Fundamental Philosophy, Vol. I (of 2)

56. If Descartes had gone no farther than to maintain that space, because it contains real distances, cannot be a mere nothing, his reasoning would seem conclusive. But when he adds that space is body, because space is extension, and extension constitutes the essence of body, he asserts what he does not prove.

Because we cannot imagine or conceive a body without extension, it only follows that extension is a property of bodies without which we cannot conceive them, – not that it is their essence. To be able to say this, it would be necessary for us to have the idea of body as we have that of extension, in order that we might see if they are identical. But all that we know of bodies is derived through the senses; we are not able to penetrate into their more intimate nature.

Whence arises the inseparability of the ideas of body and extension? It arises from the idea which we have of bodies being a confused idea, since we conceive it to be a substance in certain relations to ourselves, and causing in us the impressions which we call sensations. But since the basis of sensations is extension, as we have demonstrated in a former chapter, this is the only medium by which we are placed in relation with bodies. When we suppress this basis, by abstracting it, we retain nothing of body beyond a general idea of being or substance without any thing to characterize it, or to distinguish it from others. We find all this in the order of our ideas, but we cannot infer from this that bodies have no other reality than extension.

57. The same reasoning destroys the opinion of indefinite or infinite extension. Descartes, explaining his doctrine on the idea of extension, says: "We shall also know that this world, or the extended matter which composes the universe, is without limits; for, no matter how far off we place these limits, we can imagine spaces indefinitely extended beyond them; and we not only imagine these spaces, but we conceive them as really existing such as we imagine them, and containing an indefinitely extended body, as the idea of extension which we conceive in every space is the true idea which we ought to form of a body."42

In this passage, besides the error in relation to the essence of bodies, there is a gratuitous transition from a purely ideal or rather, imaginary order, to the real order. It is certain that wherever I may imagine the limits of the universe, if I consider them as an immense arch surrounding it, I still imagine new immensities of space beyond this arch; but to conclude that the reality is as I imagine it, does not seem conformed to the rules of good logic. If it is as clear as Descartes supposes, if it is not only an imagination, but a conception founded on clear and distinct ideas, how happens it that so many philosophers see in all this only a play of the imagination?

58. Leibnitz thinks that space is "a relation, an order, not only between things existing, but also between possible things as if they existed."43 He also believes vacuum impossible, but not for the reason which Descartes gives. These are his words:

"Philalethes.– Those who take matter and extension for the same thing, pretend that the sides of a hollow empty body would touch each other. But the space which is between the two bodies is enough to prevent their mutual contact.

"Theophilus.– I am of your opinion; for, although I do not admit a vacuum, I distinguish matter from extension, and concede that although there were a vacuum in a sphere, the opposite poles would not on that account unite. But I do not believe this is a case which the divine perfection would permit."44

59. Leibnitz seems to me to commit what logicians call petitio principii, or, "begging the question." He says that in the case supposed, the sides would not touch each other, because the space between them would prevent it; but this is what he had to prove, – the real existence of this space. This reality is what Descartes denies.

60. If we compare the opinions of Descartes and Leibnitz, we shall see that both agree in denying to space a reality distinct from bodies, but basing their denial on very different reasons. Descartes places the essence of body in extension; where there is extension there is body; where there is space there is extension; consequently, there neither is nor can be a vacuum. Leibnitz does not believe an empty capacity intrinsically absurd, and that he does not admit it is solely because, in his conception, it is repugnant to the divine perfection. The two illustrious philosophers started from very different principles, but arrived at the same conclusion. Descartes rests upon metaphysical reasons, founded on the essence of things. Leibnitz bases his opinion on the absolute essence of things only in its relations with the divine perfection. Empty capacity is a contradiction in the opinion of Leibnitz, only inasmuch as it is opposed to optimism.

61. It is very remarkable that three so distinguished philosophers as Aristotle, Descartes, and Leibnitz, should agree in denying the existence of this capacity which is called space, considered as a being distinct from bodies, and with the possibility of existing by itself. The difference of their opinions only proves that at the bottom of the question there is a difficulty more serious than some ideologists believe, who explain the idea of space and its generation with the same ease as though they were treating of the simplest matters.

CHAPTER IX.

OPINION OF THOSE WHO ATTRIBUTE TO SPACE A NATURE DISTINCT FROM BODIES

62. The preceding considerations seem to me to establish beyond any question, that space and nothing are contradictory terms. If space is a capacity with dimensions that can be really measured, it has real properties, and therefore is distinct from a pure nothing. We have the idea of space, on it is based a certain and evident science, that of geometry; this idea is also necessary for the conception of motion. A pure nothing cannot be the object which corresponds to this idea.

Is space something distinct from the extension of bodies? It is objected to the opinion which maintains this, that space must be either body or spirit, and if not body it must be spirit, which is absurd, since that which is essentially composed of parts, as space is, cannot be a spirit, which is a simple being.

There are strong arguments against the opinion which attributes to space a nature distinct from bodies, but I do not attach much weight to the above objection; for it is only necessary to deny the disjunctive proposition and the whole argument falls to the ground. How can it be proved that there is no medium between body and spirit? We know the essence of neither body nor spirit, and shall we arrogate to ourselves the right to assert that there is nothing in the universe which is not comprised under one of two extremes, the nature of which we know not.

63. It may be replied, that there is no medium between the simple and the composite, any more than between yes and no; and therefore there is no medium between body which is composite, and spirit which is simple. I concede that there is no medium between the simple and the composite, and that whatever exists is one or the other; but I deny that whatever is composite is body, and whatever is simple is spirit.

These two propositions: every composite is a body, and: every body is composite, are not identical. There may, therefore, be composites that are not bodies. Composition, or the possession of parts, is a property of bodies, but does not constitute their essence, or, at least, we do not know that it does. If it were so, we should be obliged to embrace the opinion of Descartes, that extension constitutes the essence of bodies. How do we know that there may not be things which have parts, and yet are not bodies?

64. Even the state of the question makes us suppose space to be a substance, that is, a being subsisting by itself without requiring another being in which to exist. The difficulty once overcome on this supposition, it is solved in its most essential and inaccessible point, and therefore in all others. If we suppose space to be distinct from bodies, and at the same time a true reality, we must consider it as a substance, as it exists in itself without any other being in which it inheres.

65. I said that a simple being is not necessarily a spirit. To explain this, I need only observe, that to say every spirit is simple, is not the same as to say every simple being is a spirit. Simplicity is a necessary attribute of a spirit, but does not constitute its essence. The idea of simplicity expresses only the negation of parts, and the essence of spirit cannot consist in a negation.

66. The argument of those who object to this opinion which attributes to space a nature distinct from bodies, making it an extended substance, that it must also be infinite, is equally inconclusive. For even on this hypothesis, there is no reason why a limit may not be assigned to space. What is there beyond this limit? Nothing. We may, it is true, conceive a vague extension, but imagination is not reality. We also imagine an epoch prior to the Creation; if, then, imagination were an argument in favor of the infinity of the world, it would also be an argument for its eternity.

The arguments with which I have fought against the opinion that space is a pure nothing, are not founded on our imaginations, but on the impossibility of nothing being extended, or having any properties. This is the principal argument which I have used against those who, while they hold space to be a pure nothing, maintain the possibility of the conception or existence of the properties which they attribute to space.

CHAPTER X.

OPINION OF THOSE WHO HOLD SPACE TO BE THE IMMENSITY OF GOD

67. Overwhelmed by these difficulties, and unable to reconcile the reality which space offers us with nothing, or to conceive in any thing created the immobility, infinity, and perpetuity which we imagine in space, some philosophers have put forth the opinion that space is the immensity of God. At first sight this seems an extravagant absurdity, but if we wish fairly to prove the falsity of this opinion, we must do justice not only to the right intention of those who have defended it, and the sound explanations which they brought to their assistance, but also to the reasons which forced them to this extremity, and which, though certainly not weighty or solid, are far from being so contemptible as one may imagine.

68. The argument in favor of this opinion may be put in the following form. Space is something. Before God created the world space existed. It is not possible to conceive bodies as existing without space in which they are extended. Before they exist, we conceive this capacity in which they may be placed, as already existing. Therefore, space is eternal. There is no motion without space; and in the first instant of the creation bodies could move and be moved. Though we suppose only one body in the world, it could be moved; and this motion could be infinitely continued. Therefore space is infinite. Annihilate now this body also, and the extension in which it moved will remain; in it new bodies, new worlds may be created. Therefore space is indestructible. But an eternal, infinite, and indestructible being cannot be created. Therefore, space is uncreated. Therefore it is God himself. But it must be God inasmuch as we conceive him in relation to extension; and, therefore, space is the immensity of God. Immensity is the attribute by which God is in every part; it is an attribute which relates to extension. Space is, therefore, the immensity of God. Only by adopting this theory can we reasonably admit that space is eternal, infinite, and indestructible.

69. The objection to this opinion is that it destroys the simplicity of God. If space is a property of God, it is God; for, whatever is in God, is God. Therefore, as space is essentially extended, God too must be extended.

Clarke saw the force of this argument; he was made to feel it by the arguments of his adversary, Leibnitz; but he answers it very weakly. He says that space has parts, but they are not separable. But, however this may be, it is certain that space has parts. True, in the idea of space we distinguish parts without separating them; but we really conceive them in it, and we cannot conceive space without them. Besides, if we should admit this theory, what would become of the proofs of the immateriality of the soul? If the infinite wisdom is extended, why may not the human soul with much more reason be so?

Carried away by his favorite idea, Clarke went so far as to write what we should not have expected from such a man, that: "In questions of this nature, when we speak of parts, we mean parts that are separable, composite, and disunited like those of matter, which for this reason is always a compound and never a simple substance. Matter is not one substance, but a composition of substances. This is why, in my opinion, matter is incapable of thinking. This incapacity does not proceed from extension, but from the parts being distinct substances, disunited, and independent of each other."45 This explanation tends to destroy the simplicity of thinking beings; for by simplicity has always been understood the absolute wanting of all parts and not the absence of this or that kind of parts. Inseparability does not destroy the existence of parts; it merely asserts the force of cohesion.

70. It is also to be feared that this doctrine opens the door to pantheism. It was even objected to Clarke that it made God the soul of the world, and although he defended himself from this charge, there still remains an objection which was not proposed to him, and which is a very serious one. If we say that God is space, or that space is a property of God, what hinders our saying that God is the world, or that the world is a property of God? The world is extended; but so is space. If God and space are not contradictory ideas in the same being, why are God and the universe contradictory? Clarke says that bodies are composed of different substances, that they are not one substance; but it is certain that all we know of bodies is that they are extended, and that they cause certain impressions in us. Since, then, extension is not repugnant to God, and much less so the causality of impressions, there can be no reason against saying that what Clarke calls distinct substances, are only the parts, or, if he prefers it, the properties of the infinite substance. Newton went so far as to say that space was the sensorium of God, and even Clarke maintained against Leibnitz that Newton's expression might bear a sound interpretation, as it was intended only as a comparison. But Leibnitz insists so strongly on this charge that it is plain that he had very great objections to this word.

71. Whatever tends to confound God with nature, or to place him in constant communication with it, otherwise than by pure acts of intellect and will, places us on a very slippery declivity, where we can hardly help being precipitated to the bottom, and at this bottom is pantheism, which is but a phasis of atheism.(30)

CHAPTER XI.

FENELON'S OPINION

72. Clarke's opinion is very similar to that of Fenelon, who in his Treatise on the existence and attributes of God, explains immensity in a very surprising manner. He says: "After considering the eternity and immutability of God, which are the same thing, I ought to examine his immensity. Since he is by himself, he is sovereignly, and since he is sovereignly, he has all being in himself. Since he has all being in himself, he has without doubt extension; extension is a manner of being, of which I have an idea. I have already seen that my ideas upon the essence of things, are real degrees of being, which actually exist in God, and are possible out of him, because he can produce them. Therefore, extension is in him; he can produce it outside of himself, only because it is contained in the fulness of his being."

To a certain extent the words of Fenelon may be explained in a sense which most theologians would not reject. They distinguish two classes of perfections; those which involve no imperfection; such as wisdom, holiness, and justice; and those which involve imperfection, as, for example, all which belong to bodies, extension, form, etc. The former, which are also called perfections simpliciter, are in God formaliter; that is to say, just as they are, because their nature involves no kind of imperfection, and, therefore, in God, they do not diminish nor tarnish his infinite perfection. Those of the second class, which are called perfections secundum quid, are in God not formaliter; for the imperfection which they involve is repugnant to his infinite perfection, but virtualiter or eminenter; that is to say, that all the perfection, all the being which they contain is in God, who is infinite perfection, infinite being; and God can produce them exteriorly by his creative omnipotence. But inasmuch as they pre-exist in an infinite being, they are freed from all limitation and imperfection, and identified with the infinite essence, and have a mode of being far superior to what they are in reality. This is expressed by the term eminenter.

Among these perfections secundum quid, extension has always been numbered.

73. If the illustrious Archbishop of Cambrai had held to this sense, we should have nothing to say in relation to his doctrine, but the words which follow seem to show that he inclined to the opinion of those who maintain that space is the immensity of God.

"Whence, then," he adds, "is it that I do not call him extended and corporeal? It is because there is an extreme difference, as I have already remarked, between attributing to God all that is positive in extension, and attributing to him extension with a limit or negation. He that places extension without limits changes extension into immensity; he who places extension with limits, makes a corporeal nature." From these words it might be believed that Fenelon did not distinguish the two modes of being of extension as theologians do; but he gives to God all that is positive in extension, though he gives it to him without limit. From this it would seem to follow that God is really extended, although his extension is infinite. With all the respect due to the illustrious shade of one of the greatest ornaments of the Catholic Church, and one of the greatest men of modern times, I must say that such an opinion does not seem to me to be sustainable. A God really extended though with an infinite extension is not God. That which is extended is essentially composite; God is essentially simple. Therefore, God and extension are contradictory.

74. But let us hear the illustrious prelate continue the explanation and defence of his opinion. He says: "From the moment that you place no limit to extension, you take from it figure, divisibility, motion, and impenetrability; – figure, because this is only a mode of limiting by surfaces; – divisibility, because, as we have seen, that which is infinite cannot be diminished, therefore, it cannot be divided, and consequently, it is not composite and divisible; – motion, because, if you suppose a whole, which has no parts nor limits, it cannot move beyond its place, because there can be no place beyond the true infinite; neither can it change the arrangement and situation of its parts, because it has no parts of which it is composed; – impenetrability, in fine, because impenetrability can only be conceived by conceiving two limited bodies, one of which is not the other, and cannot occupy the same space as the other. There are no two such bodies in infinite and indivisible extension; therefore there is no impenetrability in this extension. These principles established, it follows that all that is positive in extension is in God, although God has no figure, is not movable, divisible, or impenetrable, and consequently is not palpable, nor measurable."

From this passage it is very evident that Fenelon was far from imagining a composite God, a God with parts. He expressly denies it more than once in these few lines. Not less was to be looked for from his deep penetration and the purity of his doctrines; but, although this saves the rectitude of his intention, it does not satisfy philosophical exactness. For my part, I honestly confess that if extension is to be taken in its true sense, I cannot conceive how taking away its limits destroys its parts. On the contrary, I should rather say that an infinite extension would have infinite parts. If it is infinite it will have no figure; because figure involves a limit; but if it be true extension, it is a sort of immense field on which all imaginable figures may be traced. It will have no essential figure of its own, but it will be the recipient of all figures, the inexhaustible sea from which they all arise. That which is traced in it, will be in it; the points which terminate the figures must be in it. Is not this to have parts, composition? Infinite extension could have no figure, not because it has no parts, or is simple, but because it has infinite parts, because its composition is infinite.

I agree that an infinite extension would not be divisible, if by dividing, is meant separating; because in that immense fulness everything would be in its position with infinite firmness. So also we imagine space, the place of all motion, with its parts immovable, the field of all separation, with its parts inseparable; but we are treating of division, not of separation. If there is true extension, it is divisible; we conceive space with its parts inseparable, but still divisible; for we measure them, count them, and it is by relation to them that we form an idea of the size, distance, and motion of bodies.

74. Such clear and conclusive reflections could not fail to present themselves to the mind of the illustrious philosopher; but he seems to have preferred inconsequence or obscurity of language to the fatal corollaries of his first proposition. He said plainly and without any restriction, that all that is positive in extension, except the limit, is in God. He had asserted that extension with limits is corporeal, and that to change extension into immensity it was only necessary to take away its limits. He consequently attributed to God a true, although infinite, extension, and then wishing to explain and strengthen his doctrine he tells us that this extension has no parts. What is extension without parts? Who can conceive it? Does not extension necessarily imply an order of things of which some are outside of others. It has been always so understood. To speak of an extension without parts is to speak of an extension improperly so called. When speaking of such extension it is not enough to say it has no limits, it should be added that it is of an entirely different nature, that the word extension is used in another sense. Fenelon seemed to know this, when, notwithstanding the obscurity of his former expressions, elevated on the wings of his religion and his genius, he says: "God is in no place, as in no time; for his absolute and infinite being has no relation to place or time, which are but limits and restrictions of being. To ask if he is beyond the universe, if he exceeds its extremities in length, breadth, and depth, is as absurd a question as to ask if he was before the world, and if he will still be when the world is no more. As there is neither past nor future in God, so there is neither hither nor thither. As his absolute permanence excludes all measure of succession, so also his immensity excludes all measure of extension. He has not been, he will not be, but he is. In the same manner, to speak properly, he is not here, he is not there, he is not beyond such a limit, but he is, absolutely. All expressions which place him in relation to any term, or fix him in a certain place, are improper and unbecoming. Where then is he? He is. He is in such a manner that we must not ask where. That which only half is, or with limits, is a certain thing in such a way that it is nothing else. But God is not any particular and restricted thing. He is all; he is being; or better and more simply, he is. For the fewer words we use, the more we say. He is. Beware of adding any thing to this."

76. While reading these magnificent words, I am carried away by the elevation and grandeur of his ideas of God and of his immensity, and I forget the objections to the first proposition, which, if not false or inexact, is not, to say the least, expressed with all the clearness that could be desired. Still, I do not hesitate to maintain that his opinion coincides with Clarke's; although the illustrious writer, Christian, and poet, seem to merit a pardon for the philosopher.