Monologues

The treatise “Monologues” was written by Bl. Aurelius Augustine in 386-391. in Cassiciac (probably the current city of Cassago Brianza in Italy). The work consists of 2 books in which the author talks with himself (Reason) about the relationship of truth (truth) to itself, to God, to immortality. Monologues are devoted to how to know God and oneself. In the reasoning of the bl. Augustine is noticeably influenced by Neoplatonism: he writes that knowledge of God is possible even during earthly life. *The title of the work in Latin is Soliloquiorum libri duo. Book one * Book two I thought for a long time and about many things with myself, examining myself, my good, and the evil that should have been avoided. And suddenly I heard a voice sounding either outside or inside me, whether it was my own, or perhaps not mine - I don’t know, but only this voice said to me: Imagine that you managed to discover something. To whom will you entrust this discovery for safekeeping if you want to immediately continue your research? R. But will she be able to faithfully preserve everything that you have come up with? A . This is difficult, and perhaps impossible. R. So, we need to write it down. But what will you do if your health does not allow you to write? And, meanwhile, this should not be dictated, because such work requires complete solitude. A . It’s reasonable, and I absolutely don’t know what to do in this case. R. Pray for health and help to achieve what you want, and write all this down immediately so that the thought of offspring will keep you in good spirits. Then summarize everything that is revealed to you in a few conclusions. Just don’t try to write in such a way as to attract the attention of a crowd of readers; let it be for the few and the best of your fellow citizens. A . I hasten to follow your advice: God, Creator of the universe, grant me, firstly, the strength to earnestly pray to You, then, help me to be worthy of this and, finally, hear and fulfill my prayer. God, through whom everything strives to be that would not be in itself. God, who does not allow that which destroys itself to perish. God, who created this world out of nothing. God, who does not create evil, but allows it to be so that it does not become even more evil. God, who reveals to the few who resort to what is true that evil is nothing. God, through whom the universe, even with its bad side, is perfect. God, through whom there is absolutely no disagreement, since the worst agrees with the best. God, whom everything that is capable of loving loves, whether knowing it or not. God, in whom everything exists, according to whom neither the abomination of all creation is vile, nor malice harms, nor error leads astray. God, who did not want anyone other than the pure to know the truth. God, Father of wisdom, Father of truth and higher life, Father of bliss, Father of goodness and beauty, Father of mental light, Father of our awakening and enlightenment, Father of the guarantee that encourages us to return to You. I call on You, the true God, in whom, from whom and through whom everything that is true is true; the God of wisdom, in whom, from whom and through whom all that is wise becomes wise; God of true and sublime life, in whom, from whom and through whom lives everything that lives truly and sublimely; God of bliss, in whom, from whom and through whom all that is blessed is blessed; God of goodness and beauty, in whom, from whom and through whom all is good and beautiful; God of intelligent light, in whom, from which and through which everything that shines intelligently shines; God, whose kingdom is the entire supersensible world; God, whose kingdom laws apply to these kingdoms; God, from whom to turn away means to fall, to whom to turn means to grow, in whom to abide means to stand firm; God, from whom to depart is the same as to die, to whom to return is to come to life, in whom to dwell is to live; God, whom no one leaves except the deceived, whom no one seeks except the admonished, whom no one finds except the purified; God, whom to leave is the same as to perish, to whom to strive is the same as to love, whom to see is the same as to have; God, faith in whom excites us, hope in whom encourages us, and love for whom unites us with Him; God, through whom we defeat the enemy - I pray to You, O God! God, from whom we have received that we shall not perish until the end; God, from whom we are admonished to watch; God, through whom we hope to find good and from evil; God, through whom we avoid evil and receive good; God, through whom we do not succumb to misfortune; God, through whom we serve well and rule well; God, through whom we learn that something alien that we once considered ours, and ours that we once considered alien; God, through whom we are not caught by the baits and charms of evil; God, through whom small things do not detract from us; God, through whom our best is not subject to our worst; God, through whom death is trampled under foot and turned into victory (1 Cor 15.54); God who converts us; God, who strips us of what is not and clothes us with what is; God, who makes us worthy to be heard; God who protects us; God, who clothes us with all truth; God, who tells us everything good, does not himself and does not allow anyone to make us mad; God, who returns us to the path of God, which leads us to the door; God, who does what is opened to him who knocks (Matthew 7.8); God who gives us the bread of life; God, through whom we thirst for such a drink that, having once tasted, we will never thirst (John 6.35); God, who convicts the world about sin, and about righteousness, and about judgment (John 16.8); God, through whom we are not doubted by those who do not believe; God, through whom we reject the error of those who think that the merits of souls are nothing before Him; God, through whom we do not serve the weak and evil elements (Gal. 4.9); God who purifies us and prepares us for divine rewards. You, merciful God, come to me. Come to my aid, You, the one God, the one eternal true essence, where there is no confusion, no change, no impoverishment, no death. Where is the highest agreement, the highest evidence, the highest constancy, the highest completeness, the highest life. Where nothing is in short supply, nothing is in excess. Where the one who gives birth and the one who is born are one. God, whom all that serves serves; which every good soul obeys. According to the laws of which the poles rotate, the stars make their courses, the sun is in motion all day, the moon moderates the darkness of the night and the whole world - from day to day through the mutual change of day and night, from month to month through the waxing and waning of the moon, from year to year through the successive appearance of spring, summer, autumn and winter, from five years to five years through the fulfillment of its course by the sun and from one of the great periods to another through the return heavenly bodies to their sunrises - the harmony and circulation of times protects the constancy of things, as far as sensory matter allows. God, whose laws, eternally immutable, do not allow the fickle movement of changeable things to become disordered and give it a semblance of immobility by the everlasting rotation of centuries; according to the laws of which the will of the soul is free, and rewards for the good and punishments for the evil are distributed in everything with constant necessity. God, from whom all good things extend to us, who removes all evil from us. God, above whom there is nothing, outside of whom there is nothing, without whom there is nothing. God, under whom is everything, in whom everything is, with whom everything is. You, who created man in Your image and likeness, who recognizes, knows himself. Hear, hear me, my God, my Lord, my king, my father, my reason, my hope, my wealth, my honor, my house, my homeland, my salvation, my light, my life. Hear me with that favor of Yours, which, alas, is known to few. You alone I love, You alone I follow, You alone I seek, You alone I am ready to serve, because You alone reign righteously. Command, I pray, and command whatever You please; but heal and open my ears, so that I may hear Your words. Heal and open my eyes so that I can see through them Your mania. Drive madness out of me so that I can recognize You again. Tell me where I should turn my eyes to see You, and I hope to do everything that You command. Take me, I pray, back, your fugitive, Lord, All-merciful Father; I have already suffered enough punishment; I have sufficiently served Your enemies who are under Your feet; I was enough of a toy of deceptions. Accept me, your servant, running away from them, for they once accepted me, a stranger’s slave, when I was running away from You. I feel that I must return to You; let them open to me who knocks on Your doors; teach me how to come to You. I have nothing else but good will; I don’t know anything else except that everything that is current and perishing should be an object of contempt, and the unchangeable and eternal should be an object of search. I do this, my Father, because this is all I know; but by what path they reach You, I do not know. You advise, you show, you supply me with what I need for the journey. If those who resort to You find You by faith, give faith; if - virtue, give virtue; if - knowledge, give knowledge. Strengthen my faith, strengthen my hope, triple my love. Oh, Your amazing and unique goodness! I seek You and ask You how I can seek You. For if You forsake, everything perishes; but You will not leave, because You are the highest good, which no one who properly seeks seeks in vain. And everyone seeks properly for whom You have caused him to seek properly. Grant me, Father, to seek You, free me from error; may, when I look for You, nothing else but You come my way. If I desire nothing but You, then I ask You, Father, may I finally find You. And if I have a desire for something unnecessary, cleanse me yourself and make me able to see You. The rest, regarding the health of this mortal body of mine, as long as there is at least some benefit from it for me or for those whom I love, I leave it to Your will, all-wise and all-merciful Father, and I will ask you not to forget what will be opportune. I pray only Your highest mercy, that You would turn me completely to Yourself, that You would remove all obstacles in my striving for You, that You would command, while I move and carry this very body, that I be pure, generous, just and prudent, - a perfect lover and understander of Your wisdom, - a worthy dweller and inhabitant of Your most blessed kingdom. Amen. A . So, I prayed to God. R. So what do you want to know? A . Exactly what I prayed for. A . I desire to know God and the soul. R. In that case, ask. But first explain how you need to show God so that you can say: enough. A . I am afraid that I do not know this, for I do not think that I know anything as much as I want to know God. R. So what should we do? Don't you think that first of all you should understand how you want to know God, so that you will no longer seek Him after you achieve this? A . I think about it, but I don’t know how it can be. Have I ever known anything like God so that I could say: “As I know this, I also want to know God”? R. But if you don’t yet know God himself, then how do you know that you don’t know anything like God? A . And from there, if I knew anything like God, then I would undoubtedly love it; at the present time I love nothing except God and the soul, which, alas, I do not know. R. So you don’t love your friends either? A . How, while loving a soul, could I not love them? R. So you love both fleas and bedbugs? A . I said I love the soul, not animate animals. R. Either your friends are not people, or you don’t love them, because every person is an animate animal, and you said that you don’t love animate animals. A . And they are people, and I love them - I love them not because they are animate animals, but because they are people, that is, because they have rational souls, which I love even in robbers. For it is permissible for me to love reason in everyone, although I rightly hate the one who makes bad use of what I love. Therefore, I love my friends the more the better they use their rational soul, or more precisely, the more they want to use it well. R. So be it; but if, however, someone were to say to you: “I will make sure that you know God as you know Alypius,” would you not thank him, would you not say: that’s enough? A . I would probably say thank you, but I wouldn’t say enough to say enough. A . Yes, because although I don’t know God as much as I know Alipius, I don’t know Alipius enough either. R. Is it not too impudent of you to want to know God enough if you don’t know Alypius enough? A . One does not follow from the other. What, for example, could be more contemptible than my dinner compared to the heavenly bodies? And, meanwhile, I don’t know what I will have dinner tomorrow, while without false modesty I admit that I know in which constellation the moon will be located. R. So, maybe it will be enough for you to know God the way you know what constellation the moon will move into tomorrow? A . No, not enough; because I conclude this based on feelings. Meanwhile, I cannot say that God or some other secret force of nature cannot suddenly change the direction of the moon. If the latter had happened, then everything I had previously assumed would turn out to be false. R. And do you believe that this is possible? A . I don't believe it. But I'm talking about what I know, not what I believe. About everything that we know, we can quite correctly say that this is what we believe; but we cannot say about everything we believe that we know it. R. So, do you reject all evidence of the senses on this subject? R. Well, do you want to know this friend of yours, about whom you said that you don’t know him yet, with your feeling or your mind? A . What I know in him by feeling, if anything is known by feeling at all, is in itself insignificant and quite sufficient; but that part of him in which he is my friend, that is, his very soul, I want to know with my mind. R. Is there any other way you can't know? R. So, do you dare to say that you don’t know your friend, and the most sincere one at that? A . Why not decide? I consider the law of friendship to be extremely fair, which prescribes loving a friend no less and no more than oneself. Therefore, if I do not know myself, how can I insult a friend by saying that I do not know him, especially if he himself, as I think, does not know himself? R. In this case, if what you want to know belongs to the kind of objects that are comprehended by the mind, then when I said that it was impudent of you to want to know God if you do not know Alypius, you should not have cited your dinner and the moon as examples, since the knowledge of the latter belongs, as you yourself said, to the realm of the senses. However, for us this does not matter much. Now tell me this: if what Plato and Plotinus said about God is true, will it be enough for you to know God as they knew? A . Even if what they said is true, it does not follow that they necessarily knew about it. Many talk very thoroughly about what they do not know; just as I myself said about everything I prayed for that I wanted to know it. I would not have expressed such a desire if I had known; and, meanwhile, could I talk about it? After all, I did not say what I comprehended with my mind, but what I managed to assimilate in my memory from different sides, and in which, as far as I could, I believed. Knowing is something completely different. R. Please tell me, do you at least know what a line is in geometry? A . I know this absolutely for sure. R. And having said that, are you not afraid of academics? A . Not at all. For they did not allow the wise to err. That's why I'm not afraid to admit to knowing the things I know. And when I achieve wisdom, as I wish, then I will act according to its inspiration. R. So be it. But I ask again: do you know the ball, which is called a sphere, as you know a line? R. But do you know both equally, or one more and the other less? A . Exactly the same. For regarding both I am not mistaken in anything. R. Tell me now, did you perceive this knowledge with your feelings or with your mind? A . In this case, I used my feelings as a ship. When they brought me to the place to which I was aiming, I left them there; and when, as if having landed on the shore, I began to think it all through in my mind, my steps still wavered for a long time, as if from the rolling of a storm. Therefore, it seems to me that one can rather sail a ship on land than learn geometry through the senses, although they help those who are just beginning to learn. R. So, the science of these things, if you consider it science, do you call knowledge? A . Not if the Stoics allow, who do not attribute knowledge to anyone except the wise. I do not deny that I have an idea about all this: they allow nonsense to have an idea. However, I’m probably not afraid of them either. I fully know everything you asked about; continue, let's see where your questions lead. R. Don't rush, we have plenty of leisure. Just think about it more carefully, so as not to recklessly agree with something false. I want to give you the opportunity to enjoy such things in relation to which you will not be afraid of any chance, and yet you tell them to hurry up, as if the matter is worthless and empty. A . God grant that it be as you say. Therefore, ask as you please, and scold him more strongly if anything like this happens in the future. R. Is it clear to you that a line cannot in any way be cut longitudinally into two lines? A . Transversely, of course, you can cut it ad infinitum. R. Isn’t it clear to you that it is possible, by cutting a sphere with planes from any point on its surface through the center, to obtain circles equal to each other? A . Exactly the same. R. And the line and the sphere - do they seem to you to be one and the same, or are they still somewhat different? A . Who doesn’t know that they are very different? R. But if you know both this and that equally, and at the same time you recognize that both are very different from each other, then in this case there is indifferent knowledge of different things? A . Did I deny it? R. He denied, because when I asked you how you would like to know God so that you could say: enough, you answered that you cannot explain this because you do not have such knowledge as you want to receive about God, that you do not know anything like God. And in this case – what? Line and sphere, are they similar? But I asked not whether you knew anything like that, but about how you want to know God. You know a line just as accurately as you know a sphere, although the line does not seem at all like the sphere. Therefore, answer me, is it enough for you to know God as you know this geometric ball, that is, so as not to doubt about God, just as you do not doubt about this geometric figure? A . Although you object and refute me very strongly, nevertheless I do not dare to say that I desire to know God as I know it. For not only the object, but also the very knowledge of persons seems different. Firstly, line and sphere are not so different from each other that their knowledge is not the subject of the same science; meanwhile, no geometer began to teach about God. Then, if the knowledge of God and these objects were essentially the same, I would rejoice just as much in knowing the latter as, I suppose, I would rejoice in knowing God. Meanwhile, at the present time I despise them to such an extent in comparison with God that, I think, if I comprehended Him and saw Him as He can be visible, then all these objects would disappear from my knowledge; because even now, out of love for Him, they barely come to my mind. R. May your joy be even greater when you know God than from knowing these subjects; but this is due to the difference between objects, and not to the understanding itself. After all, you do not look at the earth with one eye, but with the other at the blue vault of heaven; and yet the sight of the latter gives you much greater pleasure than the sight of the former. But if your eyes do not deceive you, then I think that if you were asked whether you really see the earth in the same way as the sky, you would have to answer: indeed, the same way; although the beauty and splendor of the sky pleases you more than the beauty of the earth. A . I confess that this comparison astonishes me, and I am forced to agree that as different as earth and heaven are in their kind, these true and accurate scientific proofs are just as far from the intelligible greatness of God. R. It's good that this amazes you. For the mind, speaking to you, promises to show you God as the sun is visible to the eyes, since the feelings of the soul are, as it were, the eyes of the mind. All the most precise scientific propositions are similar to what is visible due to the illumination of the sun, such as, for example, the earth and everything earthly, but God is the One who illuminates. I, the mind, in relation to the mind are the same as the ability to look in relation to the eyes. For having eyes does not mean looking, and looking does not mean seeing. So, the soul needs three things: to have eyes that it can use properly, to look and to see. Healthy eyes of the soul are a mind that is clean from all bodily defilement, free from desires to possess corruptible things. First of all, faith gives freedom to the mind. For if he does not believe that, without being cleansed and freed from bodily passions, he will not see the true light, then he will not care about his recovery. But even if he believed that this was really so, that if he was given the opportunity to see, it would be only on this condition, but at the same time he would not hope for the possibility of recovery - wouldn’t he lose heart, would he not begin to despise himself and act contrary to the doctor’s intentions? A . Absolutely true, especially in view of the fact that these instructions, naturally, will seem contrary to the very disease that has declared him. R. Therefore, hope must be added to faith. R. But if he believes that all this is really so, and hopes that he can be cured, and meanwhile the very light that is promised to him will not love, will not desire, and therefore decides to be content with his darkness, pleasant to him already by force of habit: will he not reject the doctor in this case too? R. So, thirdly, love is necessary. A . Indeed, more necessary than anything else. R. So, without these three, no soul will be healed enough to be able to see, that is, comprehend its God. And if he has healthy eyes, then what remains? R. The view of the soul is the mind. But since from the fact that someone looks, it does not at all follow that he sees, then real and perfect looking, which really sees, is called virtue, for virtue is real or perfect reason. But even such a gaze cannot turn even healthy eyes to the light, if there are not these three: faith, which will believe that the object to which the gaze is drawn is really such, and that if it is seen, it will make the gaze blissful; hope, which predetermines that he will certainly see if he looks well; love that would like to see and enjoy. After the gaze comes the very vision of God, which is the end of vision. Not because, of course, vision seems to lose its use after this, but because its aspirations do not extend beyond this. This is perfect virtue - reason achieving its goal, making life blissful. Vision itself is that understanding that appears in the soul, consisting of the perceiver and that which is comprehended; so in relation to the eyes, what we call “seeing” consists of the feeling itself and that which is subject to feeling, so that if there were no one of the two, nothing could be seen. Now let's see whether these three are necessary even when the soul has already managed to see God, that is, to comprehend Him. Why, indeed, would faith be necessary if the soul already sees? And hope even less so, since it already owns it. Not only is nothing taken away from love, but on the contrary, quite a lot is given to it. For, on the one hand, having seen this only and true beauty, the soul will love it all the more; on the other hand, if it had not focused its gaze with special love, it could not remain in the most blissful contemplation. But while the soul is in this body, even if it has fully seen, that is, understood God, however, since the bodily senses still continue, even if only partially, to act and control it, there will always be many reasons, if not for deception, then for bewilderment, and therefore we can also call faith that disposition of the soul by which one thing is rejected, and another is accepted primarily as true. Further, although, having understood God, the soul will already be blessed in this life, however, since it suffers all kinds of bodily deprivations and ailments, it is natural for it to hope that after death all these inconveniences will no longer exist. Therefore, hope does not leave the soul while it is in this life. But after this life, when it is all gathered in God, only love will remain, which will remain there. For it cannot be said that she will have faith in the truth of everything, since she will not be disturbed by any admixture of lies; There will be nothing left for her to expect, since she will own everything with complete serenity. So, three things are required from the soul: to be healthy, to look, to see. Of these three things, the first and second always require the other three: faith, hope and love; and for the third - in this life all three are needed, and after it - only love. Now listen, as far as is appropriate in the course of our discourse, to some doctrine of God, based on the above comparison with sensible things. We comprehend God with our minds, and we also comprehend certain scientific principles with our minds; nevertheless, they are very different from each other. And the earth is visible, and we see the light; but the earth cannot be seen unless it is illuminated by light. Likewise, regarding scientific propositions, which everyone who understands them recognizes without any hesitation as the most true, one should think that they could not be realized if they were not illuminated, as it were, by some kind of sun. Therefore, just as in relation to the visible sun three things should be distinguished, namely: what it is, that it shines and what it illuminates, so in relation to this most mysterious God, whom you want to understand, three aspects are distinguished, which are: what He is, what He is known, and finally, what makes the rest known. I decide to teach you the knowledge of two subjects: yourself and God. But tell me, how will you accept it: as probable or as true? A . Of course, as probable; and I must admit that I am looking forward to this with great impatience, since so far, except for the fable about the line and the ball, you have not said anything that I could, in turn, say that I know. R. This is natural, since until now nothing has been presented in such a way that you could be required to consciously assimilate it. But let's get down to business. First of all, let's determine whether we ourselves are healthy. A . You must see this yourself, if you can see anything in yourself and in me; however, I will answer all your questions the way I feel. R. Do you love anything other than knowing yourself and God? A . Judging by the way I feel at the present time, I could answer that I love nothing more; but to be on the safe side, I’ll answer that I don’t know. For it has often happened to me that, at a time when I believed that nothing else would move me, something suddenly came to mind that struck me in a completely different way than I had expected. It also happened: some object, when I was just thinking about it, did not bother me; but when he appeared before me, he worried me much more than I could imagine. However, I believe that only three things can bother me: the fear of losing those I love, the fear of illness and the fear of death. R. So, you love when those you love live next to you, you love your good health and you love your very life in this body: otherwise you would not be afraid of losing it all. A . I admit that this is true. R. Therefore, when all your friends are not with you and when your health is not entirely in order, it causes some pain to your soul; agree that this follows from what has been said. A . The conclusion is correct - I cannot deny it. R. But if you suddenly feel and become convinced that your body is healthy and see that everyone you love enjoys noble leisure equally with you, won’t you rejoice? A . Of course, and why would I deceive myself, why would I hide this joy? R. Consequently, you are still susceptible to all kinds of illnesses and strong emotional impulses. What must be the shamelessness of such eyes if they want to see that true sun? A . You drew such a conclusion as if I do not feel at all how much my health has improved, how many ulcers I have gotten rid of and how many of them still remain. Try and make me give up this too. R. Don’t you know that these bodily eyes, even in a healthy state, are often struck by the light of the bodily sun, turn away from it and seek refuge in the darkness? But you, rejoicing at how much you have moved forward, don’t you think about what, in fact, you want to see? However, let's take a closer look at what you think we have made progress on. Do you desire wealth? A . No, and for a long time now. I am now thirty-three years old, but I stopped dreaming about it almost fourteen years ago and from everything that chance brought me, I wanted nothing more than what was necessary for life and for exercising in the liberal sciences. One of Cicero’s books completely convinced me that wealth should not be desired, but if it has already come, it should be used wisely and thriftily. R. Well, what about fame and honor? A . I admit that I literally just, almost these days, stopped wanting them. R. And your wife? Are you not sometimes attracted by the dream of a beautiful, chaste, obedient wife, educated, or at least one whom you could easily educate yourself, who brings with her as much dowry (since you despise wealth) as you need, who does not burden you with herself at all, and is not capable of annoying you? A . No matter how hard you try to decorate her image and endow her with all sorts of virtues, I firmly decided not to avoid anything more than cohabitation with a woman. In my opinion, nothing deprives the courage of the courageous spirit more than feminine charms and those bodily contacts that a wife cannot do without. Therefore, if caring for children is the duty of a wise man (which I certainly do not yet know), then anyone who for the sake of this enters into cohabitation with a woman may be a subject of surprise to me, but in no case should I emulate him: for in this lies much more danger than happiness. Therefore, I believe that I acted justly and usefully for the freedom of my soul by ordering myself not to desire, not to seek, and not to take a wife. R. But I’m not asking at the moment whether you are still fighting, or have you already conquered your desire. Because the question is about the health of your eyes. A . I’m not looking for anything like that at all, I don’t desire anything; I even remember this with horror and shudder. What else do you need? And such a good disposition in me grows every day, for the more the hope of seeing that beauty that I ardently desire increases, the more all my love and passion turns to it. R. Well, what about the beauty of feasts? How picky are you when it comes to food? A . What I decide not to eat does not attract me. And what I didn’t give up, I admit, gives me pleasure. However, if it were taken away from me, it would not produce any emotional disturbance in me. And if this is not the case at all, a desire of this kind does not dare to appear and interfere with my reflections. And in general, whether regarding food, or drink, or baths and other bodily pleasures, in response to any question you may have, I can say: I want to have all this to the extent that it can help my health. R. You have made significant progress. However, what remains serves as a very big obstacle to seeing the true light. I will focus on one thing that, in my opinion, is easy to prove, namely: either there should be absolutely nothing left that we still need to conquer, or there is no need to talk about final success yet. Answer, for example, the following question: would you not desire wealth if you suddenly become convinced that with many people dear to you, you can devote your life to the study of wisdom only on the condition that vast estates can satisfy your needs? R. Well, what if it becomes obvious that you will manage to win over many to wisdom, if your authority is supported by an honorable social position, and your friends themselves will be able to limit their desires and fully turn to the quest for God only when they also receive an honorable social position, and the latter will be possible only in the case of your high position and rank? In this case, shouldn’t we also want this, shouldn’t we insist in every possible way that this happens? A . This sounds quite reasonable. R. I probably won’t argue about my wife; however, if her extensive estate could provide for the maintenance of everyone with whom you would like to live peacefully in one place, and she herself sincerely agreed to this, and especially if she was of such a noble origin that it would allow you to achieve that honorable position that you would recognize as necessary, then I don’t know whether you would be obliged to neglect it. A . Will I ever dare to hope for this? R. Agree that I am not asking you what you hope for. I am asking not about what does not attract us because we are deprived of it, but only about what can give pleasure when it presents itself to us. For an infection that has been torn out by the roots is one thing, and it is quite another thing to be muffled, as if healed. What is said by some learned men is applicable to the latter: both the stupidity of fools and the bad smell of all uncleanness are not always felt, but only when you move. It makes a big difference whether the desire is destroyed due to lack of hope of satisfying it, or due to mental health. A . Although I am not able to object to you, you will not convince me that the spiritual disposition that I feel in myself is not at least some kind of success on my part. R. I believe that it seems so to you because although you can desire these things, they should, in your opinion, be desired not for their own sake, but for the sake of something else. A . That's exactly what I wanted to say. For in the past, when I desired wealth, I desired it in order to be rich; and I wanted honors, the desire for which I had recently suppressed in myself, attracted solely by their splendor; and when I thought about my wife, I always thought about nothing else but the pleasure that she would give me. At that time I had a direct desire for all this. Now I absolutely despise all this. But if access to what I desire was impossible other than through all this, I will not try particularly hard to achieve it, but I am ready to submit to it. R. Great, because I don’t think it’s correct to call desire the desire for something that is sought for the sake of something else. But perhaps answer this: why is it so important for you that the people you love live with you? A . In order to explore our souls and God with them. For then the first of us who manages to learn something will easily lead the rest to the same thing. R. Well, what if they don’t want to explore it? Or if they are not able to do this, or if they think that they already know, or that it is impossible to know, or if they encounter obstacles in the form of worldly concerns and desires for other things? A . I will accept them as they are. R. What if their presence interferes with the research itself? Aren't you in a hurry to part with them? R. So, do you seek their company not for their life or presence, but for the sake of seeking wisdom? R. Well, if you were convinced that your life itself is an obstacle to the acquisition of wisdom, would you wish for its continuation? R. And if you knew that wisdom can be acquired both by leaving this body and by staying in it, would you care whether here or in another life you enjoy what you love? A . If I were sure that nothing worse would happen to me that would deprive me of the successes I had acquired, then I would not care. R. So, are you now afraid to die for fear of falling into some kind of trouble that will deprive you of divine knowledge? A . I am afraid not only of losing what I have already learned, but also of having access to what I want to know blocked, although I think that what I already have will remain with me. R. So, do you desire the continuation of life not for its own sake, but for the sake of wisdom? R. There remain diseases of the body, which, perhaps, frighten you with their severity and strength. A . No, and I would not be afraid of them if they did not interfere with my research. Although these days, suffering from a severe toothache, I was able to think only about what I had already firmly studied earlier. However, it seemed to me that if my mind had been illuminated by the light of truth, I would either not have felt the illness at all, or would have considered it completely insignificant. But although I have never experienced anything stronger, thinking about the fact that illnesses that are incomparably more serious can happen, I am forced to agree with Cornelius Celsus, who says that our highest good is wisdom, and our greatest evil is bodily illness. And it seems to me that his conclusion is not without meaning. He says that since we are made up of two parts, i.e. from the soul and body, of which the first and best is the soul, and the second and worst is the body, then the highest good of the best part is the best, and the greatest evil of the worst is the worst; The best thing in the soul is wisdom, the worst thing in the body is illness. From here, in my opinion, without any stretch, the conclusion is drawn that the highest human good is wisdom, and the greatest evil is illness. R. We will talk about this later, because the wisdom we are trying to achieve may convince us otherwise. If this is shown to be true, then we will not hesitate to adhere to this thought of the greatest good and the greatest evil. Now let’s find out what you are like, a lover of wisdom, which you want to see with a chaste gaze and embrace in your pure arms, not allowing any cover, as if naked, such as she does not allow herself to be seen and embraced by anyone except the very few and most chosen of her admirers, who love only her. A . Haven’t I proven that I love nothing else, or at least that if I desire anything else, it is not desired for its own sake? I love wisdom for its own sake, but everything else: life, peace, friends I wish to have with me or am afraid not to have for its sake. And what limits can love have for this beauty, in relation to which I not only do not envy others, but also encourage many to seek it with me, to covet it together, to master it together and to enjoy it with me; and the more friends we will have, the more our beloved will be in common. R. It is quite proper for lovers of wisdom to be so. She is looking for such people, whose union is pure and immaculate in the true sense. But they do not achieve it in one single way, because everyone masters this truest good according to his personal health and strength. It is a kind of inexpressible and incomprehensible mental light. This ordinary light of ours, as far as it can teach, teaches how that one is obtained. For there are eyes so healthy and strong that, as soon as they open, they turn towards the sun itself without any trepidation. For such people, light itself is in some way health, and they do not need a teacher, but only need one reminder. For such people, it is enough to believe, hope, love. But others are painfully amazed by the very brilliance that they ardently desire to see, and very often, without even seeing it, they turn with pleasure to the darkness. Even if they were such that they could rightly be called healthy, showing them what they cannot see is dangerous. Therefore they should be patiently trained, and love usefully restrained and nourished. First, they need to show something that does not shine by itself, but can be visible with the help of light, such as clothing, or a wall, or something else in the same spirit. Then show something that, although not by itself, but with the help of light, still emits a certain pleasant shine, something like gold, silver, etc. Then, with some caution, you should show earthly fire, then the stars, then the moon, then the shine of dawn and the radiance of the pre-sunset sky. Having become accustomed to all this, everyone will see the sun without trepidation and with great pleasure. The best teachers do something of the same kind for students of wisdom and those who have vision, although not yet very sharp. But for today, I think we have written enough: you should take care of your health. A . Please show me (I say the next day) the proper order. Lead, pull wherever you want, command whatever you want, no matter how difficult it may be (as long as it is in my power), if only through it I achieve what I want. R. There is one thing that I can advise you (I don’t know anything else), namely: while we live in this body, we should resolutely avoid everything sensual and beware of it in every possible way, so that its stickiness does not glue our wings, which need to be free and perfect, so that we can soar to the highest light from our darkness. For this light is not visible enclosed in a bodily cage, unless they are such that they can, having broken and broken it, fly away into their airy regions. Therefore, the sooner you become such that nothing earthly will give you absolutely any pleasure, believe me, at that very minute, at that very moment you will see what you want. A . But tell me, will this ever happen? For I do not think that I could reach the point of complete contempt for everything sensual before I saw something in comparison with which it seemed dirty. R. This bodily voice could just as well have said: “Then I will stop loving the darkness when I see the sun.” It seems as if this is in the order of things, but in reality it is far from the case. He loves darkness because he is unhealthy, and only healthy people can see the sun. And the soul often deceives itself by considering and presenting itself as healthy, and since it does not see it yet, it believes that it has the right to complain. But that beauty itself decides when to show itself. For she herself is a doctor and knows who and how much healthier is better than those whom she treats. We, as much as we tried to emerge, thought about ourselves, what we saw; but how much we were immersed and how much we managed to rise, we cannot judge and consider ourselves healthy only in comparison with a more serious illness. Have you not noticed with what confidence you expressed yesterday that you are no longer possessed by any infection and that you love nothing but wisdom, and if you seek and desire the rest, it is only for its sake? How dirty, how vile, how disgusting, how terrible the embrace of a woman seemed to you when we discussed among ourselves the desire to have a wife! And yet, while awake that night, you felt that these imaginary charms and annoying pleasantness tickled you differently than you expected; all this, of course, is less than usual, but at the same time it is far from what you thought; so this mysterious doctor showed you both, namely, what, thanks to his help, you were freed from and what still remains to be cured. A . Be quiet, please be quiet. Why are you torturing me? Why do you dig and penetrate so deep? I can no longer hold back my tears, I no longer promise anything, I don’t assume anything, as long as you don’t ask me about these things. You say the truth that He, whom I passionately desire to see, He himself will know when I am healthy. He will do what He pleases, He will show Himself when He pleases. I submit myself entirely to His mercy and care. I believed once and for all that He would not cease to provide this kind of help to those disposed to Him. I won’t say anything about my health until I see that beauty. R. Don't do anything else. But hold back your tears and strengthen your heart. You've cried too much, and it weighs heavily on your sore chest. A . Do you want me to know the extent of my tears, when I don’t know the extent of my misfortune? Or do you tell me to take into account the health of the body, when I myself am destroyed by corruption? But I ask you, if you have at least some power over me, lead me along the shortest path, lead me in at least some proximity to that light, which, if I have achieved even insignificant success, I can already endure. It’s annoying to turn your eyes to the darkness that you left behind; if only that which still dares to caress my blindness can be called abandoned. R. Let us finish, if you like, this first book, so that later for the second time we can embark on a new path that will turn out to be convenient. The true disposition of your spirit should not be left without moderate exercise. A . I absolutely will not allow this book to be completed unless you show me at least a little of the region of the light to which I strive. R. The doctor we talked about carries out your will. Some insight prompts me to guide you. Listen carefully. A . Please lead and drag wherever you want. R. Are you telling the truth that you want to know the soul and God? A . All my efforts are aimed at this. A . There is absolutely no point. R. Well, don’t you want to know the truth? A . How could I find out what I want without her? R. So, first of all, you should know the truth, because through it you can know everything else. R. Let us first consider the following. There are two words: truth and true. Do you think these words mean two things, or one? A . It seems to me - two. Because cleanliness is one thing, and cleanliness is quite another, like many other things of the same kind. Therefore, I believe that truth and what is true are not the same thing. R. Which of these two do you consider more excellent? A . I think it's true. For purity does not depend on what is pure, but what is pure depends on purity; so that which is true is so by virtue of truth. R. Well, if someone pure dies, do you think that purity also died? R. So, will the truth be damaged if something true perishes? R. But aren’t thousands of things perishing before our eyes? Or perhaps you think that this tree is a false tree, or, if it is still a true tree, then it cannot die? Even if you do not trust your feelings and answer that you absolutely do not know whether it is a tree, I still believe that you will not deny that it is a true tree, if, of course, it is a tree at all (after all, we judge this not with our feelings, but with our minds). If it is a false tree, then it is not a tree, but if it is a tree, then, of necessity, it is a true tree. R. Well, what about the other? Don't you agree that a tree is one of those things that is born and dies? R. From this follows the conclusion that something that is true perishes. R. What next? Don't you think that truth does not perish when true things perish, just as purity does not die when the pure dies? A . Now I agree and look forward to what you do next. R. Does the following proposition seem true to you: that which exists must exist somewhere? R. But do you admit that truth exists? R. So we need to find where it exists; for it does not exist in space if nothing exists in space except bodies; You don’t consider truth to be a body, do you? A . I don't think anything like that. R. So where does it exist? After all, we agreed that what exists must exist somewhere. A . If I knew where she was, I wouldn't look for anything else. R. But you can at least find out where she is not. A . Tell me, and maybe I’ll figure it out. R. It is not, of course, found in mortal things. For that which exists cannot abide in anything unless that in which it exists abides; but truth, as we have already agreed, endures, although true things perish. So truth does not exist in mortal things. However, it exists, and does not exist anywhere. Therefore, there are things that are immortal. Nothing, however, is true in which there is no truth. It follows that only that which is immortal is true. Moreover, every false tree is not a tree, and every false log is not a log, and every false silver is not silver, and everything that is false does not exist. Whatever is not true is false. So, only the immortal can be called truly existing. Discuss this conclusion carefully with yourself, so that you do not feel that you should not have agreed with anything. If he is correct, we have finished almost all our work; however, this will be better understood in another book. A . I thank you, and both with myself and then with you, in silence, I will discuss this carefully and carefully, unless any darkness envelops me and forces me, which I am very afraid of, to find pleasure in it itself. R. Believe firmly in God and surrender yourself completely to Him. Do not want to belong to yourself and be autocratic, but recognize yourself as a slave of this most merciful Master. In this case, He will not cease to elevate you to Himself and will not allow anything to happen to you other than something useful for you, even without your knowledge. A . I hear, I believe and, as far as I can, I obey, and I earnestly pray to Him that I may fulfill His will as best as possible; will you require anything else from me? R. Enough for now; You will do later what He himself commands when you see Him. A . Our activities were interrupted for quite a long time, and yet love is impatient, and there is no measure for tears if love is not given what it loves. Let us therefore begin the second book. A . Let us believe that God will help us. R. Of course, we will believe, if at least it is in our power. A . Our power is He Himself. R. In this case, turn to Him in prayer, as short and perfect as possible. A . God, who remains unchanging, let me know myself, let me know You! So, I prayed. R. You who want to know yourself, do you know that you exist? R. Do you feel simple or complex? R. Do you know you're moving? R. Do you know what you are thinking? R. So, what you think is true? R. Do you know that you are immortal? R. Of all the things you say you don't know, what do you want to know above all? R. So, do you love life? R. And if you find out that you are immortal, will this knowledge be enough for you? A . Although this will be a lot, it is not enough for me. R. However, how happy will you be with this little thing? R. Won't you cry anymore? R. Well, what if life itself turns out to be such that in it it will be impossible for you to learn anything more than what you know? Can you hold back your tears? A . On the contrary, I will cry as if life itself does not exist. R. Therefore, you love life not for life itself, but for the sake of knowledge. R. What if this knowledge makes you unhappy? A . I don't think this can happen. But if this is so, then no one can be blessed, because if I am unhappy now, it is precisely because I still don’t know too much. If knowledge of things makes one unhappy, then unhappiness is eternal. R. Now I see what you don't want. Since you think that knowledge does not make anyone unhappy, then you conclude from this that knowledge makes you happy; only the one who lives can be blessed, and only the one who exists lives: so, you want to exist, live and know; but - to exist in order to live, in order to learn. You know that you exist; you know that you live; you know that you will know. But you want to know whether all this will always be there, or none of this will happen, or something will always exist, and something will disappear, or whether remaining at all, all this will decrease or increase. R. So, if we prove that we will always live, will it follow from this that we will always exist? R. The question of knowledge remains open. A . I find this order the clearest and shortest. R. Be prepared to answer my questions with caution and firmness. R. If this world remains forever, will it be true that this world will always remain? A . Who can doubt this? R. Well, what if there isn’t any left? Will it not just as surely be true that the world will not endure? R. And when will he die, if he has to die? Will it not then be true that the world has perished? For until it is true that the world has disappeared, it will not disappear, since this denies that the world has disappeared, and it will not be true that the world has disappeared. R. Well, with this in mind: do you think anything can be true if there is no truth? R. So, the truth will exist, even if the world perishes? R. And if the truth itself disappears, will it not be true that the truth has disappeared? A . Who would argue with this? R. But the true cannot exist if there is no truth. A . I have already agreed with this before. R. Therefore, truth will not disappear in any way. A . Continue as you began, because nothing can be truer than such conclusions. R. Now I would like you to answer whether, in your opinion, it is the soul that feels, or the body? R. Don't you think that the mind is related to the soul? R. Is it only to the soul, or to something else? A . Apart from the soul and God, I cannot imagine anything in which I could admit the existence of a mind. R. Now let's pay attention to the following. If someone told you that this wall is not a wall, but a tree, what would you think? A . I would have thought that either his or my feelings were lying, or that he was calling the wall by that name. R. Well, what if he saw the wall as a tree, and you saw it as a wall? Couldn't both be true? A . No way; because one and the same thing cannot be both a wall and a tree. Since each of us separately imagines something special, then there is no doubt that one of us has a false idea. R. What if it is neither a wall nor a tree, and you are both deceived? R. But you didn't allow this before. R. Well, what if you find out that it seems different to you than it is? Are you really being deceived even then? R. So, is it possible that what is presented will be false, and the one to whom it is presented will not be deceived? R. Therefore, it should be recognized that it is not the one who sees the false who is deceived, but the one who trusts the false? R. What is false itself, and why is it false? A . What is false is something that exists differently than it appears. R. Therefore: if there are no those to whom it could appear, then there is no false thing? R. So, falsity lies not in things, but in feeling. But he is not deceived who does not trust what is false. It follows that we are one thing, and feeling is quite another; because when it is deceived, we need not be deceived. A . I have nothing to object to. R. But when the soul is deceived, will you dare to assert that there is no falsehood? A . How would I decide to do this? R. But there is no feeling without a soul, just as there is no falsity without feeling. The soul either produces falsity or promotes falsity. A . The previous one forces us to agree with this too. R. Now answer me, do you think it could happen that someday there will be no falsity? A . How can I agree with this when it is so difficult to get to the truth that to say that there can be no falsity is much more incongruous than to say that there cannot be truth? R. Do you think what someone who does not live can feel? R. It follows that the soul lives forever. A . You make me happy too quickly; slow down please. R. But if we agreed with the above, then I do not see why we should doubt it. A . I say: too fast. Because of this, I would rather come to the conclusion that I agreed with something thoughtlessly than remain convinced of the immortality of the soul. At least expand on your conclusion and show how it was arrived at. R. You said that falsity cannot exist without feeling, but it cannot not exist; therefore, feeling always exists. But there is no feeling without a soul; therefore the soul is eternal. She will not be able to feel if she does not live. So the soul lives forever. A . Pathetic proof! After all, you could draw the conclusion that man is immortal if I agreed with you that this world can never exist without man, and this world will always continue to exist. R. You are very careful. However, our conclusion that the nature of things cannot exist without a soul, unless in the nature of things there may someday be no falsehood, has its significance. A . I accept this conclusion as correct. But I believe that we should take a closer look at whether what we agreed on above is sufficiently firm. In my opinion, we have come a long way in concluding about the immortality of the soul. R. Have you thought it through enough to avoid making a frivolous concession? A . Perhaps that is enough, and I don’t find anything for which I would reproach myself for recklessness. R. Therefore, is the conclusion true that the nature of things cannot exist without a living soul? A . Correct in the sense that some souls can alternately be born, others can die. R. But if falsity were eliminated from the nature of things, would it not happen that everything would be true? A . I suppose that would be the case. R. Tell me, why does it seem to you that this wall is a true wall? A . Because her appearance doesn't deceive me. R. Therefore, because she is what she seems? R. Therefore, if something is false only because it seems to be different from what it really is, and because it is true because it is what it appears to be, then since there is no one to whom it can appear, it will be neither false nor true. But if there is no falsity in the nature of things, then everything is true. Something can only appear to the living soul. So, the soul continues its existence in the nature of things, if falsity cannot be eliminated, and still continues - even if it can. A . Although this conclusion was made, in my opinion, more thoroughly than the previous one, this addition did not move us forward. The objection that seemed to me very serious, i.e., that souls are born and die, and if they do not cease to exist in the world, then this is achieved not by their immortality, but by the intercession of one in the place of another, remains valid. R. Does it seem to you that the bodily, that is, the sensory, can be comprehended by the mind? R. Why is this so? Don't you think that God uses the senses to know things? A . I dare not say anything in the affirmative on this subject; but as far as it is permissible to assume, I think that God does not use feelings at all. R. From this we conclude that only the soul can feel. A . Conclude, perhaps, as far as probability allows. R. Do you agree that this wall, if it is not a true wall, is not a wall at all? R. And what is not a body, what is not a true body? R. So, if only that which is what it appears to be is true; if everything corporeal can be seen only by the senses, if only the soul can feel; if something cannot be a body, which is not a true body, then it follows that there cannot be a body if there is no soul. A . Your evidence is extremely strong, and I have nothing that I can oppose to it. R. Take a closer look at the following: this stone really exists no differently than it seems; and we see it can only be feelings. Consequently, there are no stones either in the innermost bosom of the earth, or anywhere else at all, where there are no ones who would feel: if we did not perceive it, it would not be a stone. If you lock a closet, then although many things will be locked in it, nothing will be in it. And the tree itself is not a tree inside. For everything that is in the depths of the opaque body eludes all senses, and therefore is completely reduced to insignificance. For if it were, it would be true; What is true is that which exists as it seems; but it does not seem at all - therefore, it is not true. Or maybe you want to object to this? A . I see that this follows from what I previously agreed with; but it is so incongruous that I am ready to renounce something of the past rather than recognize it as true. R. Please. In this case, pay attention to what you meant when you said that the body can only be perceived by the senses, or that only the soul can feel, or that a stone and everything else exists, but is not true. And in general, shouldn’t the true be defined differently? A . Let's consider this last one. R. In this case, determine what is true. A . The true is that which exists as it appears to the ignorant, if he wants and can know. R. Therefore, it will not be true that no one can know? Then, if the false is that which appears otherwise than how it is, then what if this stone appears to one as a stone, and to another as a piece of wood? Wouldn't one and the same thing be false and true at the same time? A . I am more puzzled by the first, namely: how does it follow from the fact that an object cannot be known that it is not true? The fact that one and the same thing can be true and false at the same time does not surprise me at all, since any object, when compared with others, is at the same time both large and small. But all that comes out of this is that nothing in itself is either big or small. Because these names only make sense when compared. R. But when you say that nothing is true in itself, are you not afraid that it will follow that nothing exists in itself? After all, as long as this tree exists, it is therefore a true tree. And it cannot be that, being in itself, that is, without a knower, it would not be a true tree. A . After this, I will formulate the following definition: true, in my opinion, is what exists. R. In this case, nothing will be false, since everything that exists is true. A . You have put me in the greatest difficulty; I absolutely cannot find what to answer you. Although I would like you to teach me such questions, but after that I am already afraid of questions. R. God, to whom we give ourselves, will without any doubt give us help and free us from this difficulty, if only we believe in Him and pray to Him most earnestly. A . Indeed, in this case I will not do anything more willingly, because never before has such darkness surrounded me. God, our Father, who exhorts us to pray to You and gives what is asked of You, hear me, dreaming in this darkness, and extend Your right hand to me. Show me Your light, rescue me from error; May I, under Your guidance, return to myself and to You. Amen. R. Do not be distracted and, as much as you can, listen as carefully as possible. A . Now, I am no longer busy with anything else. R. First of all, let’s talk once again about what false is. A . I would be surprised if anything other than something that is not as it appears to be is false. R. Let's first ask the feelings themselves. After all, what the eyes see is not called false if it does not have any resemblance to the true. For example, the person we see in a dream is not a true person, but a false one precisely because he resembles the true one. For who, having seen a dog, could in good conscience say that he saw a man in a dream? And this dog is false because it looks like the real one. R. Well, what if someone, awake and seeing a horse, thought that he saw a man? Would he be deceived because he imagined something resembling a person? For if he had only imagined the sight of a horse, he could not have thought that he was seeing a man. R. We also accurately call the tree that we see painted false, the face that is reflected in the mirror, and the broken oar in the water false precisely because of the similarity of what is visible with the true. R. We are also definitely deceived in twins, and in eggs, and in separate seals made by the same ring, and in other objects of the same kind. A . I fully share this opinion and agree with it. R. Therefore, the similarity of things perceived by sight is the mother of falsity. R. But this whole mass of similarities, if I’m not mistaken, can be divided into two types. For similarity exists between equal things and also between unequal things. Equality occurs when we say that this is just as similar to this as this, as, for example, we said about twins or ring prints. Inequality includes those cases when we call the worst similar to the best. For who, looking in the mirror, will say in conscience that he looks like the reflection, and not it like him? This last kind manifests itself partly in mental states, and partly in those things that present themselves to observation. But what happens in the soul is partly done in feeling, such as, for example, the appearance of a broken oar, which in reality does not exist, and partly in it itself due to what it received from the feelings, such as, for example, images in dreams, and perhaps in madness. Further, the similarities that appear in the very things we see are some formed by nature itself, others by animate beings. Nature produces likenesses by birth and by reflection; by birth, when children are born similar to their parents, by reflection - with the help of various kinds of mirrors. For, although people make many mirrors, they themselves do not draw the images that are reflected by the mirrors. We have works of animate beings in paintings and in other images of the same quality; those images that are the work of demons can also be attributed to the same genus, if they really exist. The shadows of bodies, as long as they are not too far removed from the object itself, so that they retain the likeness of bodies and are called, as it were, false bodies, allowing the eyes to embrace themselves, should be attributed to the type that nature produces through reflection. For every body exposed to light reflects it and casts a shadow in the opposite direction. Or do you find, perhaps, some objection to what was said? A . I don’t find any objections, but I’m looking forward to finding out what you’re getting at. R. We must wait patiently until the other senses let us know that falsity nests in the likeness of the true. For also in the field of hearing. There are almost as many kinds of similarity: for example, when we hear the voice of a speaker who is invisible to us, we mistake him for someone else whose voice he resembles; an example of similarity in worse things is, for example, an echo, or a ringing in the ears themselves, or some imitation of a blackbird or a raven in a clock, or in what dreamers or madmen imagine they hear. And the so-called false tones among musicians, to an incredible degree, as it turns out later, serve as confirmation of the truth; but for the present case it is enough that they themselves are not far from resembling those tones that are called true. Do you agree with this? A . I agree, especially since in this case everything is clear to me. R. Then, in order not to dwell on this subject for a long time, tell me, do you think that you can easily distinguish lily from lily by smell, or caraway honey from caraway honey from different hives by taste, or swan down from goose down by touch? R. What if we dream that we smell, taste, or touch objects of this nature? Will not this similarity of images deceive us, the worse the more empty it is? R. So, it is obvious that we are deceived in all senses, deceived by similarities either between equal or unequal things; or if we are not deceived by refraining from trusting or noticing differences, we should call those things false that we consider to be true. A . I can't doubt it. R. Now sharpen your attention, as we will return to the same subject again to make more obvious what we are trying to show. A . I listen carefully. I decided to be patient with this cycle and not feel tired this time, supported by the hope of achieving what we strive for. R. You're doing well. But look carefully: in the case when we see eggs similar to one another, can we rightly call any of them false? A . I don't think so. Because if they are all eggs, then they are true eggs. R. Well, what if we see an image reflected in a mirror? By what signs do we know that it is false? A . Because you can’t catch him, because he doesn’t respond, because he doesn’t move on his own, because he doesn’t live, and also because of countless other signs that would take a long time to count. R. I see that you don’t want to hesitate, and I’m ready to submit to your haste. So, without going into details again, would we call those whom we see in our dreams false people, if they could live, speak, be kept awake, and if there were no difference between them and those people with whom we talk and whom we see when awake, in a healthy state? A . On what basis could we call them that? R. Consequently, if they were true because they would turn out to be very similar to the true ones and that there would be absolutely no difference between them and the true ones, then should we not admit that similarity is the mother of truth, and dissimilarity is the mother of falsity? A . I have nothing to say against this and I am ashamed of my consent given so thoughtlessly before. R. It’s funny if you feel ashamed, as if this is not why we chose this kind of conversation, which I want to call monologues, since we are talking alone to ourselves; Although this name is new and perhaps rude, it is quite suitable for indicating the essence of the matter. For the truth can best be revealed through questions and answers, and yet it is hardly possible to find any person who would not be ashamed to remain defeated in a dispute; and at the same time it almost always happens that the speech, skillfully introduced to clarify the issue, is drowned out by the wild cry of stubbornness, mostly with hidden and sometimes open spiritual anger. Therefore, I believe that I have invented the calmest and most convenient way to seek the truth with God's help, answering my own questions. Therefore, you have nothing to be afraid of taking back your opinion and abandoning it if you thoughtlessly asserted something, for there can be no other way out of this. A . You are telling the truth. But I don’t quite clearly see what I agreed to unsuccessfully. Unless we really call something false that has some resemblance to the true, since I absolutely do not find anything else that would correspond to the name false; but even at the same time I am again forced to admit that the so-called false is called false because it differs from the true. From this it follows that the cause of falsity is the same dissimilarity. That’s why I can’t even gather my thoughts because nothing comes to my mind that could follow from these contradictory provisions. R. Don't you know that it is hardly possible to find anything so similar to another object that there is not at least some difference between them? A . I see that this is so; but when I pay attention to the fact that what we call false has something both similar to the true and dissimilar, then I find myself unable to make out why it would primarily deserve the name false. After all, if I say that due to the fact that it is dissimilar, then there will be nothing that cannot be called false; because there is nothing that is not different from any thing that we would recognize as true. On the other hand, if I say that it should be called false due to the fact that it is similar, then not only will those eggs, which are true eggs because they are very similar to each other, object to this, but I will also not be able to resist anyone who will force me to admit that everything is false; because it will not be possible for me to deny that everything in some respect is similar to each other. Suppose then that I decided to answer that similarity and dissimilarity together provide real grounds for calling something false; What way would you show me then? After all, the objection that I consider everything false will remain valid, since everything, as said above, in a certain respect turns out to be similar to each other, and in another - different. It would remain to say that the false is nothing more than that which exists differently than it seems, if I were not afraid of all those monstrous conclusions that I had recently considered myself to have avoided. For I will again be refuted by an unexpected turn, that in this case I will have to call true that which exists exactly as it seems. And from this it will follow that nothing can be true without a knower. And there I am afraid of being wrecked on the most mysterious rocks, which are true, although unknown. Or, if I say that there is nothing false anywhere, then this opinion will be refuted by anyone. And now my yearnings return again, and I see that with all my patience with which I treated your slowness, I have not moved forward at all. R. Better pay close attention, because I can in no way reconcile myself to the idea that we prayed in vain for divine help. Having tried everything possible, I find that only that which pretends to be what it is not, or strives with all its might to be, but is not, can rightly be called false. But the first kind of false is either false (fallax) or untruthful (mendax). For a person who has the desire to deceive someone and who does this partly using reason and partly by virtue of his nature is correctly called a deceiver; with the participation of reason this happens in rational animals, for example in humans; by nature - in irrational animals, for example, in a fox. I call untruthful what is expressed by those who speak a lie. They differ from liars in that every liar wants to deceive, but not everyone who tells a lie has a similar intention: because mimes, comedies, and many poems are filled with untruths more with the goal of giving pleasure than to deceive, and almost everyone who jokes tells lies. But the one who sets himself the task of deceiving someone is correctly called a liar or a liar. Those who do not intend to mislead anyone, but only invent something, are called inventors, or, if this is not the case, then simply telling lies. But perhaps you have something to object to this? A . Please continue; Perhaps now you have begun to speak about false things that are not false. However, I am impatient to find out what kind of genus this is, about which you said that it strives to be, but does not exist. R. This is all what we talked about a lot above. Don't you think that your reflection in the mirror seems to want to be you, but remains false because it does not become so? R. What about any pictorial image, or any statue, and this whole type of artistic work? Do they not strive to be that in the likeness of which each of them is made? R. Then, I suppose, you will agree that everything by which sleepers or madmen are deceived belongs to the same class? A . Even more than with anything else, because nothing more strives to be like what those who are awake or healthy see; and at the same time it is false, since it cannot be what it strives to be. R. Why, then, should I begin to talk about the movement of tall buildings, about an oar submerged in water, or about the shadows of bodies? I think it is quite clear that they should be brought to the same standard. I am silent about other feelings, because anyone who maturely discusses will find that in the things we feel, that which strives to be something, but is not, is called false. A . You're telling the truth. But I wonder why you thought it necessary to distinguish poems, jokes and other lies from this type. R. But because it is one thing to want to be false, and quite another thing to not be able to become true. Therefore, we can liken such human works as comedies, tragedies, pantomimes and others of the same kind to the works of painters and sculptors. For a painted person also certainly cannot be true, although it achieves the appearance of a human being, just like what is contained in the books of comedians. And all this does not want to be false, or is false not due to any personal desire, but due to some necessity, as far as it can be subject to the arbitrariness of the inventor. But Roscius, by nature a true man, by his own will was a false Hecuba on the stage. By the same will, he was both a true tragedian, insofar as he played his role, and a false Priam, because he imitated Priam, but was not Priam himself. Something peculiar emerges from this, but no one doubts that it is so. R. And the fact that all this is true in a certain respect, from which it is false in another respect, and the only thing that contributes to its truth in this respect is that in another respect it is false. Because of this, it will in no way achieve what it wants or should be if it avoids being false. How could this Roscius, whom we mentioned, be a true tragedian if he did not want to be a false Hector, a false Andromache, a false Hercules, etc.? Or how a pictorial image would be true if the horse were not false; or is the mirror a true reflection of a person, if it were not a false person? After this, if in certain respects, in order for something to be true, it is useful for something to be false, then why are we so afraid of falsity and so eager for the truth, considering it a great good? A . I don’t know and I’m very surprised; perhaps only because in the examples given I don’t see anything worthy of imitation. After all, we should not, like actors or any reflections from mirrors, being true in a certain form, tint and imitate someone else’s appearance and for this purpose become false; but we must look for such a true thing that would not be like a two-faced image, looking in opposite directions, in a certain part true, in a certain part false. R. You are looking for the great and the divine. But if we found it, would we not admit that by doing so we have, as it were, manufactured and cast the truth itself, from which everything that is true in any way receives its name? A . I agree with this readily. R. How do you think the science of reasoning is a true science or a false one? A . Of course it's true. But grammar is also true. R. Just like dialectics? A . I don't know if anything is truer than true. R. This is something, of course, that has nothing false. Shortly before this, you encountered things that somehow could not be true if they were not false. Don’t you know that all this fabulous and outright falseness relates to grammar? A . This is what I know; but I think that it is not grammar that invents all this falsehood, but only clarifies its properties, namely, that a fable is a lie, composed for benefit and pleasure. Grammar itself is the guardian of articulate speech: it gives the rules by which all human speech (not excluding fiction) must be composed, committed to memory and writing, without turning it into false, but teaching and communicating certain true techniques regarding this. R. Wonderful. I won’t talk about whether you correctly defined and distinguished this; but I will direct your attention to whether grammar itself proves that all this is so, or the science of judgment? A . I do not refuse the power and art of making definitions, which in this case you decided to highlight and attribute to the art of reasoning. R. Well, what about the grammar itself? If it is true, is it not true because it is science? For science takes its name from learning, and no one can say that he does not know what he has learned and what he remembers; and no one knows what is false. Consequently, every science is a true science. A . Although I do not see what is wrong with this conclusion, I am afraid that because of it, the fables mentioned above will not seem true to anyone, because we study and remember them too. R. Did our teacher really not want us to believe and know what he taught? A . On the contrary, he strongly insisted that we know. R. But did he ever insist that we believe that Daedalus flew? A . Indeed, he never insisted on this, but he said openly that if we don’t learn the fables, then we will hardly know anything at all. R. Therefore, you do not deny that you were studying the truth when you studied it. For if what Daedalus flew was true, and the children took it for a fictitious fable, then they would internalize what is false because what was conveyed was true. This is where the originality comes from, which we talked about above, namely, that the fable of Daedalus flying would not be a true fable if it were not false that Daedalus flew. A . Let it be so; but I would like to know what we gain from this? R. And the fact that our conclusion that science cannot be true if it does not teach the truth is not a false conclusion. A . What does this have to do with our business? R. I want you to tell me why grammar is a science: for it is true insofar as it is a science. A . I don't know what to tell you. R. Don't you think that if there were nothing definite in it, nothing distributed and divided into genera and parts, then it could in no way be a science? A . Now I understand what you want to say: I do not recognize any scientific property for that science that does not need definitions, divisions, conclusions, in all that is why it is called science. R. Therefore, in everything that is why it is called true science. R. Now tell me, what science sets out the method of definitions, divisions and development of parts? A . It was already said above that this is done by the rules of reasoning. R. So, grammar as a science, and as a true science, owes its origin to the same science that you above defended from the reproach of falsity. I can draw the same conclusion regarding not only grammar, but all sciences in general. You said, and you said it correctly, that there is no science that does not receive the properties of science due to definition and logical arrangement. But if sciences are true because they are sciences, then who will deny that the science through which all others become true sciences is truth itself? A . I would be ready to agree with this; but what stops me is that we attribute the method of reasoning to the same sciences. I rather think that the truth is that this very method becomes true. R. Excellent and circumspect in every way; but I suppose you don’t deny that it is true insofar as it is science? A . On the contrary, this is what stops me. Because I also came to the opposite conclusion: since it is science, it is therefore true. R. Why is this so? Do you think that it could be a science if everything in it were not defined and logically arranged? A . I have nothing more to add. R. But if this responsibility lies with it, then it is a true science thanks to itself. And will it seem strange to anyone if this science, which makes everything true, through itself and in itself is the true truth? A . Now nothing prevents me from agreeing. R. In this case, listen carefully to the little that remains. A . Speak if you have something to say; let it only be such that I understand it and willingly agree with it. R. They say that one exists in the other in a dual way. Firstly, one thing exists in another so much that it can be separated from it and be in another place, just as this log exists in this place, just as the sun is in the eastern side of the sky; but, secondly, there is something in the subject and in such a way that cannot be separated from it, like the form and appearance in this log, like light in the sun, like heat in fire, like science in the soul and many other similar things. Or do you think differently? A . All this has long been known, mastered and studied most diligently from the first days of youth; therefore I can agree with this without any reasoning. R. How's that? So, don’t you agree that what is in the subject of the inseparable cannot continue to exist if the subject itself ceases to exist? A . And I think this is inevitable. For anyone who carefully examines things understands that while the subject continues to exist, what is in the subject can cease to exist. For example, the color of the body may change due to illness or age, although the body itself has not yet been destroyed. Although this does not apply to everything, but only to that which enters into the existence of subjects not in order to give existence to the subjects themselves. For example, a wall is painted this color that we see, not for it to be a wall. But if fire lost heat, it would not be fire; and we can call snow snow if it is white. But can anyone admit or seem possible to anyone that what exists in the subject would continue to exist after the destruction of the subject itself? For it is unnatural and highly inconsistent with the truth that something that would not exist if it were not in the subject could still exist after the subject itself does not exist. R. Therefore, what we were looking for has been found. A . What are you talking about? Is it really clear now that the soul is immortal? R. If what you agreed with is true, then it couldn’t be clearer; unless you say that the soul, even if it dies, will remain a soul. A . I will never say this. For the light, wherever it penetrates, illuminates that place and cannot accept the darkness, but it goes out, and when the light goes out, the place is darkened. Thus, that which resisted the darkness and in no way accepted the darkness into itself, gave the darkness a place by its disappearance, as it could have given by its removal. So, I am afraid that the same thing will not happen to the body, as a place of darkness, due to the removal of the soul, as light, or due to its extinction right in it. Since it is generally impossible to avoid bodily death, at least such a kind of death is desirable in which the soul would leave the body intact and move to a place (if there is such a place) where it could not fade away. And if this is impossible, if the soul is kindled in the body itself and cannot continue its existence anywhere else, and death in general is some extinction of the soul or life in the body, then one should, as far as possible for a person, choose such a type of life so that what lives lives serenely and calmly; although I do not know how this can be if the soul dies. Oh, how blessed are those who, themselves or with the help of others, have come to the conviction that death is not to be feared, even if the soul is destroyed! And I, the unfortunate one, have not yet been able to convince me of this, no arguments, no books. R. Don’t sigh and be sure: the human soul is immortal. R. Something you agreed to with great caution before. A . Although I remember that I did not answer your questions without carefully examining them, please imagine the very essence of everything in order to see what we have come to with such roundaboutness, and do not ask me anymore. For if you briefly repeat what I agreed with, then why might you need answers from me again? Is it to pointlessly delay my joy? R. I will do as you want; just listen very carefully. A . Speak up, I'm listening. Why are you languishing? R. If everything that exists in the subject continues to exist forever, then the subject itself will need to continue to exist. But all science exists in the subject, in the soul. Therefore, if science always continues to exist, it is necessary that the soul always continues to exist. But science is truth, and truth, as reason convinced at the beginning of this book, always abides. Consequently, the soul always remains and is not called a dead soul. Therefore, the immortality of the soul will be denied without obvious absurdity only by one who proves that any of the above concessions was made incorrectly. A . I would have been ready to indulge in joy if I were not somewhat embarrassed by two things. Firstly, it confuses me that we used such a detour, adhering to who knows what chain of conclusions, while everything that was discussed could have been proven as briefly as it has been proven now. It worries me that the speech avoided the issue for so long, as if to lure me into an ambush. Then, I don’t see how science always exists in the soul, especially the science of judgment, when few know it, and whoever knows it does not know it right away. For we cannot say either that the souls of the unlearned are not souls, nor that in their souls there is a science that they do not know. Since this would be a great absurdity, it remains to conclude that either truth does not always exist in the soul, or the science mentioned is not the truth. R. From this you see that it was not in vain that our research required so many roundabouts. For we have been searching for what truth is, and yet I do not see that in this forest of things, having wandered along almost all the paths, we could even now find its traces. But what are we going to do? Shouldn't we give up what we started and wait to see if we can get our hands on something from other people's books that will satisfy our curiosity? For even to our time, I think, many books have been written that we have not read; and at the present time, when we can believe that nothing is hidden from us, we know that this subject has been written both in verse and in prose; and, moreover, written by such men, and whose works cannot hide from us, and whose natural talents are such that we can fully hope to find in their writings what we desire, especially when here, before our eyes, is the one whose eloquence we began to mourn as dead, but found revived in the most perfect form. Will he, who taught in his writings a wonderful way of life, allow us not to know the nature of life? A . I don’t think this and I hope to learn a lot from him, but I grieve about one thing: that we do not have the opportunity, in accordance with our desire, to reveal to him our zeal both for him and for the truth. He would indeed have taken pity on our thirst and would have shared his wealth much sooner than now. Calm in the fact that he himself is already fully convinced of the immortality of the soul, he perhaps does not know that there are people who have sufficiently realized the grave state of this ignorance and to refuse whom they ask for help would be extremely cruel. And the other one, although he knows through friendship our strong desire, is far from us, and now we have settled down so well that we hardly have the opportunity to send letters to him. I think that, taking advantage of the leisure on the other side of the Alps, he had already finished poetry, with the charm of which he banished the fear of death and destroyed numbness and spiritual cold. But while the matter is in a situation that does not depend on our power, are we not ashamed to waste our leisure and our soul, deprived of freedom of action, and leave everything depending on a dubious arbitration verdict? Did it help us that we prayed and pray to God that He would show us the way - us, who are seeking not wealth, not bodily pleasures, not splendor and honors, but our soul and Himself? Is He really leaving us? R. No. It is highly unusual for him to abandon those who strive for such things; Therefore, we should be far from the idea of ​​leaving such a leader. Therefore, let us repeat what we have derived from the following two propositions: that truth always remains, and that the fundamental principles of reasoning are the truth. You said that the instability of these positions depends on the fact that the essence of everything we have obtained does not convince us. Or perhaps let us consider better how science is possible in an uneducated soul, which we cannot, however, not call a soul? Apparently, you found in this an incentive to again question what you previously agreed with? A . No, let's look at the first one first, and then we'll discuss the last one. After this, I think there will be nothing controversial left. R. Let it be, but stay focused. Because I know what happens to you when you listen: focusing all your attention on the conclusion and impatiently waiting for it to come out, you do not discuss very carefully the issues with which you agree. A . You are probably telling the truth; but I will try, as far as I can, to free myself from this weakness; Just start asking already so that we don’t waste time. R. We derived our conclusion that the truth cannot perish, as far as I remember, from the fact that if not only the whole world, but also the truth itself perished, then even then it would be true that the world and the truth perished. But nothing can be true without truth. Therefore, the truth will in no way perish. A . I recognize this as fair and would be very surprised if it were false. R. In that case, let's move on to something else. A . Please allow me to think a little, so that later, to my shame, I don’t return to this again. R. And what? Is it not true that truth has perished? If it is not true, then the truth will not perish. And if it is true, then how will it be true after the destruction of truth if truth no longer exists? A . I have already thought about and discussed everything: move on to something else. We will certainly try, as much as we can, to make sure that learned and prudent men read this and correct our imprudence, if any; because I do not consider it possible, either now or ever, to find any objection to this. R. Is anything called truth except by virtue of which that which is true is true? R. Is it fair to call only that which is not false true? A . To doubt this would be madness. R. Is not something false that takes on the appearance of something, and yet is not what it resembles? A . Indeed, I do not know anything else that I would most readily call false. But usually something that is very far from resembling the true is also called false. R. Who denies this? But still it represents at least a slight imitation of the true one. A . How? After all, when it is told that Medea flew on winged serpents, this story does not represent an imitation of the true; since something that does not exist cannot be an object of imitation for something that also does not exist. R. You are right, but you forget that something that does not exist at all cannot be called false. After all, if it is false, then it exists, and if it does not exist, then it is not false. A . Can't we really call this unimaginably monstrous story about Medea false? R. We won’t name it; for if it were false, would it be monstrous? A . Something strange comes out; Is it really possible that when they tell me: “Huge winged serpents harnessed to a yoke,” I won’t call it false? R. You will name it, because there is something here that can be called false. R. Of course, the thought that is expressed by the verse itself. A . But what kind of imitation of the true does it contain? R. She speaks as if Medea actually did it. A false thought imitates true thoughts by its very expression. Being incredible, it imitates true thoughts by expressing itself in this way, and is only false, but not false. And if she counted on trust, she would imitate what was undoubtedly true. A . Now I understand that there is a big difference between what we say and the objects we talk about, and I agree with you, because only this one thing stopped me, namely, that what we call false we only correctly call false when it represents some imitation of the truth. Indeed, who would not be deservedly ridiculed if he said that a stone is false silver? However, if someone were to say that the stone is silver, we would say that he is speaking falsely, that is, he is expressing a false thought. But, in my opinion, it is not without meaning that we call tin or lead false silver, because in things there is, as it were, some imitation; Our thought, therefore, is not a false thought, but what it is expressed about is false. R. You understand correctly. But pay attention to this: could we, with the same appropriateness, call silver false lead? A . Don't know; I only know one thing, that I would call him that against my will. R. Is it not because silver is better, and that to call it that would be as if to disgrace it; while it would be a kind of honor for tin if it were called false silver? A . You're quite right. And that is why, I believe, the laws consider those who appear publicly in women's clothing to be careless and not entitled to a will, whom I do not know what better to call, false women or false men. But we can call them true comedians and true dishonest people without hesitation; or, if they do this secretly and anything dishonest becomes known only through bad rumors, then we, I believe, not contrary to the truth, will call them true scoundrels. R. We will have another time to discuss this; for many things are done that at first glance seem dishonest, but in their laudable purpose turn out to be honest. The question deserves careful discussion: does a man who, for the sake of liberating his fatherland, dresses in a woman’s tunic and deceives the enemy, act in accordance with his duty, and because he becomes a false woman, is he not an even more true man? Likewise, a wise man, if he is convinced that his life is necessary for humanity, would he really want to die from the cold rather than cover himself with women’s clothing if there was no other at hand? But, as I said, we’ll talk about this another time. You see, of course, how much is required to explain under what conditions this should happen so as not to turn into an inexcusable disgrace. In the meantime, I find it quite obvious and beyond doubt that the false is nothing more than some imitation of the true. A . Move on to what follows, since I am sufficiently convinced of this. R. In this case, I ask, can we, with the exception of those sciences that we study and to which philosophy itself should be counted, find anything so true that it would not be, like the theatrical Achilles, also false in one respect as true in another? A . I think you can find a lot. After all, this stone is not part of the sciences, and yet it is a true stone and does not imitate anything, as a result of which it could be called false. I agree that by mentioning it alone, one can remain silent about countless other items that naturally come to mind. R. Agree. But don’t you think that all these objects fit under one name, namely: body? A . It would seem that if I were not sure that nothing vain exists, or if I thought that the soul itself should be counted among bodies, or if I believed that God is a certain body. If all this exists, then, I believe, it is false and true not by imitation of anything. R. You force us into long discussions; but I'll try to be as brief as I can. After all, you must agree, one is what you call vain, and the other is the truth? A . Of course. Would there be anything more vain than myself if I considered truth to be something vain or strived with such effort for something vain? After all, I want to find nothing other than the truth. R. In this case, perhaps you will agree with the fact that everything true becomes true from the truth? A . This has been obvious for a long time. R. Don't you think that vain is something other than vain itself, such as the body? R. Then I suppose you think that truth is a body. R. So what is in the body? A . I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. After all, I think you know that if the vain exists, then it exists where there is no body. A . So why do we stop there? R. Does it seem to you that truth has produced vain things, or that there is something true in which there is no truth? R. So, there is no true vain, because vain could only come from vain; and what is not true is obvious and not true; and what is called vain is called so because it is nothing. So how can something that does not exist be true? Or how can that which is perfect nothing exist? A . Leave it alone - let the vain be vain. R. What are you talking about the rest? R. Yes, that, as you see, serves in favor of my opinion. What remains is the soul and God; if they are true because there is truth in them, then no one can doubt immortality. But the soul is also considered immortal because, it turns out, there is a truth in it that cannot perish. Therefore, let us now dwell on whether the body is not truly true, that is, that there is not truth in it, but, as it were, some imitation of the truth. For if in the body, which, as we know, is subject to destruction, we found the same truth that exists in the sciences, then the science of reasoning, thanks to which all sciences are true, would not be true. For then the body will also be true, which does not seem to be formed by the principles of reasoning. And if the body is true by some imitation, and therefore only, and not irrespectively, true, then perhaps there will be nothing that would serve as an obstacle to the beginning of reasoning recognizing it as truth itself. A . Let's take a look at the body, too; although I don’t think that the dispute would end if this were proven. R. How do you know what God wants? So listen. I think that the body consists of a certain form and appearance, and if it did not have them, it would not be a body, and if it had true ones, it would be a soul. Or perhaps we should think differently? A . I partly agree with this, but partly I doubt it. I agree that a body would not be a body if it did not have some figure. But how it would be a soul if it had a true figure, I don’t understand. R. Do you really not remember anything from the beginning of the first book and from your geometric reasoning there? A . By the way, I reminded you; I will reproduce everything in my imagination with the greatest pleasure. R. Are such figures found in bodies as science introduces? A . On the contrary, they turn out to be incredibly worse. R. Which of them do you consider true? A . Do you really think it necessary to ask me about this too? Who is so blind in mind as not to see that those about whom geometry teaches rest on the truth itself, or that the truth itself is in them; and the figures of the body, although they seem to be striving towards them, are only some kind of imitation of the truth, and therefore false? Now I understand everything you tried to prove to me. R. After this, is it necessary to again interpret reasoning about science? Whether geometric figures rest on truth, or whether truth lies in them themselves, no one will doubt that they are contained in our soul, that is, in our mind; and from here it necessarily follows that truth exists in our soul. And if any truth exists in our soul, as in a subject, inseparably with it, and truth cannot perish, then please tell me, due to what kind of attachment to death do we doubt the eternal life of the soul? Or does that line, that quadrangular or circular figure, in order to be true, have some object for its imitation? A . I could believe the latter only if the line were something other than longitude without latitude, or the circle was something other than a circular line, everywhere equally distant from the center. R. So why are we delaying? Or where there is this, there is no truth? A . May God protect you from insanity. R. Or does science not exist in the soul? A . Who would say such a thing? R. But maybe if the subject died, what is in the subject would continue to exist? A . How will I be convinced of this? R. It remains to be assumed that the truth has been destroyed. A . How can this happen? R. Therefore, the soul is immortal. Finally, believe your conclusions, believe the truth: it proclaims that it dwells in you, that it is immortal, and that no death of the body can pull its seats out from under it. Turn away from your shadow, return to yourself; There is no other death for you except forgetting that you cannot perish. A . I hear it, I come to my senses, I begin to recover. But I ask you to explain the rest: how in an ignorant soul, which we cannot call mortal, there should be an understanding of the existence of science and truth. R. This question, if you want to consider it carefully, requires a special book. At the same time, I find it necessary for you to review again everything that, if possible, we have examined, because if there is no doubt about what we agreed on, then, I believe, we have done a lot and should not move on to another with frivolous dishonesty. A . Let it be as you say; I obey your orders willingly, but before finishing the book, I will ask you to show me in a few words at least the difference between the true figure and the one that the thought draws to itself, called in Greek fantasy or imagination. R. You are asking for something that only the purest can see and for which you are little prepared to contemplate; and at the present time the purpose of these circumventions of ours was nothing more than your exercise in order to make you capable of contemplating the truth. However, it is also of particular importance how this could be explained, and I may have time to make this clear. Imagine that you have forgotten something and others want to remind you of it. And so they say to you, presenting different things as similar: “Isn’t this, isn’t it something else?” Although you do not see what you want to remember, you see, however, that it is not what they call you. If this happened to you, would it seem like complete oblivion to you? After all, the very thing that you discern, that you do not accept what is falsely pointed out to you, is already partly a memory. R. Therefore, such truths are not yet seen; however, they cannot be deceived and misled and they know enough what they are looking for. But if someone tells you that you laughed a few days after birth, you will not dare call it false; and if such a person speaks who should be believed, you, although you won’t remember, will believe; because all that time was buried for you in complete oblivion. Or do you think differently? R. So, the last oblivion is very different from the first, but the first is an ordinary matter. There are many other things very close and akin to remembering and revising the truth. Something similar to this happens when we see something and remember that we have already seen it once and claim that we knew it; but where, when, how and from whom we became acquainted with this, we need to remember and change our minds. If this happens to a person, we ask where we saw him; when he reminds us, then all the circumstances suddenly seem to be illuminated in our memory and it is no longer difficult to remember. But maybe this is unknown or incomprehensible to you? A . What could be clearer and what happens to me more often? R. Such are those who have thoroughly studied the free sciences: for by studying, they undoubtedly, as it were, dig up and discover them in themselves, buried in oblivion; and they are not satisfied and do not stop until the face of truth is revealed in all its breadth and completeness, the brilliance of which to a certain extent is already shining through in those sciences. But from these same sciences certain false colors and forms are reflected in the mirror of thought, and often deceive and mislead seekers into thinking that they contain all that they know or seek. Such representations should be avoided with extreme caution; Their lies are recognized by the way they change with the change of the mirror, while the face of truth remains unchanged. Thought, for example, draws and imagines a quadrilateral of one or another size, but the inner mind, which wants to know the truth, turns to that on the basis of which it recognizes them as square. A . Well, what if someone tells us that the mind judges this based on what it usually sees with the eyes? R. In this case, on what basis does he believe that every true ball touches the true plane at only one point? What is like this that the eye ever sees or can see, if the imagination itself is not able to imagine anything of this kind? Isn’t that what we prove when we describe in our imagination the smallest circular line and draw lines from it to the center? For, having drawn two lines, between which the point of a needle could hardly fit, we are not able to draw others between them, even in our very imagination, so that they reach the center without in the least merging with each other, while reason proclaims that an infinite number of them can be drawn and that in this incredibly narrow space they can come into contact only in the center, so that in any gap between them one can still describe a circle. Since the imagination is not able to fulfill this and turns out to be even more powerless than the eyes themselves, although it is stimulated to activity by them, it is obvious that it is far from the truth and the truth does not appear in its ideas. This will be said with greater precision and subtlety when we begin to discuss knowledge, which will be done after we have explained and, if possible, eliminated everything that worries us regarding the life of the soul. For you, I see, are afraid that death, although it will not kill the soul, will entail oblivion. A . It is difficult to convey how much such a loss frightens me. What will eternal life cost then and will it not be worse than death if the soul, upon acquiring it, is like the soul of a newborn baby? R. Take heart: God, who promises something most blessed and full of truth after life in this body, will protect us, as we ourselves feel through our prayers. You might be interested in: