world in combustion, to gather imaginary benefits in order to attain which they must inflict he heaviest curses on mankind, but in which they make their own happiness consist. An ALEXANDER requires the destruction of empires, nations to be deluged with blood, cities to be laid in ashes, its inhabitants to be exterminated, to content that passion for glory, of which he has formed to himself a false idea; but which his too ardent imagination, his too vehement mind anxiously thirsts after: for a DIOGENES there needs only a tub with the liberty of appearing whimsical; a SOCRATES wants nothing but the pleasure of forming disciples to virtue.

Thus, each person's happiness depends on how they develop their temperament; nature creates both the happy and the unhappy, but culture adds value to the foundation that nature has built. It is education that makes the results pleasing, and reflection that makes them meaningful. For a person to be born happy, they need to have a healthy body, well-functioning organs, a fair mind, and a heart whose passions align with their circumstances. Nature has done everything for them when it combines these abilities with enough energy to achieve the good things that their position, mindset, and temperament make desirable. Nature can give a harmful gift when it fills their veins with excessive passion, when it gives them an overly active imagination, when it instills in them desires that are too intense, or when they long for things that are either impossible or inappropriate for their situation. They may also seek out things that require such immense effort that it risks their own well-being or disrupts society. The happiest person is usually one who has a peaceful soul, who desires only what they can achieve through work that suits their energy—things they can obtain without causing disturbances that are too disruptive for society or burdensome to others. A philosopher who has simple needs, who is free from ambition, and who is content with a small circle of friends, is undoubtedly much more fortunate than an ambitious conqueror, whose insatiable desire leads to despair in a world they can only conquer once. Those who are born happy or are shaped advantageously by nature are not harmful to society; it is typically those who are born unhappy, with turbulent dispositions, who are dissatisfied with their fate, intoxicated by their reckless passions, obsessed with their selfish schemes, and drawn into difficult challenges, who create chaos in the world to pursue imaginary gains, all while inflicting great suffering on mankind, yet believing this will bring them happiness. An ALEXANDER requires the destruction of empires, nations to be drenched in blood, and cities to be reduced to ashes in order to satisfy his misguided ambition for glory, which his overactive imagination and intense mind crave. In contrast, a DIOGENES only needs a tub and the freedom to be eccentric; a SOCRATES seeks nothing more than the joy of teaching virtue to his disciples.

Man by his organization is a being to whom motion is always necessary; he must therefore always desire it: this is the reason why too much facility In procuring the objects of his search, renders them quickly insipid. To feel happiness, it is necessary to make efforts to obtain it; to find charms in its enjoyment, it is necessary that the desire should be whetted by obstacles; he is presently disgusted with those benefits which have cost him but little pains. The expectation of happiness, the labour requisite to procure it, the varied prospects it holds forth, the multiplied pictures which his imagination forms to him, supply his brain with that motion for which it has occasion; this gives impulse to his organs, puts his whole machine into activity, exercises his faculties, sets all his springs in play, in a word, puts him into that agreeable activity, for the want of which the enjoyment of happiness itself cannot compensate him. Action is the true element of the human mind; as soon as it ceases to act, it falls into disgust, sinks into lassitude. His soul has the same occasion for ideas, his stomach has for aliment.

A person, by nature, requires constant movement; therefore, he always craves it. This is why having easy access to what he seeks makes things lose their appeal quickly. To truly feel happiness, he needs to put in efforts to achieve it; to enjoy it fully, his desire must be sharpened by challenges. He soon grows tired of those rewards that come too easily. The anticipation of happiness, the work needed to attain it, the various possibilities it offers, and the many images his imagination creates give his mind the movement it craves. This drives him to be active, engages all his faculties, sets everything in motion, and ultimately puts him in a satisfying state of activity that the mere enjoyment of happiness cannot provide. Action is the essence of the human mind; when it stops acting, it falls into boredom and lethargy. Just like his soul needs thoughts, his stomach needs food.

Thus the impulse given him by desire, is itself a great benefit; it is to the mind what exercise is to the body; without it he would not derive any pleasure in the aliments presented to him; it is thirst that renders the pleasure of drinking so agreeable; life is a perpetual circle of regenerated desires and wants satisfied: repose is only a pleasure to him who labours; it is a source of weariness, the cause of sorrow, the spring of vice to him who has nothing to do. To enjoy without interruption is not to enjoy any thing: the man who has nothing to desire is certainly more unhappy than he who suffers.

Thus, the drive from desire is itself a significant advantage; it’s to the mind what exercise is to the body. Without it, he wouldn’t find any joy in the things offered to him; it’s thirst that makes the pleasure of drinking so enjoyable. Life is a continuous cycle of renewed desires and fulfilled wants: rest is only enjoyable for someone who works; it becomes a source of boredom, the cause of sadness, and the trigger for vice for someone who has nothing to do. To enjoy without pause isn’t really enjoying anything at all: a person with no desires is definitely more unhappy than someone who suffers.

These reflections, grounded upon experience, drawn from the fountain of truth, ought to prove to man, that good as well as evil depends on the essence of things. Happiness to be felt cannot be continued. Labour is necessary, to make intervals between his pleasures; his body has occasion for exercise, to co-order him with the beings who surround him; his heart must have desires; trouble alone can give him the right relish of his welfare; it is this which puts in the shadows, this which furnishes the true perspective to the picture of human life. By an irrevocable law of his destiny, man is obliged to be discontented with his present condition; to make efforts to change it; to reciprocally envy that felicity which no individual enjoys perfectly. Thus the poor man envies the opulence of his richer neighbour, although this is frequently more unhappy than his needy maligner; thus the rich man views with pain the advantages of a poverty, which he sees active, healthy, and frequently jocund, even in the bosom of penury.

These thoughts, based on experience and drawn from the fountain of truth, should show us that both good and evil rely on the nature of things. Happiness, once experienced, can't last forever. Work is necessary to create breaks between our joys; our bodies need exercise to stay in sync with those around us; our hearts must have desires; only through struggles can we truly appreciate our well-being; it’s the challenges that cast shadows, giving us the right perspective on human life. By an unchangeable law of his fate, a person is destined to be dissatisfied with their current situation; they must strive to change it; they will always envy a happiness that no one truly attains. Thus, the poor person envies the wealth of their richer neighbor, even though that neighbor is often more miserable than their less fortunate counterpart; similarly, the rich person feels pain when witnessing the benefits of a poverty that can be vibrant, healthy, and often joyful, even amidst hardship.

If man was perfectly contented, there would no longer be any activity in the world; it is necessary that he should desire; it is requisite that he should act; it is incumbent he should labour, in order that he may be happy: such is the course of nature of which the life consists in action. Human societies can only subsist, by the continual exchange of those things in which man places his happiness. The poor man is obliged to desire, he is necessitated to labour, that he may procure what he knows is requisite to the preservation of his existence; the primary wants given to him by nature, are to nourish himself, clothe himself, lodge himself, and propagate his species; has he satisfied these? He is quickly obliged to create others entirely new; or rather, his imagination only refines upon the first; he seeks to diversify them; he is willing to give them fresh zest; arrived at opulence, when he has run over the whole circle of wants, when he has completely exhausted their combinations, he falls into disgust. Dispensed from labour, his body amasses humours; destitute of desires, his heart feels a languor; deprived of activity, he is obliged to participate his riches, with beings more active, more laborious than himself: these, following their own peculiar interests, take upon themselves the task of labouring for his advantage; of procuring for him means to satisfy his want; of ministering to his caprices, in order to remove the languor that oppresses him. It is thus the great, the rich excite the energies, give play to the activity, rouse the faculties, spur on the industry of the indigent; these labour to their own peculiar welfare by working for others: thus the desire of ameliorating his condition, renders man necessary to his fellow man; thus wants, always regenerating, never satisfied, are the principles of life,—the soul of activity,—the source of health,—the basis of society. If each individual was competent to the supply of his own exigencies, there would be no occasion for him to congregate in society; but it is his wants, his desires, his whims, that place him in a state of dependence on others: these are the causes that each individual, in order to further his own peculiar interest, is obliged to be useful to those, who have the capability of procuring for him the objects which he himself has not. A nation is nothing more than the union of a great number of individuals, connected with each other by the reciprocity of their wants; by their mutual desire of pleasure. The most happy man is he who has the fewest wants, and who has the most numerous means of satisfying them. The man who would be truly rich, has no need to increase his fortune, it suffices he should diminish his wants.

If a person were perfectly content, there would be no activity in the world; it’s essential for them to have desires; it’s necessary for them to take action; and they must work to achieve happiness: that’s the way nature is, where life is about action. Human societies can only survive through the ongoing exchange of things that people see as their happiness. A poor person is forced to desire things and has to work to get what they need to survive; the basic needs nature gives them are to feed themselves, dress themselves, have shelter, and reproduce; if they meet these needs, they quickly feel the need to create new ones; or rather, their imagination just refines the initial ones; they seek to diversify them; they want to add new excitement. Once they become wealthy and have explored all the various wants and exhausted their combinations, they become bored. Free from work, their body accumulates excess; lacking desires, their heart feels weary; deprived of activity, they must share their wealth with those who are more active and industrious than themselves: these people, pursuing their own interests, take it upon themselves to work for the wealthy person's benefit; to provide them with what they need to satisfy their desires; to cater to their whims, in order to relieve the weariness that weighs them down. This way, the wealthy and the rich stimulate the energies, encourage activity, awaken the abilities, and motivate the hard work of those in need; those in need work for their own benefit by helping others: thus, the desire to improve one’s situation makes humans essential to one another; thus, wants, which are always regenerating and never fully satisfied, are the principles of life—the essence of activity—the source of health—the foundation of society. If each person could meet their own needs, there would be no reason for them to come together in society; but it’s their wants, their desires, their whims, that put them in a state of dependence on others: these are the reasons that each individual, to further their own interests, must be useful to those who can provide for the things they can’t get themselves. A nation is simply the union of many individuals, connected by their mutual needs; by their shared desire for pleasure. The happiest person is the one with the fewest wants and the greatest means to satisfy them. The truly rich person doesn’t need to increase their fortune; it’s enough for them to reduce their wants.

In the individuals of the human species, as well as in political society, the progression of wants, is a thing absolutely necessary; it is founded upon the essence of man, it is requisite that the natural wants once satisfied, should be replaced by those which he calls Imaginary, or wants of the Fancy: these become as necessary to his happiness as the first. Custom, which permits the native American to go quite naked, obliges the more civilized inhabitant of Europe to clothe himself; the poor man contents himself with very simple attire, which equally serve him for winter and for summer, for autumn and for spring; the rich man desires to have garments suitable to each mutation of these seasons; he would experience pain if he had not the convenience of changing his raiment with every variation of his climate; he would be wretched if he was obliged to wear the same habiliments in the heat of summer, which he uses in the winter; in short, he would be unhappy if the expence and variety of his costume did not display to the surrounding multitude his opulence, mark his rank, announce his superiority. It is thus habit multiplies, the wants of the wealthy; it is thus that vanity itself becomes a want which sets a thousand hands in, motion, a thousand heads to work, who are all eager to gratify its cravings; in short, this very vanity procures for the necessitous man, the means of subsisting at the expense of his opulent neighbours He who is accustomed to pomp, who is used to ostentatious splendour, whose habits are luxurious, whenever he is deprived of these insignia of opulence, to which he has attached the idea of happiness, finds himself just as unhappy as the needy wretch who has not wherewith to cover his nakedness. The civilized nations of the present day were in their origin savages composed of erratic tribes,—mere wanderers who were occupied with war; employed in, the chace; painfully obliged to seek precarious subsistence by hunting in those woods which the industry of their successors has cleared; which their labour has covered with yellow waving ears of nutritious corn; in time they have become stationary: they first applied themselves to Agriculture, afterwards to commerce: by degrees they have refined on their primitive wants, extended their sphere of action, given birth to a thousand new wants, imagined a thousand new means to satisfy them; this is the natural course, the necessary progression, the regular march of active beings, who cannot live without feeling; who to be happy, must of necessity diversify their sensations. In proportion as man's wants multiply the means to satisfy them becomes more difficult, he is obliged to depend on a greater number of his fellow creatures; his interest obliges him to rouse their activity; to engage them to concur with his views; consequently he is obliged to procure for them those objects by which they can be excited; he is under the necessity of contenting their desires, which increase like his own, by the very food that satisfies them. The savage needs only put forth his hand to gather the fruit that offers itself spontaneously to his reach: this he finds sufficient for his nourishment. The opulent citizen of a flourishing society is obliged to set innumerable hands to work to produce the sumptuous repast; the four quarters of the globe are ransacked to procure the far-fetched viands become necessary to revive his languid appetite; the merchant, the sailor, the mechanic, leave nothing unattempted to flatter his inordinate vanity. From this it will appear, that in the same proportion the wants of man are multiplied, he is obliged to augment the means to satisfy them. Riches are nothing more than the measure of a convention, by the assistance of which man is enabled to make a great number of his fellows concur in the gratification of his desires; by which he is capacitated to invite them, for their own peculiar interests, to contribute to his pleasures. What, in fact, does the rich man do, except announce to the needy, that he can furnish him with the means of subsistence if he consents to lend himself to his will? What does the man in power, except shew to others, that he is in a state to supply the requisites to render them happy? Sovereigns, nobles, men of wealth, appear to be happy, only because they possess the ability, are masters of the motives sufficient to determine a great number of individuals to occupy themselves with their respective felicity.

In humans and in society, the progression of desires is absolutely essential; it’s based on the essence of being human. Once natural needs are met, they should be replaced by what he calls *Imaginary, or wants of the Fancy:* these become just as crucial to happiness as the first. Custom allows the native American to live without clothes, while the more civilized European must dress themselves. The poor individual settles for very basic clothing that works for all seasons—winter, summer, autumn, and spring. In contrast, the wealthy person wants outfits suitable for each season’s changes. They would feel discomfort if they couldn’t change their clothes with the shift in climate; they’d be miserable if they had to wear the same attire in summer as they do in winter. Ultimately, they’d be unhappy if the cost and variety of their garments didn’t showcase their wealth, signify their status, and assert their superiority. This is how habit increases the desires of the rich; this is how vanity itself becomes a need that drives countless hands and minds eager to satisfy its demands. Ultimately, this same vanity provides the struggling person with the means to survive at the expense of the wealthy neighbors. Someone used to luxury and ostentation, who equates these symbols of wealth with happiness, finds themselves just as unhappy as a poor person who lacks even basic covering. Today’s civilized nations started as primitive peoples made up of wandering tribes—mere nomads focused on war and hunting, struggling to find food by foraging in the same woods that later generations cleared for agriculture, yielding golden grains of nutritious corn. Over time, they settled down, first embracing farming, then commerce. Gradually, they refined their basic needs, expanded their activities, created countless new desires, and came up with a myriad of ways to meet them. This is the natural progression, the necessary development, the steady journey of active beings who cannot exist without feelings; for true happiness, they must diversify their experiences. As human desires multiply, satisfying them becomes increasingly complex, requiring dependence on a larger network of fellow humans. Their interests drive them to stimulate the efforts of others, engaging them to align with their goals; thus, they must provide the resources that can motivate these individuals. They also need to satisfy the desires that grow alongside their own—desires that demand similar kinds of fulfillment. The savage merely needs to reach out to collect the fruit readily available within reach: this is enough for their sustenance. The wealthy citizen in a prosperous society, however, must engage countless individuals to prepare a lavish meal; the four corners of the earth are explored to find rare delicacies that have become essential to refresh their dulled hunger. Merchants, sailors, and craftspeople leave no stone unturned to cater to their excessive vanity. It’s clear that as human wants increase, so too does the necessity to enhance the means to fulfill them. Wealth is simply a measure of an agreement, allowing individuals to rally a large number of others to help satisfy their desires; it enables them to invite others—acting in their own best interests—to contribute to their enjoyment. What does a rich person do, if not inform the needy that they can provide the means for survival if they agree to serve their needs? What does someone in power do, except demonstrate to others that they can meet their requirements for happiness? Rulers, aristocrats, and wealthy individuals seem to be happy only because they hold the power to motivate many others to engage in their own quest for happiness.

The more things are considered the more man will be convinced that his false opinion are the true source of his misery; the clearer it will appear to him that happiness is so rare, only because he attaches it to objects either indifferent or useless to his welfare; which, when enjoyed, convert themselves into real evils; which afflict him; which become the cause of his misfortune.

The more one thinks about things, the more they’ll realize that their mistaken beliefs are the true cause of their unhappiness; it will become clearer to them that happiness is so rare simply because they link it to things that are either meaningless or harmful to their well-being; these things, when pursued, end up turning into real problems that cause them distress and become the source of their misfortune.

Riches are indifferent in themselves, it is only by their application, by the purposes they compass, that they either become objects of utility to man, or are rendered prejudicial to his welfare.

Wealth is neutral in itself; it’s only through how it’s used and the goals it serves that it can be beneficial to people or harmful to their well-being.

Money, useless to the savage who understands not its value, is amassed by the miser, for fear it should be employed uselessly; lest it should be squandered by the prodigal; or dissipated by the voluptuary; who make no other use of it than to purchase infirmities; to buy regret.

Money, worthless to the savage who doesn't grasp its value, is hoarded by the miser, fearing it will be wasted; so it won't be squandered by the extravagant or wasted by the pleasure-seeker; who use it only to buy weaknesses and to purchase regret.

Pleasures are nothing for the man who is incapable of feeling them; they become real evils when they are too freely indulged, when they are destructive to his health,—when they derange the economy of his machine,—when they entail diseases on himself and on his posterity,—when they make him neglect his duties,—when they render him despicable in the eyes of others.

Pleasures mean nothing to someone who can't experience them; they turn into genuine problems when indulged in too much, when they harm his health, when they disrupt the balance of his being, when they lead to illnesses for him and his descendants, when they cause him to neglect his responsibilities, and when they make him contemptible in the eyes of others.

Power is nothing in itself, it is useless to man if he does not avail himself of it to promote his own peculiar felicity, by augmenting the happiness of his species; it becomes fatal to him as soon as he abuses it; it becomes odious whenever he employs it to render others miserable; it is always the cause of his own misery whenever he stretches it beyond the due bounds prescribed by nature.

Power itself means nothing; it's useless to a person if they don't use it to enhance their own happiness by increasing the well-being of others. It can become dangerous the moment it is misused; it becomes loathed whenever it is used to make others suffer. It is always a source of one's own misery whenever it is extended beyond the natural limits set by nature.

For want of being enlightened on his true interest, the man who enjoys all the means of rendering himself completely happy, scarcely ever discovers the secret of making those means truly subservient to his own peculiar felicity: the art of enjoying, is that which of all others is least understood; man should learn this art before he begins to desire; the earth is covered with individuals who only occupy themselves with the care of procuring the means without ever being acquainted with the end. All the world desire fortune, solicit power, seek after pleasure, yet very few, indeed, are those whom objects render truly happy.

Due to a lack of understanding about his true interests, a man who has all the resources to make himself completely happy often fails to figure out how to actually use those resources for his own happiness. The skill of enjoying life is one of the least understood; people should learn this skill before they start desiring things. The world is filled with individuals who focus solely on obtaining resources without ever knowing what to do with them. Everyone wants wealth, seeks power, and chases after pleasure, yet only a small number of people find true happiness from these pursuits.

It is quite natural in man, it is extremely reasonable, it is absolutely necessary, to desire those things which can contribute to augment the sum of his felicity. Pleasure, riches, power, are objects worthy his ambition, deserving his most strenuous efforts, when he has learned how to employ them; when he has acquired the faculty of making them render his existence really more agreeable. It is impossible to censure him who desires them, to despise him who commands them, but when to obtain them he employs odious means; or when after he has obtained them he makes a pernicious use of them, injurious to himself, prejudicial to others; let him wish for power, let him seek after grandeur, let him be ambitious of reputation, when he can shew just pretensions to them; when he can obtain them, without making the purchase at the expence of his own repose, or that of the beings with whom he lives: let him desire riches, when he knows how to make a use of them that is truly advantageous for himself, really beneficial for others; but never let him employ those means to procure them of which he may be ashamed; with which he may be obliged to reproach himself; which may draw upon him the hatred of his associates; or which may render him obnoxious to the castigation of society: let him always recollect, that his solid happiness should rest its foundations upon its own esteem,—upon the advantages he procures for others; above all, never let him for a moment forget, that of all the objects to which his ambition may point, the most impracticable for a being who lives in society, is that of attempting to render himself exclusively happy.

It’s completely natural for a person to want things that can increase their happiness. Pleasure, wealth, power, are all worthy goals that deserve their best efforts when they know how to use them; when they’ve learned how to make these things genuinely improve their lives. It’s impossible to criticize someone for wanting them or to look down on someone who has them, but if they use terrible methods to get them, or if they misuse them in ways that harm themselves or others, that’s different. They can aspire for power, pursue greatness, and aim for a good reputation when they have valid reasons to do so; when they can achieve these things without sacrificing their own peace or that of those around them. They can seek wealth if they know how to use it in ways that truly benefit themselves and others; but they should never resort to shameful methods to acquire it, ones that make them regret their actions, that earn them the disdain of their peers, or that could expose them to society’s judgment. They should always remember that true happiness should be based on self-esteem and the good they can do for others; above all, they must never forget that one of the most impossible ambitions for someone who lives in society is to try to make themselves exclusively happy.










CHAP. XVI

The Errors of Man,—upon what constitutes Happiness.—the true Source of his Evil.—Remedies that may be applied.

The Mistakes of Humanity—what makes us Happy—the real Cause of our Problems—Solutions that can be used.

Reason by no means forbids man from forming capacious desires; ambition is a passion useful to his species when it has for, its object the happiness of his race. Great minds, elevated souls, are desirous of acting on an extended sphere; geniuses who are powerful, beings who are enlightened, men who are beneficent, distribute very widely their benign influence; they must necessarily, in order to promote their own peculiar felicity, render great numbers happy. So many princes fail to enjoy true happiness only, because their feeble, narrow souls, are obliged to act in a sphere too extensive for their energies: it is thus that by the supineness, the indolence, the incapacity of their chiefs, nations frequently pine in misery; are often submitted to masters, whose exility of mind is as little calculated to promote their own immediate happiness, as it is to further that of their miserable subjects. On the other hand, souls too vehement, too much inflamed, too active, are themselves tormented by the narrow sphere that confines them; their ardour misplaced, becomes the scourge of the human race. Alexander was a monarch who was equally injurious to the earth, equally discontented with his condition, as the indolent despot whom he dethroned. The souls of neither were by any means commensurate with their sphere of action.

Reason certainly doesn’t stop people from having big desires; ambition is a passion that can benefit humanity when it aims at the happiness of others. Great minds and noble spirits wish to make a significant impact; powerful geniuses, enlightened beings, and generous individuals spread their positive influence widely. To achieve their own happiness, they must help many others find joy. Many rulers are unhappy simply because their weak, limited souls are forced to function in a role that exceeds their abilities: this is how, due to the laziness, apathy, and incompetence of their leaders, nations often suffer in misery and are subjected to leaders whose limited minds are incapable of promoting their own happiness or that of their unfortunate subjects. Conversely, those who are overly passionate, too driven, and too active find themselves frustrated by the constraints of their environment, and their misplaced fervor can become a burden on humanity. Alexander was a ruler who harmed the world and was just as dissatisfied with his life as the lazy despot he overthrew. Neither of their spirits matched the scope of their influence.

The happiness of man will never be more than the result of the harmony that subsists between his desires and his circumstances. The sovereign power to him who knows not how to apply it to the advantage of his citizens, is as nothing; it cannot even conduce to his own peculiar happiness. If it renders him miserable, it is a real evil; if it produces the misfortune of a portion of the human race, it is a detestable abuse. The most powerful princes are ordinarily such strangers to happiness, their subjects are commonly so unfortunate, only because the first possess all the means of rendering themselves happy without ever giving them activity; or because the only knowledge they have of them, is their abuse. A wise man seated on a throne, would be the most happy of mortals. A monarch is a man for whom his power, let it be of whatever extent, cannot procure other organs, other modes of feeling, than the meanest of his subjects; if he has an advantage over them, it is by the grandeur, the variety, the multiplicity of the objects with which he can occupy himself; which by giving perpetual activity to his mind, can prevent it from decay; from falling into sloth. If his soul is virtuous, if his mind is expansive, his ambition finds continual food in the contemplation of the power he possesses, to unite by gentleness, to consolidate by kindness, the will of his subjects with his own; to interest them in his own conservation, to merit their affections,—to draw forth the respect of strangers,—to render luminous the page of history—to elicit the eulogies of all nations—to clothe the orphan,—to dry the widow's tears. Such are the conquests that reason proposes to all those whose destiny it is to govern the fate of empires; they are sufficiently grand to satisfy the most ardent imagination, of a sublimity to gratify the most capacious ambition: for a monarch they are paramount duties.—KINGS are the most happy of men, only because they have the power of making others happy; because they possess the means of multiplying the causes of legitimate content with themselves.

The happiness of a person will always come down to the balance between their desires and their circumstances. For someone who doesn’t know how to use their power for the benefit of their people, that power means nothing; it can't even lead to their own happiness. If it makes them miserable, that's a real problem; if it causes suffering for some of humanity, it's a terrible misuse. The most powerful rulers are often the most distant from happiness, and their subjects tend to be quite unfortunate, simply because the rulers have all the means to be happy but never put them to good use; or because their only experience with those means is when they are misused. A wise person on a throne would be the happiest of all. A monarch is just a person whose power, no matter how great, doesn’t give them different feelings than the least of their subjects; if they have an edge, it’s in the grandeur, the variety, and the many things that can keep them occupied, which keeps their mind active and prevents it from going to waste or becoming lazy. If their spirit is virtuous and their mind broad, their ambition is constantly fed by the power they hold to unite their subjects’ will with their own through kindness, to get them invested in their well-being, to earn their affection, to gain respect from outsiders, to shine in history, to earn praise from all nations, to provide for orphans, and to comfort widows. Those are the victories that reason shows to anyone destined to rule empires; they are grand enough to satisfy even the most passionate imagination and elevate the highest ambitions: for a monarch, they are essential duties. KINGS are the happiest people simply because they have the power to make others happy; they have the means to increase the reasons for legitimate contentment within themselves.

The advantages of the sovereign power are participated by all those who contribute to the government of states. Thus grandeur, rank, reputation, are desirable, are legitimate objects for all who are acquainted with the means of rendering them subservient to their own peculiar felicity; they are useless, they are illegitimate to those ordinary men who have neither the energy nor the capacity to employ them in a mode advantageous to themselves; they are detestable whenever to obtain them man compromises his own happiness, when he implicates the welfare of society: this society itself is in an error every time it respects men who only employ to its destruction, a power, the exercise of which it ought never to approve but when it reaps from it substantial benefits.

The benefits of sovereign power are shared by everyone who helps govern a state. Therefore, status, prestige, and reputation are desirable and legitimate goals for those who know how to use them for their own happiness; they become worthless and illegitimate for ordinary people who lack the drive or ability to use them in a way that benefits themselves. They're especially detestable when someone sacrifices their own happiness to gain them or when they harm society in the process. Society itself is mistaken whenever it respects individuals who use their power to its detriment, as this power should only be endorsed when it brings real benefits to the community.

Riches, useless to the miser, who is no more than their miserable gaoler; prejudicial to the debauchee, for whom they only procure infirmities; injurious to the voluptuary, to whom they only bring disgust—whom they oppress with satiety; can in the hands of the honest man produce unnumbered means of augmenting the sum of his happiness; but before man covets wealth it is proper he should know how to employ it; money is only a token, a representative of happiness; to enjoy it is so to use it as to make others happy: this is the great secret, this is the talisman, this is the reality. Money, according to the compact of man, procures for him all those benefits he can desire; there is only one, which it will not procure, that is, the knowledge how to apply it properly. For man to have money, without the true secret how to enjoy it, is to possess the key of a commodious palace to which he is interdicted entrance; to lavish it, prodigally, is to throw the key into the river; to make a bad use of it, is only to make it the means of wounding himself. Give the most ample treasures to the enlightened man, he will not be overwhelmed with them; if he has a capacious mind, if he has a noble soul, he will only extend more widely his benevolence; he will deserve the affection of a greater number of his fellow men; he will attract the love, he will secure the homage, of all those who surround him; he will restrain himself in his pleasures, in order that he may be enabled truly to enjoy them; he will know that money cannot re-establish a soul worn out with enjoyment; cannot give fresh elasticity to organs enfeebled by excess; cannot give fresh tension to nerves grown flaccid by abuse; cannot invigorate a body enervated by debauchery; cannot corroborate a machine, from thenceforth become incapable of sustaining him, except by the necessity of privations; he will know that the licentiousness of the voluptuary stifles pleasure in its source; that all the treasure in the world cannot renew his senses.

Wealth, useless to the miser, who is nothing more than its wretched jailer; harmful to the debauchee, who only uses it to gain weaknesses; detrimental to the pleasure-seeker, who is only brought disgust—overwhelmed by excess; can, in the hands of an honest person, create countless ways to increase their happiness. But before someone desires wealth, it’s essential they know how to use it properly; money is just a symbol, a representation of happiness; to truly enjoy it means using it to make others happy: this is the great secret, this is the key, this is the reality. Money, according to social agreement, can provide all those benefits one might desire; there’s only one thing it can’t provide, and that is, the knowledge of how to use it wisely. Having money without the true understanding of how to enjoy it is like holding the key to a grand palace you can’t enter; to waste it recklessly is to toss the key into the river; to misuse it only harms oneself. Give abundant riches to an enlightened person, and they won’t be overwhelmed by it; if they have an open mind and a noble spirit, they will only expand their generosity; they will earn the affection of more people; they will draw love and respect from everyone around them; they will hold back on their pleasures so they can truly enjoy them; they will realize that money cannot restore a tired soul from indulgence; cannot rejuvenate organs weakened by excess; cannot tighten nerves made loose by abuse; cannot strengthen a body weakened by debauchery; cannot revive a machine that can no longer sustain him, except through the need for deprivation; they will understand that the excesses of the pleasure-seeker stifle joy at its source; that no amount of treasure can renew their senses.

From this, it will be obvious, that nothing is more frivolous than the declamations of a gloomy philosophy against the desire of power; nothing more absurd than the rant of superstition against the pursuit of grandeur; nothing more inconsistent than homilies against the acquisition of riches; nothing more unreasonable than dogmas that forbid the enjoyment of pleasure. These objects are desirable for man, whenever his situation allows him to make pretensions to them; they are useful to society, conducive to public happiness, whenever he has acquired the knowledge of making them turn to his own real advantage; reason cannot censure him, virtue cannot despise him, when in order to obtain them, he never travels out of the road of truth; when in their acquisition, he wounds no one's interest; when he pursues only legitimate means: his associates will applaud him; his contemporaries will esteem him: he will respect himself, when he only employs their agency to secure his own happiness, and that of his fellows. Pleasure is a benefit, it is of the essence of man to love, it is even rational when it renders his existence really valuable to himself—when it does not injure him in his own esteem; when its consequences are not grievous to others. Riches are the symbols of the great majority of the benefits of this life; they become a reality in the hands of the man who has the clew to their just application. Power is the most sterling of all benefits, when he who is its depositary has received from nature a soul sufficiently noble, a mind sufficiently elevated, a heart sufficiently benevolent, faculties sufficiently energetic, above all, when he has derived from education a true regard for virtue, that sacred love for truth which enables him to extend his happy influence over whole nations; which by this means he places in, a state of legitimate dependence on his will; man only acquires the right of commanding men, when he renders them happy.

It's clear that nothing is more pointless than the complaints of a pessimistic philosophy against the desire for power; nothing is more ridiculous than the outcry of superstition against the pursuit of greatness; nothing is more contradictory than sermons against gaining wealth; nothing is more unreasonable than beliefs that forbid the enjoyment of pleasure. These goals are desirable for a person whenever their circumstances allow them to aspire to them; they are beneficial to society and contribute to public happiness whenever someone learns how to turn them to their own genuine advantage. Reason can't criticize him, and virtue can't look down on him, when he seeks them without straying from the path of truth; when, in gaining them, he harms no one’s interests; and when he uses only legitimate means: his peers will commend him; his contemporaries will respect him; he will hold himself in high regard when he uses their resources to ensure his own happiness and that of others. Pleasure is a benefit; it's part of being human to love, and it’s even rational when it makes life truly valuable to oneself—when it doesn't harm one’s self-esteem; when its consequences don't negatively affect others. Wealth symbolizes the majority of life's benefits; it becomes real in the hands of someone who knows how to apply it correctly. Power is the most valuable of all benefits when the person who holds it has a noble soul, a high-minded intellect, a benevolent heart, and enough energy, and especially when they've been educated to have a true appreciation for virtue, that sacred love of truth which enables them to spread their positive influence over entire nations; this way, he places them in a legitimate dependency on his will; a person only earns the right to command others when he makes them happy.

The right of man over his fellow man can only be founded either upon the actual happiness he secures to him, or that which he gives him reason to hope he will procure for him; without this, the power he exercises would be violence, usurpation, manifest tyranny; it is only upon the faculty of rendering him happy, that legitimate authority builds its structure; without this it is the "baseless fabric of a vision." No man derives from nature the right of commanding another; but it is voluntarily accorded to those, from whom he expects his welfare. Government is the right of commanding, conferred on the sovereign only for the advantage of those who are governed. Sovereigns are the defenders of the persons, the guardians of the property, the protectors of the liberty of their subjects: this is the price of their obedience; it is only on this condition these consent to obey; government would not be better than a robbery whenever it availed itself of the powers confided to it, to render society unhappy. The empire of religion is founded on the opinion man entertains of its having power to render nations happy; government and religion are reasonable institutions; but only so, inasmuch as they equally contribute to the felicity of man: it would be folly in him to submit himself to a yoke from which there resulted nothing but evil. It would be folly to expect that man should bind himself to misery; it would be rank injustice to oblige him to renounce his rights without some corresponding advantage!

The right of one person over another can only be based on the actual happiness they create or the hope for happiness they inspire. Without that, the power they have is just violence, usurpation, and clear tyranny. Legitimate authority is built on the ability to make others happy; without that, it’s just the "baseless fabric of a vision." No one has a natural right to command another person; rather, this right is willingly granted by those who expect to benefit from it. Government is the right to command, given to leaders solely for the benefit of those being governed. Leaders are meant to protect the people, safeguard their property, and uphold their freedoms: this is the cost of their obedience. They only consent to follow on this condition; if government uses its powers to make society miserable, it would be no better than theft. The influence of religion is based on people's belief that it can bring happiness to nations; government and religion are valid institutions only if they both contribute to human well-being. It would be foolish for someone to submit to a burden that results in nothing but suffering. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to bind themselves to misery, and it would be a gross injustice to force them to give up their rights without some genuine benefit in return!

The authority which a father exercises over his family is only founded on the advantages which he is supposed to procure for it. Rank, in political society, has only for its basis the real or imaginary utility of some citizens for which the others are willing to distinguish them—agree to respect them—consent to obey them. The rich acquire rights over the indigent, the wealthy claim the homage of the needy, only by virtue of the welfare they are conditioned to procure them. Genius, talents, science, arts, have rights over man, only in consequence of their utility; of the delight they confer; of the advantages they procure for society. In a word, it is happiness, it is the expectation of happiness, it is its image that man cherishes—that he esteems—that he unceasingly adores. Monarchs, the rich, the great, may easily impose on him, may dazzle him, may intimidate him, but they will never be able to obtain the voluntary submission of his heart, which alone can confer upon them legitimate rights, without they make him experience real benefits—without they display virtue. Utility is nothing more than true happiness; to be useful is to be virtuous; to be virtuous is to make others happy.

The authority a father has over his family is based solely on the benefits he is believed to provide for them. In society, rank is grounded in the real or perceived usefulness of certain individuals, which leads others to acknowledge, respect, and obey them. The wealthy gain rights over the less fortunate, and the affluent earn the respect of those in need, only because of the support they are expected to offer. Genius, talent, knowledge, and the arts have influence over people only because of their usefulness, the joy they bring, and the benefits they provide to society. In other words, it is happiness, the anticipation of happiness, and the vision of it that people hold dear, value, and endlessly admire. Monarchs, the wealthy, and the powerful can easily deceive, impress, or scare people, but they will never achieve the genuine loyalty of someone’s heart, which alone can grant them legitimate rights, unless they truly provide real benefits and demonstrate virtue. Utility is simply true happiness; to be useful is to be virtuous; and to be virtuous is to make others happy.

The happiness which man derives from them is the invariable, the necessary standard of his sentiments, for the beings of his species; for the objects he desires; for the opinions he embrases; for those actions on which he decides. He is the dupe of his prejudices every time he ceases to avail himself of this standard to regulate his judgment. He will never run the risk of deceiving himself, when he shall examine strictly what is the real utility resulting to his species from the religion, from the superstition, from the laws, from the institutions, from the inventions, from the various actions of all mankind.

The happiness that people derive from these things is the constant, necessary standard of their feelings, for the people around them; for the things they want; for the beliefs they adopt; for the actions they choose to take. They become victims of their biases whenever they stop using this standard to guide their judgment. They will never risk fooling themselves if they closely examine what the real benefits are to humanity from religion, superstition, laws, institutions, inventions, and the various actions of all people.

A superficial view may sometimes seduce him; but experience, aided by reflection, will reconduct him to reason, which is incapable of deceiving him. This teaches him that pleasure is a momentary happiness, which frequently becomes an evil; that evil is a fleeting trouble that frequently becomes a good: it makes him understand the true nature of objects, enables him to foresee the effects he may expect; it makes him distinguish those desires to which his welfare permits him to lend himself, from those to whose seduction he ought to make resistance. In short, it will always convince him that the true interest of intelligent beings, who love happiness, who desire to render their own existence felicitous, demands that they should root out all those phantoms, abolish all those chimerical ideas, destroy all those prejudices, which by traducing virtue, obstruct their felicity in this world.

A shallow perspective might sometimes lure him in; but experience, combined with reflection, will guide him back to reason, which cannot mislead him. This teaches him that pleasure is a brief happiness that often turns into a problem; that trouble is a temporary struggle that can often lead to good: it helps him understand the true nature of things, allowing him to anticipate the outcomes he might face; it helps him distinguish between desires that are beneficial for his well-being and those temptations he should resist. In short, it will always remind him that the true interest of smart beings, who seek happiness and aim to make their lives fulfilling, requires them to eliminate all those illusions, discard all those unrealistic ideas, and dismantle all those biases that, by misrepresenting virtue, hinder their happiness in this world.

If he consults experience, he will perceive that it is in illusions, in false opinions, rendered sacred by time, that he ought to search out the source of that multitude of evils which almost every where overwhelms mankind. From ignorance of natural causes, man has created imaginary causes; not knowing to what cause to attribute thunder, he ascribed it to an imaginary being whom he called JUPITER; imposture availing itself of this disposition, rendered these causes terrible to him; these fatal ideas haunted him without rendering him better; made him tremble without either benefit to himself or to others; filled his mind with chimeras that opposed themselves to the progress of his reason; that prevented him from really seeking after his happiness. His vain fears rendered him the slave of those who deceived him, under pretence of consulting his welfare; he committed evil, because they persuaded him his gods demanded sacrifices; he lived in misfortune, because they made him believe these gods condemned him to be miserable; the slave of beings, to which his own imagination had given birth, he never dared to disentangle himself from his chains; the artful ministers of these divinities gave him to understand that stupidity, the renunciation of reason, sloth of mind, abjection of soul, were the sure means of obtaining eternal felicity.

If he reflects on experience, he will realize that the source of the many problems overwhelming humanity lies in illusions and false beliefs, made sacred by time. Because of ignorance about natural causes, people have invented imaginary explanations; not knowing what causes thunder, they attributed it to a fictional being they called JUPITER. Those who exploit this mindset made these causes terrifying; these harmful ideas haunted him without making him a better person, caused him to tremble without any benefit to himself or others, and filled his mind with fantasies that stifled his reason and prevented him from truly pursuing happiness. His unfounded fears made him a slave to those who deceived him under the guise of looking out for his well-being; he did wrong because they convinced him that his gods required sacrifices; he suffered because they led him to believe these gods condemned him to misery. As a slave to the beings his own imagination created, he never dared to break free from his chains. The cunning agents of these deities made him believe that ignorance, rejection of reason, mental laziness, and a degraded soul were the sure paths to eternal happiness.

Prejudices, not less dangerous, have blinded man upon the true nature of government. Nations in general are ignorant of the true foundations of authority; they dare not demand happiness from those kings who are charged with the care of procuring it for them: some have believed their sovereigns were gods disguised, who received with their birth the right of commanding the rest of mankind; that they could at their pleasure dispose of the felicity of the people; that they were not accountable for the misery they engendered. By a necessary consequence of these erroneous opinions, politics have almost every where degenerated into the fatal art of sacrificing the interests of the many, either to the caprice of an individual, or to some few privileged irrational beings. In despite of the evils which assailed them, nations fell down in adoration before the idols they themselves had made: foolishly respected the instruments of their misery; had a stupid veneration for those who possessed the sovereign power of injuring them; obeyed their unjust will; lavished their blood; exhausted their treasure; sacrificed their lives, to glut the ambition, to feed the cupidity to minister to the regenerated phantasms, to gratify the never-ending caprices of these men; they bend the knee to established opinion, bowed to rank, yielded to title, to opulence, to pageantry, to ostentation: at length victims to their prejudices, they in vain expected their welfare at the hands of men who were themselves unhappy from their own vices; whose neglect of virtue, had rendered them incapable of enjoying true felicity; who are but little disposed to occupy themselves with their prosperity: under such chiefs their physical and moral happiness were equally neglected or even annihilated.

Prejudices, no less dangerous, have blinded people to the true nature of government. Generally, nations are unaware of the real foundations of authority; they hesitate to expect happiness from the kings who are supposed to provide it for them. Some have believed that their rulers were gods in disguise, who gained the right to command humanity at birth; that they could determine the happiness of the people at will; that they were not accountable for the suffering they caused. As a direct result of these mistaken beliefs, politics almost everywhere has turned into the harmful practice of sacrificing the interests of the many to the whims of an individual or a select few privileged beings. Despite the hardships they faced, nations fell down in worship of the idols they created: they foolishly respected the causes of their suffering; held a mindless reverence for those who had the power to harm them; obeyed their unjust commands; poured out their blood; drained their resources; sacrificed their lives to feed the ambitions, satisfy the greed, and cater to the endless whims of these individuals. They bowed to established opinion, submitted to rank, yielded to titles, wealth, spectacle, and extravagance: ultimately, victims of their prejudices, they vainly hoped for their welfare from those who were unhappy due to their own faults; whose disregard for virtue made them incapable of enjoying true happiness; who showed little interest in their well-being: under such leaders, their physical and moral happiness was equally neglected or even destroyed.

The same blindness may be perceived in the science of morals. Superstition, which never had any thing but ignorance for its basis, which never had more than a disordered imagination for its guide, did not found ethics upon man's nature; upon his relations with his fellows; upon those duties which necessarily flow from these relations; it preferred, as more in unison with itself, founding them upon imaginary relations which it pretended subsisted between him and those invisible powers it had so gratuitously imagined; that were delivered by oracles which their priests had the address to make him believe spoke the will of the Divinity: thus, TROPHONIUS, from his cave made affrightened mortals tremble; shook the stoutest nerves; made them turn pale with fear; his miserable, deluded supplicants, who were obliged to sacrifice to him, anointed their bodies with oil, bathed in certain rivers, and after they had offered their cake of honey and received their destiny, became so dejected, so wretchedly forlorn, that to this day their descendants, when they behold a malencholy man, exclaim, "He has consulted the oracle of Trophonius." It was these invisible gods, which superstition always paints as furious tyrants, who were declared the arbiters of man's destiny; the models of his conduct: when he was willing to imitate them, when he was willing to conform himself to the lessons of their interpreters, he became wicked, was an unsociable creature, an useless being or else a turbulent maniac—a zealous fanatic. It was these alone who profited by superstition, who advantaged themselves by the darkness in which they contrived to involve the human mind; nations were ignorant of nature; they knew nothing of reason; they understood not truth; they had only a gloomy superstition, without one certain idea of either morals or virtue. When man committed evil against his fellow creature, he believed he had offended these gods; but he also believed himself forgiven, as soon as he had prostrated himself before them; as soon as he had by costly presents gained over the priest to his interest. Thus superstition, far from giving a sure, far from affording a natural, far from introducing a known basis to morals, only rested it on an unsteady foundation; made it consist in ideal duties impossible to be accurately understood. What did I say? It first corrupted him, and his expiations finished by ruining him. Thus when superstition was desirous to combat the unruly passions of man it attempted it in vain; always enthusiastic, ever deprived of experience, it knew nothing of the true remedies: those which it applied were disgusting, only suitable to make the sick revolt against them; it made them pass for divine, because they were not made of man; they were inefficacious, because chimeras could effectuate nothing against those substantive passions to which motives more real, impulsions more powerful, concurred to give birth, which every thing conspired, to flourish in his heart. The voice of superstition or of the gods, could not make itself heard amidst the tumult of society—where all was in confusion—where the priest cried out to man, that he could not render himself happy without injuring his fellow creatures, who happened to differ from him in opinion: these vain clamours only made virtue hateful to him, because they always represented it as the enemy to his happiness; as the bane of human pleasures: he consequently failed in the observation of his duties, because real motives were never held forth to induce him to make the requisite sacrifice; the present prevailed over the future; the visible over the invisible; the known over the unknown: man became wicked because every thing informed him he must be so, in order to obtain the happiness after which he sighed.

The same blindness can be seen in the study of morals. Superstition, which was based solely on ignorance and guided only by a disordered imagination, did not build ethics on human nature, on our relationships with each other, or on the duties that arise from those relationships. Instead, it preferred to establish ethics on imaginary connections it claimed existed between people and the invisible forces it had created. These forces were presented through oracles that their priests cunningly made people believe were expressing the will of the divine. For instance, TROPHONIUS, from his cave, terrified mortals, shaking their courage and making them go pale with fear. His miserable, deceived followers, forced to sacrifice to him, anointed themselves with oil, bathed in certain rivers, and after offering their honey cake and receiving their fate, became so depressed and utterly hopeless that to this day, when their descendants see a melancholic person, they exclaim, "He has consulted the oracle of Trophonius." It was these invisible gods, always depicted by superstition as furious tyrants, who were declared the rulers of human destiny and the models for behavior. When people chose to imitate these gods or follow the teachings of their interpreters, they became wicked, unsociable, useless, or even became turbulent fanatics. Only these figures benefited from superstition, taking advantage of the darkness they managed to impose on human minds; nations were ignorant of nature, knew nothing of reason, and understood no truth. They only experienced a bleak superstition, lacking any clear concept of morals or virtue. When a person committed wrongdoing against another, they believed they had angered these gods; yet they felt forgiven once they humbled themselves before them, especially after winning over the priest with expensive gifts. Thus, superstition did not provide a solid foundation for morals or the natural understanding of right and wrong but instead rested on an unstable base, filled with ideal duties that were impossible to clearly understand. What I mean is, it first corrupted individuals, and its supposed atonements ultimately led to their ruin. When superstition tried to address the chaotic passions of humanity, it did so in vain; always enthusiastic and lacking experience, it knew nothing of genuine solutions. The remedies it applied were off-putting, only serving to make the afflicted reject them; it claimed they were divine because they were not of human origin; they were ineffective, as illusions could not accomplish anything against powerful passions that were driven by real motivations. The clamor of superstition or the gods could not be heard amidst the chaos of society—where everything was in disarray—where priests shouted that a person could not find happiness without harming others who held different opinions. These empty cries only made virtue seem hateful, as they consistently portrayed it as the enemy of happiness and the destroyer of human pleasures. Consequently, people failed to observe their duties, as no real incentives were presented to encourage them to make necessary sacrifices; the immediate overshadowed the future, the visible dominated the invisible, and the known outweighed the unknown. Humanity became wicked because everything indicated that they must be so in order to achieve the happiness they yearned for.

Thus the sum of human misery was never diminished; on the contrary, it was accumulating either by his superstition, by his government, by his education, by his opinions or by the institutions he adopted under the idea of rendering his condition more pleasant: it not unfrequently happened that the whole of these acted upon him simultaneously; he was then completely wretched. It cannot be too often repeated, it is in error that man will find the true spring of those evils with which the human race is afflicted; it is not nature that renders him miserable; it is not nature that makes him unhappy; it is not an irritated Divinity who is desirous he should live in tears; it is not hereditary depravation that has caused him to be wicked; it is to error, to long cherished, consecrated error, to error identified with his very existence, that these deplorable effects are to be ascribed.

Thus, the overall amount of human misery was never reduced; on the contrary, it was building up either through his superstitions, his government, his education, his beliefs, or the institutions he adopted in an attempt to improve his situation. Often, all of these factors acted on him at once, leaving him utterly miserable. It can't be said enough: man will find the true source of the evils that afflict the human race in error; it’s not nature that makes him miserable; it’s not nature that causes his unhappiness; it’s not an angry God wanting him to live in sorrow; it’s not inherited corruption that has made him evil; these terrible consequences are due to error, to long-held, established error, to error that is intertwined with his very existence.

The sovereign good, so much sought after by some philosophers, announced with so much emphasis by others, may be considered as a chimera, like unto that marvellous panacea which some adepts have been willing to pass upon mankind for an universal remedy. All men are diseased; the moment of their birth delivers them over to the contagion of error; but individuals are variously affected by it by a consequence of their natural organization; of their peculiar circumstances. If there is a sovereign remedy, which can be indiscriminately applied to the diseases of man, there is without doubt only ONE, this catholic balsam is TRUTH, Which he must draw from nature.

The ultimate good, pursued so eagerly by some philosophers and loudly proclaimed by others, can be seen as an illusion, much like that miraculous cure-all that some experts have tried to sell to humanity as a universal solution. All people suffer; the moment they're born, they fall into the trap of falsehood; but individuals experience it differently due to their natural makeup and unique situations. If there is a universal remedy that can be applied to human issues, there is certainly only ONE, and this all-encompassing cure is TRUTH, which one must seek from nature.

At the afflicting sight of those errors which blind the greater number of mortals—of those delusions which man is doomed to suck in with his mother's milk; viewing with painful sensations those irregular desires, those disgusting propensities, by which he is perpetually agitated; seeing the terrible effect of those licentious passions which torment him; of those lasting inquietudes which gnaw his repose; of those stupendous evils, as well physical as moral, which assail him on every side: the contemplator of humanity would be tempted to believe that happiness was not made for this world; that any effort to cure those minds which every thing unites to poison, would be a vain enterprize; that it was an Augean stable, requiring the strength of another Hercules. When he considers those numerous superstitions by which man is kept in a continual state of alarm—that divide him from his fellow—that render him vindictive, persecuting, and irrational; when he beholds the many despotic governments that oppress him; when he examines those multitudinous, unintelligible, contradictory laws that torture him; the manifold injustice under which he groans; when he turns his mind to the barbarous ignorance in which he is steeped, almost over the whole surface of the earth; when he witnesses those enormous crimes that debase society; when he unmasks those rooted vices that render it so hateful to almost every individual; he has great difficulty to prevent his mind from embracing the idea that misfortune is the only appendage of the human species; that this world is made solely to assemble the unhappy; that human felicity is a chimera, or at least a point so fugitive, that it is impossible it can be fixed.

At the painful sight of those mistakes that blind most people—of those delusions that individuals are doomed to absorb with their mother’s milk; feeling uncomfortable at those irregular desires, those disgusting tendencies that constantly disturb them; witnessing the terrible effects of those lustful passions that torment them; of those lasting anxieties that chip away at their peace; of those enormous evils, both physical and moral, that attack them from all sides: a watcher of humanity might be tempted to believe that happiness wasn’t meant for this world; that any effort to help those minds poisoned by everything around them would be a futile endeavor; that it’s an Augean stable that requires the strength of another Hercules. When they consider those many superstitions that keep people in a constant state of fear—that divide them from one another—that make them vindictive, persecuting, and irrational; when they see the numerous oppressive governments that control them; when they look into the countless, confusing, contradictory laws that torture them; the many injustices they suffer; when they turn their thoughts to the brutal ignorance in which they are immersed, almost everywhere on the planet; when they witness the massive crimes that degrade society; when they expose the deep-rooted vices that make society so distasteful to almost everyone; they find it very hard to stop their mind from accepting the idea that misfortune is the only constant of the human experience; that this world is just a gathering place for the unhappy; that human happiness is a fantasy, or at least a point so fleeting that it can never truly be grasped.

Thus superstitious mortals, atrabilious men, beings nourished in melancholy, unceasingly see either nature or its author exasperated against the human race; they suppose that man is the constant object of heaven's wrath; that he irritates it even by his desires: that he renders himself criminal by seeking a felicity which is not made for him: struck with beholding that those objects which he covets in the most lively manner, are never competent to content his heart, they have decried them as abominations, as things prejudicial to his interest, as odious to his gods; they prescribe him abstinence from all search after them; that he should entirely shun them; they have endeavoured to put to the rout all his passions, without any distinction even of those which are the most useful to himself, the most beneficial to those beings with whom he lives: they have been willing that man should render himself insensible; should become his own enemy; that he should separate himself from his fellow creatures; that he should renounce all pleasure; that he should refuse happiness; in short, that he should cease to be a man, that he should become unnatural. "Mortals!" have they said, "ye were born to be unhappy; the author of your existence has destined ye for misfortune; enter then into his views, and render yourselves miserable. Combat those rebellious desires which have felicity for their object; renounce those pleasures which it is your essence to love; attach yourselves to nothing in this world; by a society that only serves to inflame your imagination, to make you sigh after benefits you ought not to enjoy; break up the spring of your souls; repress that activity that seeks to put a period to your sufferings; suffer, afflict yourselves, groan, be wretched; such is for you the true road to happiness."

So, superstitious humans, gloomy individuals, beings raised in sadness, constantly see either nature or its creator angry with mankind; they believe that humans are always the target of heavenly wrath and that even their desires annoy it. They think that by seeking happiness not meant for them, they become guilty: faced with the reality that the things they desire most cannot truly satisfy their hearts, they label these desires as sinful, harmful to their interests, and offensive to their gods. They urge people to avoid all pursuit of these desires, to completely shun them; they have tried to suppress all human passions, even those that could be most helpful to themselves and beneficial to those around them. They want humans to become numb, to be their own enemies, to isolate themselves from others, to reject all pleasure, to turn away from happiness—in short, to stop being human and to become unnatural. "Humans!" they say, "you were born to be unhappy; the creator of your existence has destined you for misfortune; so embrace this fate, and make yourselves miserable. Fight against those rebellious desires that aim for joy; give up those pleasures that are essential to your nature; attach yourselves to nothing in this world; avoid connections that only serve to inflame your imagination, making you yearn for joys you should not crave; break the spirit of your souls; hold back that drive that seeks to end your suffering; suffer, grieve, moan, be miserable; this is truly the path to happiness for you."

Blind physicians! who have mistaken for a disease the natural state of man! they have not seen that his desires were necessary; that his passions were essential to him; that to defend him from loving legitimate pleasures; to interdict him from desiring them, is to deprive him of that activity which is the vital principle of society; that to tell him to hate, to desire him to despise himself, is to take from him the most substantive motive, that can conduct him to virtue. It is thus, by its supernatural remedies, by its wretched panacea, superstition, far from curing those evils which render man decrepid, which bend him almost to the earth, has only increased them; made them more desperate; in the room of calming his passions, it gives them inveteracy; makes them more dangerous; renders them more venomous; turns that into a curse which nature has given him for his preservation; to be the means of his own happiness. It is not by extinguishing the passions of man that he is to be rendered happier; it is by turning them into proper channels, by directing them towards useful objects, which by being truly advantageous to himself, must of necessity be beneficial to others.

Blind doctors! who have confused the natural state of humanity with a disease! They have failed to realize that our desires are necessary, that our passions are essential to us. To shield him from loving legitimate pleasures, to forbid him from wanting them, is to rob him of the drive that is the vital force of society. Telling him to hate, urging him to despise himself, strips him of the most profound motivation that can lead him to virtue. Thus, through its so-called supernatural remedies, through its miserable quick-fix of superstition, instead of healing the ailments that leave man weak and nearly broken, it only makes them worse; it intensifies them, making them more desperate. Rather than calming his passions, it aggravates them, makes them more dangerous, more toxic; it turns into a curse what nature intended for his preservation and happiness. It is not by quenching human passions that one becomes happier; rather, it's by channeling them properly, directing them towards beneficial goals, which, by being truly advantageous to oneself, must necessarily benefit others.

In despite of the errors which blind the human race, in despite of the extravagance of man's superstition, maugre the imbecility of his political institutions, notwithstanding the complaints, in defiance of the murmurs he is continually breathing forth against his destiny, there are yet happy individuals on the earth. Man has sometimes the felicity to behold sovereigns animated by the noble passion to render nations flourishing; full of the laudable ambition to make their people happy; now and then he encounters an ANTONINUS, a TRAJAN, a JULIAN, an ALFRED, a WASHINGTON; he meets with elevated minds who place their glory in encouraging merit—who rest their happiness in succouring indigence—who think it honourable to lend a helping hand to oppressed virtue: he sees genius occupied with the desire of meriting the eulogies of posterity; of eliciting the admiration of his fellow-citizens by serving them usefully, satisfied with enjoying that happiness he procures for others.

Despite the mistakes that blind humanity, despite the excesses of human superstition, in spite of the foolishness of political systems, and regardless of the complaints and whispers constantly vented against fate, there are still happy individuals on Earth. Sometimes, people have the fortune to witness rulers driven by the noble desire to make their nations thrive; full of the worthy ambition to bring happiness to their people; now and then, they encounter an ANTONINUS, a TRAJAN, a JULIAN, an ALFRED, a WASHINGTON; they come across great minds who take pride in promoting talent—who find joy in helping the less fortunate—who believe it's honorable to support oppressed virtue: they see genius focused on earning the praise of future generations; seeking the admiration of their fellow citizens by being of service, content with the happiness they create for others.

Let it not be believed that the man of poverty himself is excluded from happiness: mediocrity and indigence frequently procure for him advantages that opulence and grandeur are obliged to acknowledge; which title and wealth are constrained to envy: the soul of the needy man, always in action, never ceases to form desires which his activity places within his reach; whilst the rich, the powerful, are frequently in the afflicting embarrassment, of either not knowing what to wish for, or else of desiring those objects which their listlessness renders it impossible for them to obtain. The poor man's body, habituated to labour, knows the sweets of repose; this repose of the body, is the most troublesome fatigue to him who is wearied with his idleness; exercise, and frugality, procure for the one vigour, health, and contentment; the intemperance and sloth of the other, furnish him only with disgust—load him with infirmities. Indigence sets all the springs of the soul to work; it is the mother of industry; from its bosom arises genius; it is the parent of talents, the hot-bed of that merit to which opulence is obliged to pay tribute; to which grandeur bows its homage. In short the blows of fate find in the poor man a flexible reed, who bends without breaking, whilst the storms of adversity tear the rich man like the sturdy oak in the forest, up by the very roots.

Don't believe that a poor person is excluded from happiness: being average and struggling often gives them advantages that wealth and status have to acknowledge; title and riches are forced to envy this. The soul of a needy person is always active, constantly creating desires that their efforts bring within reach; meanwhile, the rich and powerful often struggle with the frustrating dilemma of not knowing what to wish for or wanting things that their laziness makes impossible to achieve. The body of the poor, used to hard work, knows the joys of rest; that rest is the most burdensome fatigue for someone exhausted by idleness. Regular exercise and simplicity give the poor person energy, health, and contentment, while the excess and laziness of the rich only lead to dissatisfaction and health issues. Poverty activates all the drives of the soul; it's the parent of hard work and creativity; from it arise talent and that merit which wealth is forced to respect, to which status bows down. In short, when fate strikes, a poor person is like a flexible reed that bends without breaking, while the storms of adversity can tear the rich apart like a sturdy oak uprooted in a forest.

Thus Nature is not a step-mother to the greater number of her children. He whom fortune has placed in an obscure station is ignorant of that ambition which devours the courtier; knows nothing of the inquietude which deprives the intriguer of his rest; is a stranger to the remorse, an alien to the disgust, is unconscious of the weariness of the man, who, enriched with the spoils of a nation, does not know how to turn them to his profit. The more the body labours, the more the imagination reposes itself; it is the diversity of the objects man runs over that kindles it; it is the satiety of those objects that causes him disgust; the imagination of the indigent is circumscribed by necessity: he receives but few ideas: he is acquainted with but few objects: in consequence, he has but little to desire; he contents himself with that little: whilst the entire of nature with difficulty suffices to satisfy the insatiable desires, to gratify the imaginary wants of the man, plunged in luxury, who has run over and exhausted all common objects. Those, whom prejudice contemplates; as the most unhappy of men, frequently enjoy advantages more real, happiness much greater, than those who oppress them—who despise them—but who are nevertheless often reduced to the misery of envying them. Limited desires are a real benefit: the man of meaner condition, in his humble fortune, desires only bread: he obtains it by the sweat of his brow; he would eat it with pleasure if injustice did not sometimes render it bitter to him. By the delirium of some governments, those who roll in abundance, without for that reason being more happy, dispute with the cultivator even the fruits which the earth yields to the labour of his hands. Princes sometimes sacrifice their true happiness, as well as that of their states, to these passions—to those caprices which discourage the people; which plunge their provinces in misery: which make millions unhappy, without any advantage to themselves. Tyrants oblige the subjects to curse their existence; to abandon labour; take from them the courage of propagating a progeny who would be as unhappy as their fathers: the excess of oppression sometimes obliges them to revolt; makes them avenge themselves by wicked outrages of the injustice it has heaped on their devoted heads: injustice, by reducing indigence to despair, obliges it to seek in crime, resources, against its misery. An unjust government, produces discouragement in the soul: its vexations depopulate a country; under its influence, the earth remains without culture; from thence is bred frightful famine, which gives birth to contagion and plague. The misery of a people produce revolutions; soured by misfortunes, their minds get into a state of fermentation; the overthrow of an empire, is the necessary effect. It is thus that physics and morals are always connected, or rather are the same thing.

Nature is not cruel to most of her children. Those who find themselves in lowly positions are unaware of the ambition that consumes courtiers, clueless about the restlessness that robs schemers of their peace, unfamiliar with guilt, and detached from the disgust experienced by those who, despite amassing wealth from a nation, don’t know how to make it work for them. The more the body works, the more the mind can rest; it’s the variety of experiences that sparks imagination, while the saturation of those experiences leads to boredom. Those who are poor are limited by necessity: they encounter few ideas and know only a handful of things, so they have little to yearn for and are satisfied with that small amount. Meanwhile, nature itself only barely meets the insatiable desires and imagined needs of the wealthy, who have exhausted all the common pleasures. Those whom society views as the unhappiest often enjoy more genuine advantages and greater happiness than those who look down on them—even if those oppressors are frequently plagued by envy. Having limited desires is actually beneficial: a person of humble means only wants bread; they earn it through hard work and would take pleasure in it were it not sometimes made bitter by injustice. Because of the foolishness of certain governments, the wealthy, who are not necessarily happier, even argue with the workers over the fruits that the earth yields through their labor. Princes often sacrifice their own happiness and that of their states to these whims—to those caprices that discourage the people and plunge their regions into misery, making millions unhappy without any benefit to themselves. Tyrants force their subjects to curse their very existence, abandon work, and strip them of the courage to raise children who would be just as miserable. The extreme weight of oppression can drive people to revolt, prompting them to seek revenge through wrongful acts against the injustices heaped upon them. Injustice, by driving poverty to despair, pushes it to seek criminal ways to survive its suffering. An unfair government creates discouragement in the soul; its harassment leads to depopulation, and under its rule, the land remains uncultivated, resulting in horrifying famine, which brings about disease and plague. The suffering of a people leads to revolutions; soured by hardships, their minds boil over, and the fall of an empire is the inevitable outcome. This is how physics and morals are always intertwined, or rather, they are the same thing.

If the bad morals of chiefs do not always produce such marked effects, at least they generate slothfulness, of which their effect is to fill society with mendicants; to crowd it with malefactors; whose vicious course neither superstition nor the terror of the laws can arrest; which nothing can induce to remain the unhappy spectators of a welfare they are not permitted to participate. They seek a fleeting happiness at the expence even of their lives, when injustice has shut up to them the road of labour, those paths of industry which would have rendered them both useful and honest.

If the poor morals of leaders don’t always lead to obvious consequences, they certainly create laziness, which fills society with beggars and criminals. Their destructive behavior can’t be stopped by fear of punishment or superstition; nothing can keep them from being unhappy onlookers to a life they’re not allowed to be part of. They chase after temporary happiness, even risking their lives, when injustice has closed off the path to work—those opportunities that would have made them both productive and honorable.

Let it not then be said that no government can render all its subjects happy; without doubt it cannot flatter itself with contenting the capricious humours of some idle citizens who are obliged to rack their imagination, to appease the disgust arising from lassitude: but it can, and it ought to occupy itself with ministering to the real wants of the multitude, with giving a useful activity to the whole body politic. A society enjoys all the happiness of which it is susceptible whenever the greater number of its members are wholesomely fed, decently cloathed, comfortably lodged—in short when they can without an excess of toil beyond their strength, procure wherewith to satisfy those wants which nature has made necessary to their existence. Their mind rests contented as soon as they are convinced no power can ravish from them the fruits of their industry; that they labour for themselves; that the sweat of their brow is for the immediate comfort of their own families. By a consequence of human folly in some regions, whole nations are obliged to toil incessantly, to waste their strength, to sweat under their burdens to undulate the air with their sighs, to drench the earth with their tears, in order to maintain the luxury, to gratify the whims, to support the corruption of a small number of irrational beings; of some few useless men to whom happiness has become impossible, because their bewildered imaginations no longer know any bounds. It is thus that superstitious, thus that political errors have changed the fair face of nature into a valley of tears.

Let’s not say that no government can make all its citizens happy; it definitely can’t pretend to satisfy the unpredictable desires of some idle people who have to strain their imagination to escape their boredom. But it can and should focus on addressing the real needs of the majority, providing useful activities for the entire society. A community enjoys its fullest happiness when most of its members have enough to eat, are decently dressed, and have comfortable places to live—in short, when they can meet the basic needs that nature requires without working too hard. They find peace of mind once they realize that no one can take away the rewards of their hard work; that they are working for themselves; that the sweat of their brow benefits their own families. Due to human folly in some areas, entire nations are forced to work non-stop, exhaust their strength, sweat under heavy loads, fill the air with their sighs, and soak the earth with their tears just to maintain the luxury, cater to the whims, and sustain the corruption of a small number of irrational individuals; a few useless people who find happiness impossible because their confused imaginations know no limits. This is how superstitions and political mistakes have turned the beautiful face of nature into a valley of tears.

For want of consulting reason, for want of knowing the value of virtue, for want of being instructed in their true interest, for want of being acquainted with what constitutes solid happiness, in what consists real felicity, the prince and the people, the rich and the poor, the great and the little, are unquestionably, frequently very far removed from content; nevertheless if an impartial eye be glanced over the human race, it will be found to comprise a greater number of benefits than of evils. No man is entirely happy, but he is so in detail; those who make the most bitter complaints of the rigour of their fate, are however, held in existence by threads frequently imperceptible; are prevented from the desire of quitting it by circumstances of which they are not aware. In short, habit lightens to man the burden of his troubles; grief suspended becomes true enjoyment; every want is a pleasure in the moment when it is satisfied; freedom from chagrin, the absence of disease, is a happy state which he enjoys secretly, without even perceiving it; hope, which rarely abandons him entirely, helps him to support the most cruel disasters. The PRISONER laughs in his irons. The wearied VILLAGER returns singing to his cottage. In short, the man who calls himself the most unfortunate, never sees death approach without dismay, at least, if despair has not totally disfigured nature in his eyes.

Due to a lack of reasoning, a lack of understanding the value of virtue, a lack of guidance about their true interests, and a lack of knowledge about what makes real happiness and true fulfillment, both the prince and the people, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, often find themselves far from content. However, if we take an impartial look at humanity, we can see that there are more benefits than harms. No one is completely happy, but moments of happiness do exist. Those who complain the most about their harsh fate are often held in life by threads that go unnoticed and are prevented from wanting to escape due to circumstances they don't realize. In short, routine makes life's troubles easier to bear; sorrow, when paused, turns into genuine enjoyment; every desire becomes a joy the moment it’s fulfilled; the absence of worry or illness is a happy state that one enjoys secretly without even recognizing it; hope, which rarely lets go entirely, helps him endure the most brutal hardships. The PRISONER laughs in his chains. The tired VILLAGER returns home singing. Ultimately, the person who considers himself the most unfortunate still faces death with a sense of dread, unless despair has completely changed his perspective.

As long as man desires the continuation of his being, he has no right to call himself completely unhappy; whilst hope sustains him, he still enjoys a great benefit. If man was more just, in rendering to himself an account of his pleasures, in estimating his pains, he would acknowledge that the sum of the first exceeds by much the amount of the last; he would perceive that he keeps a very exact ledger of the evil, but a very unfaithful journal of the good: indeed he would avow, that there are but few days entirely unhappy during the whole course of his existence. His periodical wants procure for him the pleasure of satisfying them; his soul is perpetually moved by a thousand objects, of which, the variety, the multiplicity, the novelty, rejoices him, suspends his sorrows, diverts his chagrin. His physical evils, are they violent? They are not of long duration; they conduct him quickly to his end: the sorrows of his mind, when too powerful, conduct him to it equally. At the same time nature refuses him every happiness, she opens to him a door by which he quits life; does he refuse to enter it? It is that he yet finds pleasure in existence. Are nations reduced to despair? Are they completely miserable? They have recourse to arms; at the risque of perishing, they make the most violent efforts to terminate there sufferings.

As long as people want to keep on living, they can’t truly call themselves completely unhappy; as long as hope keeps them going, they still have a significant advantage. If people were more fair in evaluating their pleasures and pains, they would realize that the total of their joys far outweighs their sorrows; they would see that they keep a very accurate record of the bad but a very unreliable account of the good: in fact, they would admit that there are only a few days in their entire lives that are completely unhappy. Their periodic needs give them the joy of fulfilling them; their minds are constantly stimulated by a thousand things, full of variety, abundance, and novelty, which bring them joy, ease their sadness, and distract them from their troubles. Do their physical pains feel intense? They don’t last long; they quickly lead them to their end: mental sorrows, when overwhelming, lead them there just as swiftly. While nature denies them every happiness, it also opens a door for them to exit life; do they refuse to go through it? It's because they still find joy in being alive. Are nations facing despair? Are they utterly miserable? They turn to arms; at the risk of dying, they make the most desperate attempts to end their suffering.

Thus because he sees so many of his fellows cling to life, man ought to conclude they are not so unhappy as he thinks. Then let him not exaggerate the evils of the human race, but let him impose silence on that gloomy humour that persuades him these evils are without remedy; let him only diminish by degrees the number of his errors, his calamities will vanish in the same proportion; he is not to conclude himself infelicitous because his heart never ceases to form new desires, which he finds it difficult, sometimes impossible to gratify. Since his body daily requires nourishment, let him infer that it is sound, that it fulfils its functions. As long as he has desires, the proper deduction ought to be, that his mind is kept in the necessary activity; he should gather from all this that passions are essential to him, that they constitute the happiness of a being who feels; are indispensable to a man who thinks; are requisite to furnish him with ideas; that they are a vital principle with a creature who must necessarily love that which procures him comfort, who must equally desire that which promises him a mode of existence analogous to his natural energies. As long as he exists, as long as the spring of his soul maintains its elasticity, this soul desires; as long as it desires, he experiences the activity which is necessary to him; as long as he acts, so long he lives. Human life may be compared to a river, of which the waters succeed each other, drive each other forward, and flow on without interruption; these waters, obliged to roll over an unequal bed, encounter at intervals those obstacles which prevent their stagnation; they never cease to undulate; sometimes they recoil, then again rush forward, thus continuing to run with more or less velocity, until they are restored to the ocean of nature.

So, because he sees so many people around him clinging to life, a person should realize they aren’t as unhappy as he thinks. He shouldn't exaggerate the troubles of humanity but should silence that gloomy thought that convinces him these troubles can’t be fixed. Instead, he should gradually reduce the number of his mistakes, and his problems will decrease as well; he shouldn’t think of himself as unhappy just because his heart constantly forms new desires that are sometimes hard, even impossible, to satisfy. Since his body needs food every day, he should see that it’s healthy and doing its job. As long as he has desires, the logical conclusion should be that his mind is staying active; he should understand that passions are essential for him, that they make up the happiness of a feeling creature; they're necessary for a thinking person to have ideas; they're vital for a being who naturally loves what brings him comfort and desires what promises a way of life that matches his natural energy. As long as he exists, as long as the spring of his soul keeps its energy, his soul desires; as long as it desires, he feels the activity he needs; as long as he acts, he continues to live. Human life can be compared to a river, where the waters constantly flow, push each other along, and move without stopping; these waters, forced to move over a rough bed, encounter obstacles that stop them from stagnating; they remain in motion; sometimes they pull back, then surge forward again, continuing to flow with varying speeds until they return to the ocean of nature.










CHAP. XVII.

Those Ideas which are true, or founded upon Nature, are the only Remedies for the Evils of Man.—Recapitulation.—Conclusion of the first Part.

The ideas that are true or based on nature are the only solutions to the problems of humanity.—Summary.—Conclusion of the first part.

Whenever man ceases to take experience for his guide, he falls into error. His errors become yet more dangerous, assume a more determined inveteracy, when they are clothed with the sanction of superstition; it is then that he hardly ever consents to return into the paths of truth; he believes himself deeply interested in no longer seeing clearly that which lies before him; he fancies he has an essential advantage in no longer understanding himself; he supposes his happiness exacts that he should shut his eyes to truth. If the majority of moral philosophers have mistaken the human heart—if they have deceived themselves upon its diseases—if they have miscalculated the remedies that are suitable—if the remedies they have administered have been inefficacious or even dangerous—it is because they have abandoned nature—because they have resisted experience—because they have not had sufficient steadiness to consult their reason—because they have renounced the evidence of their senses—because they have only followed the caprices of an imagination either dazzled by enthusiasm or disturbed by fear; because they have preferred the illusions it has held forth to the realities of nature, who never deceives.

Whenever people stop using experience as their guide, they make mistakes. Their mistakes become even more dangerous and stubborn when they're supported by superstition; at that point, they rarely agree to return to the path of truth. They believe they have a significant reason to avoid seeing clearly what is in front of them. They think they gain an advantage by not understanding themselves. They assume their happiness requires them to close their eyes to the truth. If most moral philosophers have misunderstood the human heart—if they have misjudged its issues—if they have incorrectly calculated the appropriate solutions—if the solutions they've offered have been ineffective or even harmful—it's because they've abandoned nature. It's because they've ignored experience. It's because they've lacked the consistency to trust their reason. It's because they've rejected the evidence of their senses. It's because they've only followed the whims of an imagination either dazzled by excitement or disturbed by fear; it's because they've chosen the illusions it presents over the realities of nature, which never deceives.

It is for want of having felt that an intelligent being cannot for an instant lose sight of his own peculiar conservation—of his particular interests, either real or fictitious—of his own welfare, whether permanent or transitory; in short, of his happiness, either true or false. It is for want of having considered that desires are natural, that passions are essential, that both the one and the other are motions necessary to the soul of man,—that the physicians of the, human mind have supposed supernatural causes for his wanderings; have only applied to his evils topical remedies, either useless or dangerous. Indeed, in desiring him to stifle his desires, to combat his propensities, to annihilate his passions, they have done no more than give him sterile precepts, at once vague and impracticable; these vain lessons have influenced no one; they have at most restrained some few mortals whom a quiet imagination but feebly solicited to evil; the terrors with which they have accompanied them have disturbed the tranquillity of those persons who were moderate by their nature, without ever arresting the ungovernable temperament of those who were inebriated by their passions, or hurried along; by the torrent of habit. In short, the promises of superstition, as well as the menaces it holds forth, have only formed fanatics, given birth to enthusiasts, who are either dangerous or useless to society, without ever making man truly virtuous; that is to say, useful to his fellow creatures.

An intelligent being cannot lose sight of their own well-being—of their interests, whether real or imagined—of their welfare, whether it lasts or is temporary; in short, of their happiness, whether genuine or not. It's because they haven’t realized that desires are natural, that passions are essential, and that both are necessary for the human soul—that the mental health professionals have mistakenly attributed supernatural causes for people's struggles; they have only applied superficial solutions to their problems, which are often useless or harmful. In fact, by urging individuals to suppress their desires, fight their instincts, or eliminate their passions, they have simply provided empty advice that is both vague and impractical; these pointless lessons have influenced no one; they’ve only restrained a few individuals who were weakly tempted by wrongdoing; the fears that accompanied such advice have disturbed the tranquility of those who are naturally moderate, without ever stopping those with uncontrollable desires fueled by their passions or driven by habitual behaviors. In short, the promises of superstition, along with the threats it offers, have only created fanatics and given rise to enthusiasts who are either dangerous or useless to society, without ever making people truly virtuous; meaning, useful to their fellow humans.

These, empirics guided by a blind routine have, not seen that man as long as he exists, is obliged to feel, to desire, to have passions, to satisfy them in proportion to the energy which his organization has given him; they have not perceived that education planted these desires in his heart—that habit rooted them—that his government, frequently vicious, corroborated their growth—that public opinion stamped them with its approbation—that—experience render them necessary—that to tell men thus constituted to destroy their passions, was either to plunge them into despair or else to order them remedies too revolting for their temperament. In the actual state of opulent societies, to say to a man who knows by experience that riches procure every pleasure, that he must not desire them; that he must not make any efforts to obtain them; that he ought to detach himself from them: is to persuade him to render himself miserable. To tell an ambitious man not to desire grandeur, not to covet power, which every thing conspires to point out to him as the height of felicity, is to order him to overturn at one blow the habitual system of his ideas; it is to speak, to a deaf man. To tell a lover of an impetuous temperament to stifle his passions for the object that enchants him, is to make him understand, that he ought to renounce his happiness. To oppose superstition to such substantive, such puissant interests is to combat realities by chimerical speculations.

Those who follow a blind routine haven't realized that as long as humans exist, they are bound to feel, desire, have passions, and satisfy them according to the energy that life has given them. They haven't seen that education planted these desires in people's hearts—that habit took root—that often flawed governments supported their growth—that public opinion endorsed them—that experience made them necessary. To tell people made in this way to suppress their passions is to either plunge them into despair or suggest remedies that are too extreme for their nature. In today's wealthy societies, telling someone who knows from experience that riches bring every pleasure that they shouldn't desire them and shouldn't strive to obtain them and should detach from them is to persuade them to make themselves miserable. Telling an ambitious person not to want greatness or to covet power, which everything encourages them to see as the pinnacle of happiness, is to ask them to completely overturn their usual way of thinking; it’s like talking to someone who can't hear. Telling a passionate lover to stifle their feelings for the person who captivates them is to ask them to give up their happiness. To pit superstition against such strong, tangible interests is to fight real issues with imaginary ideas.

Indeed, if things were examined without prepossession, it would be found that the greater part of the precepts inculcated by superstition, which fanatical dogmas hold forth, which, supernatural mortals give to man, are as ridiculous as they are impossible to be put into practice. To interdict passion to man, is to desire of him not to be a human creature; to counsel an individual of a violent imagination to moderate his desires, is to advise him to change his temperament—is to request his blood to flow more sluggishly. To tell a man to renounce his habits, is to be willing that a citizen, accustomed to clothe himself, should consent to walk quite naked; it would avail as much, to desire him to change the lineament of his face, to destroy his configuration, to extinguish his imagination, to alter the course of his fluids, as to command him not to have passions which excite an activity analogous with his natural energy; or to lay aside those which confirmed habit has made him contract; which his circumstances, by a long succession of causes and effects, have converted into wants. Such are, however, the so much boasted remedies which the greater number of moral philosophers apply to human depravity. Is it, then surprising they do not produce the desired effect, or that they only reduce man to a state of despair by the effervescence that results from the continual conflict which they excite between the passions of his heart and these fanciful doctrines; between his vices and his virtues; between his habits and those chimerical fears with which superstition is at all times ready to overwhelm him? The vices of society, aided by the objects of which it avails itself to what the desires of man, the pleasures, the riches, the grandeur which his government holds forth to him as so many seductive magnets, the advantage which education, the benefits which example, the interests which public opinion render dear to him, attract him on one side; whilst a gloomy morality, founded upon superstitious illusions, vainly solicit him on the other; thus, superstition plunges him into misery; holds a violent struggle with his heart, without scarcely ever gaining the victory; when by accident it does prevail against so many united forces, it renders him unhappy; it completely destroys the spring of his soul.

If we look at things without bias, we’d see that most of the rules pushed by superstition—those extreme beliefs handed down by so-called enlightened beings—are just as ridiculous as they are impossible to follow. To tell someone to suppress their emotions is to ask them not to be human; to advise someone with a vivid imagination to tone down their desires is like asking them to change their very nature—like wanting their blood to flow slower. Telling a person to give up their habits is like expecting someone who’s used to wearing clothes to walk around completely naked; it’s similar to asking them to change their facial features, erase their personality, silence their imagination, or alter their bodily processes, just like asking them to ignore their natural passions or abandon the habits that have become deeply ingrained through circumstances over time. These are the so-called solutions that many moral philosophers propose for human shortcomings. Is it surprising that these solutions don’t work, or that they drive people into despair due to the constant clash they create between the passions of the heart and these imaginary doctrines; between their vices and virtues; between their habits and the unrealistic fears that superstition constantly imposes on them? Society’s vices, combined with the desires for pleasure, wealth, and the status that their government dangles like bait, along with the influences of education, examples from others, and the opinions of society they hold dear, pull them in one direction; meanwhile, a grim morality based on superstitious beliefs futilely tries to sway them in the opposite direction. In this way, superstition drags them into misery, engaging in a fierce battle with their heart, rarely winning; and when it does happen to succeed against such overwhelming forces, it only brings them unhappiness, completely crushing the spirit of their soul.

Passions are the true counterpoise to passions; then let him not seek to destroy them; but let him endeavour to direct them; let him balance those which are prejudicial, by those which are useful to society. Reason, the fruit of experience, is only the art of choosing those passions to which for his own peculiar happiness he ought to listen. Education is the true art of disseminating the proper method of cultivating advantageous passions in the heart of man. Legislation is the art of restraining dangerous passions; of exciting those which may be conducive to the public welfare. Superstition is only the miserable art of planting the unproductive labour—of nourishing in the soul of man those chimeras, those illusions, those impostures, those incertitudes from whence spring passions fatal to himself as well as to others: it is only by bearing up with fortitude against these that he can securely place himself on the road to happiness. True religion is the art of advocating truth—of renouncing error—of contemplating reality—of drawing wisdom from experience—of cultivating man's nature to his own felicity, by teaching him to contribute to that of his associates; in short it is reason, education, and legislation, united to further the great end of human existence, by causing the passions of man to flow in a current genial to his own happiness.

Passions balance out other passions, so instead of trying to eliminate them, we should aim to channel them appropriately. We need to counter harmful passions with those that benefit society. Reason, shaped by experience, is simply the skill of choosing the passions that will contribute to our own happiness. Education is the true method of teaching how to nurture beneficial passions in people's hearts. Legislation is about controlling dangerous passions and promoting those that support the common good. Superstition is merely a sad attempt to cultivate unproductive beliefs—feeding the illusions and uncertainties in a person's soul that lead to harmful passions for themselves and others. It is only by resisting these that one can truly find the path to happiness. True religion is the advocacy of truth—rejecting falsehood—understanding reality—learning from experience—enhancing human nature for our own joy by encouraging kindness toward others; in short, it is reason, education, and legislation, working together to achieve the ultimate purpose of human life by guiding passions in a way that supports personal happiness.

Reason and morals cannot effect any thing on mankind if they do not point out to each individual that his true interest is attached to a conduct that is either useful to others or beneficial to himself; this conduct to be useful must conciliate for him the benevolence, gain for him the favor of these beings who are necessary to his happiness: it is then for the interest of mankind, for the happiness of the human race, it is for the esteem of himself, for the love of his fellows, for the advantages which ensue, that education in early life should kindle the imagination of the citizen; this is the true means of obtaining those happy results with which habit should familiarize him; which public opinion should render dear to his heart; for which example ought continually to rouse his faculties; after which he should be taught to search with unceasing attention. Government by the aid of recompences, ought to encourage him to follow this plan; by visiting crime with punishment it ought to deter those who are willing to interrupt it. Thus the hope of a true welfare, the fear of real evil, will be passions suitable to countervail those which by their impetuosity would injure society; these last will at least become very rare, if instead of feeding man's mind with unintelligible speculations, in lieu of vibrating on his ears words void of sense, he is only spoken to of realities, only shewn those interests which are in unison with truth.

Reason and morals can't impact humanity unless they show each individual that their true interests are linked to behavior that is either helpful to others or beneficial to themselves. For this behavior to be useful, it must earn them kindness and gain the approval of those essential for their happiness. It's in the interest of humanity, for the happiness of the human race, for individuals to hold self-esteem, for the affection of their peers, and for the benefits that come from these connections. Education in early life should ignite the imagination of citizens; this is the real way to attain those joyful outcomes that habits should make familiar. Public opinion should hold these outcomes dear to their hearts, and examples should continually stimulate their abilities. They should be taught to seek these truths with persistent attention. Government should use rewards to encourage them to follow this path and apply punishments to deter those who would disrupt it. Thus, the hope for genuine well-being and the fear of true harm will serve as feelings that balance those impulses that could harm society. These negative impulses will become rare if, instead of filling people's minds with confusing theories and meaningless words, they are only talked to about real situations and shown interests that align with the truth.

Man is frequently so wicked, only, because he almost always feels himself interested in being so; let him be more enlightened, more familiarized with truth, more accustomed to virtue, he will be made more happy; he will necessarily become better. An equitable government, a vigilant administration, will presently fill the state with honest citizens; it will hold forth to them present reasons for benevolence; real advantages in truth; palpable motives to be virtuous; it will instruct them in their duties; it will foster them with its cares; it will allure them by the assurance of their own peculiar happiness; its promises faithfully fulfilled—its menaces regularly executed, will unquestionably have much more weight than those of a gloomy superstition, which never exhibits to their view other than illusory benefits, fallacious punishments, which the man hardened in wickedness will doubt every time he finds an interest in questioning them: present motives will tell more home to his heart than those which are distant and at best uncertain. The vicious and the wicked are so common upon the earth, so pertinacious in their evil courses, so attached to their irregularities, only because there are but few governments that make man feel the advantage of being just, the pleasure of being honest, the happiness of being benevolent on the contrary, there is hardly any place where the most powerful interests do not solicit him to crime, by favouring the propensities of a vicious organization; by countenancing those appetencies which nothing has attempted to rectify or lead towards virtue. A savage, who in his horde knows not the value of money, certainly would not commit a crime, if when transplanted into civilized society, he should presently learn to desire it, should make efforts to obtain it, and if he could without danger finish by stealing it; above all, if he had not been taught to respect the property of the beings who environ him. The savages and the child are precisely in the same state; it is the negligence of society, of those entrusted with their education, that renders both the one and the other wicked. The son of a noble, from his infancy learns to desire power, at a riper age he becomes ambitious; if he has the address to insinuate himself into favor, he perhaps becomes wicked, because in some societies he has been taught to know he may be so with impunity when he can command the ear of his sovereign. It is not therefore nature that makes man wicked, they are his institutions which determine him to vice. The infant brought up amongst robbers, can generally become nothing but a malefactor; if he had been reared with honest people, the chance is he would have been a virtuous man.

People are often wicked mainly because they see some benefit in being that way. If they become more aware, more familiar with the truth, and more used to doing the right thing, they'll be happier and naturally become better. A fair government and a proactive administration can quickly create honest citizens. They provide reasons for kindness, real benefits in truth, and clear reasons to be virtuous. They teach people their duties, nurture them with care, and entice them with the promise of their own happiness. Its fulfilled promises and consistently enforced consequences will definitely have more impact than gloomy superstitions that only show illusory rewards and misleading punishments, which a hardened person will question whenever they see a reason to doubt them. Immediate motivations resonate more deeply than

If the source be traced of that profound ignorance in which man is with respect to his morals, to the motives that can give volition to his will, it will be found in those false ideas which the greater number of speculators have formed to themselves, of human nature. The science of morals has become an enigma which it is impossible to unrevel; because man has made himself double; has distinguished his soul from his body; supposed it of a nature different from all known beings, with modes of action, with properties distinct from all other bodies, because he has emancipated this soul from physical laws, in order to submit it to capricious laws emanating from men who have pretended they are derived from imaginary regions, placed at very remote distances: metaphysicians seized upon these gratuitous suppositions, and by dint of subtilizing them, have rendered them completely unintelligible. These moralists have not perceived that motion is essential to the soul as well as to the living body; that both the one and the other are never moved but by material, by physical objects; that the want of each regenerate themselves unceasingly; that the wants of the soul, as well as those of the body are purely physical; that the most intimate, the most constant connection subsists between the soul and the body; or rather they have been unwilling to allow that they ate only the same thing considered under different points of view. Obstinate in their supernatural, unintelligible opinions, they have refused to open their eyes, which would have convinced them that the body in suffering rendered the soul miserable; that the soul afflicted undermined the body and brought it to decay; that both the pleasures and agonies of the mind have an influence over the body, either plunge it into sloth or give it activity: they have rather chosen to believe, that the soul draws its thoughts, whether pleasant or gloomy, from its own peculiar sources, while the fact is, that it derives its ideas only from material objects that strike on the physical organs; that it is neither determined to gaiety nor led on to sorrow, but by the actual state, whether permanent or transitory, in which the fluids and solids of the body are found. In short, they have been loath to acknowledge that the soul, purely passive, undergoes the same changes which the body experiences; is only moved by its intervention; acts only by its assistance, receives its sensations, its perceptions, forms its ideas, derives either its happiness or its misery from physical objects, through the medium of the organs of which the body is composed; frequently without its own cognizance, often in despite of itself.

If we trace the root of the deep ignorance people have about their morals and what drives their will, we’ll find it in the false ideas most thinkers have about human nature. The study of morals has become a puzzle that seems impossible to solve because people have split themselves in two: they've separated their soul from their body and imagined it to be of a different nature than anything else, with a unique way of acting and properties distinct from all other beings. They have freed this soul from physical laws in order to follow arbitrary rules created by men claiming to come from imaginary places far away. Metaphysicians grabbed these unwarranted assumptions and, by overcomplicating them, made them totally incomprehensible. These moralists failed to see that motion is essential to both the soul and the living body; that neither moves except in response to physical objects; that both need constant renewal; and that the desires of the soul, like those of the body, are purely physical. They ignored the close, ongoing connection between the soul and body, or rather, they were unwilling to accept that they are merely the same thing viewed from different perspectives. Stubbornly holding to their supernatural, confusing beliefs, they refused to see that when the body suffers, it makes the soul miserable; that a troubled soul weakens the body and causes it to deteriorate; that both the joys and pains of the mind affect the body, either dragging it into inertia or energizing it. They preferred to believe that the soul generates its thoughts, whether joyful or sad, from its own exclusive wellsprings, while the truth is that it gets its ideas only from physical objects that interact with the body’s senses; that it is neither led to happiness nor sorrow except by the actual state of the body’s fluids and solids, whether stable or temporary. In short, they were reluctant to admit that the soul, being purely passive, undergoes the same changes as the body; it moves only because of the body; it acts only with its help; it receives sensations and perceptions, forms ideas, and gets its happiness or misery from physical objects through the body’s organs, often without being aware of it and frequently against its own will.

By a consequence of these opinions, connected with marvellous systems, or systems invented to justify them, they have supposed the human soul to be a free agent; that is to say, that it has the faculty of moving itself; that it enjoys the privilege of acting independent of the impulse received from exterior objects, through the organs of the body; that regardless of these impulsions it can even resist them, and follow its own directions by its own energies; that it is not only different in its nature from all other beings, but has a separate mode of action; in other words, that it is an insolated point which is, not submitted to that uninterrupted chain of motion which bodies communicate to each other in a nature, whose parts are always in action. Smitten with their sublime notions, these speculators were not aware that in thus distinguishing the soul from the body and from all known beings, they rendered it an impossibility to form any true ideas of it, either to themselves or to others: they were unwilling to perceive the perfect analogy which is found between the manner of the soul's action and that by which the body is afflicted; they shut their eyes to the necessary and continual correspondence which is found between the soul and the body; they perhaps did not perceive that like the body it is subjected to the motion of attraction and repulsion; has an aptitude to be attracted, a disposition to repel, which is ascribable to qualities inherent in those physical subsistances, which give play to the organs of the body; that the volition of its will, the activity of its passions, the continual regeneration of its desires, are never more than consequences of that activity which is produced in the body by material objects which are not under its controul; that these objects render it either happy or miserable, active or languishing, contented or discontented, in despite of itself,—in defiance of all the efforts it is capable of making to render it otherwise; they have rather chosen to seek in the heavens for unknown powers to set it in motion; they have held forth to man distant, imaginary interests: under the pretext of procuring for him future happiness, he has been prevented from labouring to his present felicity, which has been studiously withheld from his knowledge: his regards have been fixed upon the heavens, that he might lose sight of the earth: truth has been concealed from him; and it has been pretended he would be rendered happy by dint of terrors, always at an immense distance; by means of shadows, with whose substances he could never come in contact; of chimeras formed by his own bewildered imagination, which changed nearly as often as the governments to which he was submitted. In short, hoodwinked by his fears, blinded by his own credulity, he was only guided through the flexuous paths of life, by men blind as himself, where both the one and the other were frequently lost in the maze.

As a result of these opinions, linked to amazing theories, or ideas created to justify them, people have assumed the human soul is a free agent; that is, it has the ability to act on its own; that it can function independently of external influences through the body's organs; that it can even resist these influences and pursue its own paths with its own energy; that it is not only different from all other beings but has a unique way of acting; in other words, it is an isolated point not subjected to the constant chain of motion that bodies transfer to each other in a nature where parts are always active. Enchanted by these lofty concepts, these thinkers failed to realize that by separating the soul from the body and all known beings, they made it impossible to form any accurate understanding of it, for themselves or others: they were unwilling to see the clear similarity between how the soul operates and the way the body is affected; they ignored the necessary and ongoing connection between the soul and the body; they perhaps didn’t recognize that, like the body, it is subject to attraction and repulsion; it has a tendency to be drawn in, a disposition to push away, which can be attributed to inherent qualities in physical substances that engage the body's organs; that the will's choices, the intensity of its emotions, and the constant renewal of its desires are merely consequences of the activity that material objects produce in the body, which it cannot control; that these objects can make it either happy or miserable, active or lethargic, satisfied or unsatisfied, regardless of its intentions—despite all efforts to feel differently; instead, they chose to look to the skies for unknown forces to set it in motion; they presented humanity with distant, imaginary interests: under the guise of securing future happiness for him, he was deterred from working towards his present contentment, which was deliberately kept from his awareness: his focus was directed towards the heavens, so he would overlook the earth: the truth was hidden from him; and it was claimed he would find happiness through fears, perpetually far away; through illusions that he could never touch; through fantasies created by his own confused imagination, which changed as frequently as the governments to which he was subjected. In short, deceived by his fears and blinded by his own gullibility, he was only led through the winding paths of life by people just as blind, where both often found themselves lost in the labyrinth.










CONCLUSION.

From every thing which has been hitherto said, it evidently results that all the errors of mankind, of whatever nature they may be, arise from man's having renounced reason, quitted experience, and refused the evidence of his senses that he might be guided by imagination, frequently deceitful; by authority, always suspicious. Man will ever mistake his true happiness as long as he neglects to study nature, to investigate her laws, to seek in her alone the remedies for those evils which are the consequence of his errors: he will be an enigma to himself, as long as he shall believe himself double; that he is moved by an inconceivable spiritual power, of the laws and nature of which he is ignorant; his intellectual, as well as his moral faculties, will remain unintelligible to him if he does not contemplate them with the same eyes as he does his corporeal qualities; if he does not view them as submitted in every thing to the same impulse, as governed by the same regulations. The system of his pretended free agency is without support; experience contradicts it every instant, and proves that he never ceases to be under the influence of necessity in all his actions; this truth, far from being dangerous to man, far from being destructive of his morals, furnishes him with their true basis by making him feel the necessity of those relations which subsists between sensible beings united in society: who have congregated with a view of uniting their common efforts for their reciprocal felicity. From the necessity of these relations, spring the necessity of his duties; these point out to him the sentiments of love, which he should accord to virtuous conduct; that aversion he should have for what is vicious; the horror he should feel for every thing criminal. From hence the true foundation of Moral Obligation will be obvious, which is only the necessity of talking means to obtain the end man proposes to himself by uniting in society; in which each individual for his own peculiar interest, his own particular happiness, his own personal security, is obliged to display dispositions requisite to conciliate the affections of his associates; to hold a conduct suitable to the preservation of the community; to contribute by his actions to the happiness of the whole. In a word, it is upon the necessary action and re-action of the human will upon the necessary attraction and repulsion of man's soul, that all his morals are bottomed: it is the unison of his will, the concert of his actions, that maintains society; it is rendered miserable by his discordance; it is dissolved by his want of union.

Based on everything that has been said so far, it’s clear that all the mistakes made by humanity, regardless of their nature, come from people turning away from reason, ignoring experience, and dismissing the evidence of their senses to follow imagination, which can often be misleading, and authority, which is always questionable. People will continue to misinterpret their true happiness as long as they ignore the study of nature, fail to explore her laws, and look only to her for solutions to the problems created by their own mistakes. They will be a puzzle to themselves as long as they think they are dual beings, influenced by an incomprehensible spiritual force of which they are unaware; their intellectual and moral abilities will remain a mystery unless they examine them with the same clarity they use for their physical attributes, acknowledging that both are subject to the same influences and governed by the same rules. The idea of their supposed free will lacks foundation; experience contradicts it at every turn, proving that they are always under the sway of necessity in all their actions. This truth, far from being harmful to people or undermining their morals, provides a solid basis for understanding their ethics by highlighting the necessity of the relationships between sentient beings living in a community, who come together to combine their efforts for mutual happiness. From the necessity of these relationships arise their duties; these duties guide them in fostering love for virtuous behavior, aversion to vice, and horror towards anything criminal. Thus, the true foundation of Moral Obligation becomes clear, which is simply the necessity of taking steps to achieve the goals individuals set for themselves by forming a society; in this society, each person, for their own interests, their own happiness, and their own security, must show the attitudes needed to align with the feelings of others, act in ways that protect the community, and contribute to the overall happiness of all. In short, all morality is based on the inevitable interactions of human will and the necessary attraction and repulsion of the human soul. It is the harmony of their will and the coordination of their actions that sustains society; discord brings misery, and a lack of unity leads to its dissolution.

From what has been said, it may be concluded that the names under which man has designated the concealed causes acting in nature, and their various effects, are never more than necessity considered under different points of view, with the original cause of which—the great cause of causes—he must ever remain ignorant. It will be found that what he calls order, is a necessary consequence of causes and effects, of which he sees, or believes he sees, the entire connection, the complete routine, which pleases him as a whole, when he finds it conformable to his existence. In like manner it will be seen that what he calls confusion, is a consequence of like necessary causes and effects, of which he loses the concatenation, which he therefore thinks unfavourable to himself, or but little suitable to his being. That he has designated by the names of—

From what has been said, we can conclude that the names we use to describe the hidden forces at work in nature and their various effects are just different perspectives on necessity, while the original cause—the great cause of causes—will always remain a mystery to him. You'll see that what he refers to as order is simply a necessary result of causes and effects. He perceives, or thinks he perceives, the whole connection and complete pattern, which he finds satisfying when it aligns with his existence. Similarly, what he calls confusion is also a result of those same necessary causes and effects, where he loses track of the connections, leading him to believe it is negative or not well-suited to his life. He has labeled these as—

Intelligence, those necessary causes that necessarily operate the chain of events which he comprises under the term order:

Intelligence, those essential factors that inevitably drive the sequence of events he refers to as order:

Divinity, those necessary but invisible causes which give play to nature, in which every thing acts according to immutable and necessary laws:

Divinity, those essential yet unseen forces that drive nature, where everything operates based on unchangeable and inevitable laws:

Destiny or fatality, the necessary connection of those unknown causes and, effects which he beholds in the world:

Destiny or fatality, the inevitable link between those unknown causes and effects that he observes in the world:

Chance, those effects which he is not able to foresee, or of which he is ignorant of the necessary connection, with their causes:

Chance, the outcomes he can't predict, or of which he is unaware of the essential link to their causes:

Intellectual and moral faculties, those effects and those modifications necessary to an organized being, whom he has supposed to be moved by an inconceivable agent; who he has believed distinguished from his body, of a nature totally different from it, and which he has designated by the word SOUL. In consequence, he has believed this agent immortal; not dissoluble like the body. It has been shewn that the marvellous doctrine of another life, is founded upon gratuitous suppositions, contradicted by reflections, unsupported by experience, that may or may not be, without man's knowing any thing on the subject. It has been proved, that the hypothesis is not only useless to man's morals, but again, that it is calculated to palsy his exertions; to divert him from actively pursuing the true road to his own happiness; to fill him with romantic caprices; to inebriate him with opinions prejudicial to his tranquillity; in short, to lull to slumber the vigilance of legislators; by dispensing them from giving to education, to the institutions, to the laws of society, all that attention, which it is the duty and for his interest they should bestow. It must have been felt, that politics has unaccountably rested itself upon wrong opinions; upon ideas little capable of satisfying those passions, which every thing conspires to kindle in the heart of man; who ceases to view the future, while the present seduces and hurries him along. It has been shewn, that contempt of death is an advantageous sentiment, calculated to inspire man's mind with courage; to render him intrepid; to induce him to undertake that which may be truly useful to society; in short, from what has preceded, it will be obvious, what is competent to conduct man to happiness, and also what are the obstacles that error opposes to his felicity.

Intellectual and moral faculties, those effects and modifications necessary for an organized being, whom he believed to be influenced by an unimaginable agent; he viewed this agent as separate from the body, fundamentally different from it, and referred to it as the SOUL. Consequently, he believed this agent to be immortal; unlike the body, it could not be broken down. It has been demonstrated that the extraordinary concept of an afterlife is based on unfounded assumptions, contradicted by reasoning, and lacking support from experience, which may or may not exist, without humans having any knowledge on the matter. It has been shown that this hypothesis is not only irrelevant to ethics but also undermines human efforts; it diverts individuals from truly striving for their own happiness; it fills them with fanciful ideas; it intoxicates them with beliefs harmful to their peace of mind; in short, it puts legislators' vigilance to sleep; freeing them from the obligation to give education, institutions, and societal laws the attention it is their duty and in their interest to provide. It must be recognized that politics has inexplicably relied on misguided beliefs; on ideas that are unlikely to satisfy the passions that everything works to ignite in the hearts of humans, who stop considering the future while the present lures and rushes them forward. It has been shown that a disregard for death is a beneficial attitude, capable of inspiring courage in the mind; it makes a person fearless; it encourages them to undertake what may truly benefit society; in summary, from what has been discussed, it is clear what can lead a person to happiness, as well as the barriers that erroneous beliefs create to their joy.

Let us not then, be accused of demolishing prejudice, without edifying the mind; with combating error without substituting truth; with underrating the power of the great cause of causes; with sapping at one and the same time the foundations of superstition and of sound morals. The last is necessary to man; it is founded upon his nature; its duties are certain, they must last as long as the human race remains; it imposes obligations on him, because, without it, neither individuals nor society could be able to subsist, either obtain or enjoy those advantages which nature obliges them to desire.

Let’s not be accused of tearing down prejudice without improving the mind; of fighting against falsehood while failing to present the truth; of underestimating the significance of the great cause of causes; of attacking both superstition and strong moral principles at the same time. The latter is essential to humanity; it is based on our nature; its duties are clear and will endure as long as the human race exists; it creates obligations for us because, without it, neither individuals nor society could survive or attain the benefits that nature compels them to seek.

Listen then, O man! to those morals which are established upon, experience; which are grounded upon the necessity of things; do not lend thine ear to those superstitions founded upon reveries; rested upon imposture; built upon the capricious whims of a disordered imagination. Follow the lessons of those humane, those gentle morals, which conduct man to virtue, by the voice of happiness: turn a deaf ear to the inefficacious cries of superstition, which renders man really unhappy; which can never make him reverence VIRTUE; which renders truth hateful; which paints veracity in hideous colours; in short, let him see if REASON, without the assistance of a rival, who prohibits its use, will not more surely conduct him towards that great end, which is the object of his research, which is the natural tendency of all his views.

Listen up, man! Pay attention to the lessons that come from experience, based on the necessity of things. Don’t listen to those superstitions built on daydreams, rooted in deception, and shaped by the unpredictable whims of a disordered mind. Follow the kind and humane morals that lead a person to virtue through the happiness they bring. Ignore the ineffective cries of superstition that only make people truly unhappy, that can never inspire respect for VIRTUE, and that distort truth into something ugly. In short, see if REASON, without any rival that forbids its use, won’t guide you more surely to that great goal that is the focus of your search and the natural aim of all your endeavors.

Indeed, what benefit has the human race hitherto drawn from those sublime, those supernatural notions with which superstition has fed mortals during so many ages? All those phantoms conjured—up by ignorance—brooded by imagination; all those hypothesis, subtile as they are irrational; from which experience is banished, all those words devoid of meaning with which languages are crowded; all those fantastical hopes; those panic terrors which have been brought to operate on the will of man; what have they done? Has any or the whole of them rendered him better, more enlightened to his duties, more faithful in their performance? Have those marvellous systems, or those sophistical inventions, by which they have been supported, carried conviction to his mind, reason into his conduct, virtue into his heart? Have they led him to the least acquaintance with the great Cause of Causes? Alas! it is a lamentable fact, that cannot be too often exposed, that all these things have done nothing more than plunge the human understanding into that darkness from which it is difficult to be withdrawn; sown in man's heart the most dangerous errors; of which it is scarcely possible to divest him; given birth to those fatal passions, in which may be found the true source of those evils, with which his species is afflicted: but have never enlightened his mind with truth, nor led him to that right healthy worship, which man best pays by a rational enjoyment of the faculties with which he is gifted.

What benefit has humanity gained so far from those lofty, supernatural ideas that superstition has fed people for so many ages? All those illusions created by ignorance and fueled by imagination; all those hypotheses, as clever as they are irrational; from which experience is excluded; all those meaningless words that fill our languages; all those fanciful hopes and panic-inducing fears that have impacted human will—what have they accomplished? Have any of them made us better, more aware of our responsibilities, or more reliable in fulfilling them? Have those amazing systems or those tricky ideas that support them convinced us, guided our actions with reason, or nurtured virtue in our hearts? Have they brought us any closer to understanding the great Cause of Causes? Unfortunately, it is a sad truth that is worth repeating: all these things have only plunged human understanding into a darkness that's hard to escape; planted the most dangerous errors in our hearts, which are nearly impossible to shed; birthed those harmful passions that are the real source of the troubles afflicting our species; but have never illuminated our minds with truth or led us to the right, healthy worship, which is best expressed through a rational enjoyment of the abilities we possess.

Cease then, O mortal! to let thyself he disturbed with chimeras, to let thy mind be troubled with phantoms which thine own imagination has created, or to which arch imposture has given birth. Renounce thy vague hopes, disengage thyself from thine overwhelming fears, follow without inquietude the necessary routine which nature has marked out for thee; strew the road with flowers if thy destiny permits; remove, if thou art able, the thorns scattered over it. Do not attempt to plunge thy views into an impenetrable futurity; its obscurity ought to be sufficient to prove to thee, that it is either useless or dangerous to fathom. Think of making thyself happy in that existence which is known to thee: if thou wouldst preserve thyself, be temperate, be moderate, be reasonable: if thou seekest to render thy existence durable, be not prodigal of pleasure; abstain from every thing that can be hurtful to thyself, injurious to others: be truly intelligent; that is to say, learn to esteem thyself, to preserve thy being, to fulfil that end which at each moment thou proposest to thyself. Be virtuous, to the end that thou mayest render thyself solidly happy, that thou mayest enjoy the affections, secure the esteem, partake of the assistance of those by whom thou art surrounded; of those beings whom nature has made necessary to thine own peculiar felicity. Even when they should be unjust, render thyself worthy of their applause, of thine own love, and thou shalt live content, thy serenity shall not be disturbed, the end of thy career shall not slander thy life; which will be exempted from remorse: death will be to thee the door to a new existence, a new order, in which thou wilt be submitted, as thou art at present, to the eternal laws of nature, which ordains, that to LIVE HAPPY HERE BELOW, THOU MUST MAKE OTHERS HAPPY. Suffer thyself then, to be drawn gently along thy journey, until thou shalt sleep peaceable on that bosom which has given thee birth: if contrary to thine expectation, there should be another life of eternal felicity, thou canst not fail being a partaker.

Stop, O mortal! Don't let yourself be disturbed by illusions or troubled by phantoms that your own imagination has created, or that deceit has conjured up. Let go of your vague hopes, free yourself from overwhelming fears, and calmly follow the routine that nature has laid out for you. If your destiny allows, scatter flowers along your path; try, if you can, to clear away the thorns. Don’t try to plunge your thoughts into an unknowable future; its darkness should be enough to show you that it’s either pointless or risky to try to understand it. Focus on making yourself happy in the existence that you know: if you want to take care of yourself, be temperate, be moderate, be reasonable. If you want to make your existence last, don’t waste pleasure; avoid anything that could harm you or others. Be truly wise; that means learning to value yourself, to protect your being, and to achieve the goals you set for yourself at every moment. Be virtuous so that you can be genuinely happy, to enjoy love, earn respect, and receive support from those around you; from those who nature has made essential to your own happiness. Even if they are unjust, make yourself worthy of their praise and your own love, and you will live in contentment, your peace will not be disturbed, and the end of your journey will not tarnish your life, which will be free from regret: death will be a door to a new existence, a new order, where you will still be subject, as you are now, to the eternal laws of nature, which declare that to LIVE HAPPILY HERE BELOW, YOU MUST MAKE OTHERS HAPPY. Allow yourself, then, to be gently carried along your journey, until you peacefully rest on the breast that gave you life: if, against your expectations, there is another life of eternal happiness, you will surely be part of it.

For thou, wicked unfortunate! who art found in continual contradiction with thyself; thou whose disorderly machine can neither accord with thine own peculiar nature, nor with that of thine associates, whatever may be thy crimes, whatever may be thy fears of punishment in another life, thou art at least already cruelly punished in this? Do not thy follies, thy shameful habits, thy debaucheries, damage thine health? Dost thou not linger out life in disgust, fatigued with thine own excesses? Does not listlessness punish thee for thy satiated passions? Has not thy vigour, thy gaiety, thy content, already yielded to feebleness, crouched under infirmities, given place to regret? Do not thy vices every day dig thy grave? Every time thou hast stained thyself with crime, hast thou dared without horror to return into thyself, to examine thine own conscience? Hast thou not found remorse, error, shame, established in thine heart? Hast thou not dreaded the scrutiny of thy fellow man? Hast thou not trembled when alone; unceasingly feared, that truth, so terrible for thee, should unveil thy dark transgressions, throw into light thine enormous iniquities? Do not then any longer fear to part with thine existence, it will at least put an end to those richly merited torments thou hast inflicted on thyself; Death, in delivering the earth from an incommodious burthen, will also deliver thee from thy most cruel enemy, thyself.

For you, wicked unfortunate one! who is always in conflict with yourself; you whose chaotic existence can't align with your own nature or with that of those around you, no matter what your crimes are, no matter how much you fear punishment in the afterlife, you are already suffering greatly in this life, aren't you? Don't your foolishness, your shameful habits, your excesses harm your health? Don't you drag out your life in disgust, worn out by your own indulgences? Doesn’t your emptiness punish you for your overindulgence? Hasn’t your energy, your joy, your satisfaction given way to weakness, slumped under ailments, replaced by regret? Don’t your vices dig your grave a little deeper every day? Each time you’ve committed a crime, did you dare to return to yourself without fear and examine your own conscience? Haven’t you found remorse, error, shame rooted in your heart? Have you not feared the judgment of others? Haven’t you trembled when you were alone, constantly afraid that the painful truth would expose your dark sins and reveal your immense wrongdoings? So, don't be afraid to let go of your existence, as it will at least put an end to the well-deserved torments you’ve inflicted on yourself; Death, by freeing the world from an uncomfortable burden, will also free you from your most brutal enemy, yourself.

END OF PART I.








Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!