Philosophy for Life Teach Yourself The

Ideas That Shape Our World and How

To Use Them Mel Thompson
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/philosophy-for-life-teach-yourself-the-ideas-that-shap
e-our-world-and-how-to-use-them-mel-thompson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Data Lives: How Data Are Made And Shape Our World Rob
Kitchin

https://textbookfull.com/product/data-lives-how-data-are-made-
and-shape-our-world-rob-kitchin/

Mammoth Science The Big Ideas That Explain Our World

1st Edition David Macaulay

https://textbookfull.com/product/mammoth-science-the-big-ideas-
that-explain-our-world-1st-edition-david-macaulay/

Stuff matters the strange stories of the marvellous

materials that shape our man made world Miodownik

https://textbookfull.com/product/stuff-matters-the-strange-
stories-of-the-marvellous-materials-that-shape-our-man-made-
world-miodownik/

Big Ideas for Curious Minds An Introduction to

Philosophy The School Of Life

https://textbookfull.com/product/big-ideas-for-curious-minds-an-
introduction-to-philosophy-the-school-of-life/
Trusted Platform Modules Why When and How to Use Them
Ariel Segall

https://textbookfull.com/product/trusted-platform-modules-why-
when-and-how-to-use-them-ariel-segall/

Teach Yourself Visually G Suite teach Yourself Visually

tech 1st Edition Hart Davis Guy

https://textbookfull.com/product/teach-yourself-visually-g-suite-
teach-yourself-visually-tech-1st-edition-hart-davis-guy/

Reading The World Ideas That Matter Michael Austin

https://textbookfull.com/product/reading-the-world-ideas-that-
matter-michael-austin/

Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics Simon Monk

https://textbookfull.com/product/teach-yourself-electricity-and-
electronics-simon-monk/

Practical Smart Device Design and Construction:

Understanding Smart Technologies and How to Build Them
Yourself Christopher Harrold

https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-smart-device-design-
and-construction-understanding-smart-technologies-and-how-to-
build-them-yourself-christopher-harrold/
Philosophy for Life
Mel Thompson
For my daughter, Rebecca
 Contents
Acknowledgements
Taking it further
Meet the author

Introduction: Thinking to Enhance Your

Life
Take back control!
Different styles of argument
Definite answers and progress?
Philosophy as therapy
Worth the hemlock?
Why ‘Philosophy for Life’?
1 The What and How of Knowing
Knowledge and justification: are you certain?
The external world: appearance and reality
Starting with experience
Intuitive knowledge
Scepticism
The genealogy of ideas
The proof of the pudding…
The philosophy of education
Creative and personal knowing
A personal postscript
2 Existentialism, Integrity and Happiness
Existentialism
 A feminist perspective
The quest for happiness
Altruism
3 The Philosophy of Science
A historical overview
From evidence to theory: scientific method
Experiments and objectivity
Right, wrong or what?
The social sciences
What counts as science?
Science and philosophy
4 Language and Communication
Language and certainty
Language and perception
Linguistic philosophy
Formal logic
Structuralism and the media
5 Minds, Bodies and Brains
Ancient minds: Plato and Aristotle
‘I think, therefore I am’
The relationship between mind and body
The concept of mind
Survival?
Knowing me, knowing you
Cognitive science and artificial intelligence
Neuroscience and consciousness
A personal postscript
6 Art and Creativity
The philosophy of art
 So what is art?
What does art do?
Aesthetics and the sublime
Postmodernism
The self as art
Nietzsche, art and religion
7 The Philosophy of Religion
Faith, reason and belief
Religious language
Religious experience
Does God exist?
The origin and design of the universe: religion or science?
Miracles
The problem of evil
Psychological and sociological explanations of religion
Locating what is most real?
8 Ethics
Facts, values and choices
Am I free to choose?
Ethical language
Natural law
Virtue ethics
Utilitarianism
The categorical imperative
Absolute or relative morality?
The values and life you choose
Applying ethical theories
Environmental ethics
9 Political Philosophy
 Only individuals?
The social contract
The general will
Marx and materialism
Justice
The banality of evil
Homo economicus
Freedom and rights
The philosophy of history
Enframing in a complex world
10 The Philosophy of Everything

Glossary
 Acknowledgements
The author and publishers would like to thank the following for their
permission to use copyright material in this book:

The Observer for the newspaper extract on page 37; Chatto and
Windus for the quotation from Iris Murdoch’s Metaphysics as a Guide
to Morals; Penguin Books Ltd for the quotation from Descartes’
Discourse on Method and Chambers Concise Dictionary (2nd edition,
2009), for its definition of philosophy.
 Taking it further
Many books, both classic and modern, have been referred to within
the text, and they may serve as a next step for those wanting to
deepen their understanding of the subject.

However, books, articles and websites are constantly appearing and

changing, and it is therefore unrealistic to attempt to list here all the
material that may be of value to those wanting to follow up on
issues raised in this book.

Those wanting to explore the subject further should therefore visit

the Philosophy for Life website, which provides a range of suitable
material and web-links. It also gives you an opportunity to leave
comments, ask questions or recommend material for inclusion. Just
log on to: www.philosophyforlife.co.uk. You can also visit the
author’s website at: www.philosophyandethics.com
 Meet the author

Welcome to Philosophy for Life!

We’re all philosophers. When there’s a tough choice to be made,
when faced with the facts of birth, love or death, or simply when
thinking about what we want to do with our lives or what we hold
dear, we all tend to ask fundamental questions and to use our
reason to try to make sense of our situation. Work is no escape from
it; whether it’s examining the logic of a business decision, sifting the
relevance of scientific data, or trying to express oneself as clearly as
possible in an email, we are exercising our philosophical muscles. To
me, philosophy is doing what comes naturally, but doing it in a
rigorous and systematic way, and not opting out when the mental
going gets tough. It’s a wonderful discipline for clearing the mind; a
skill like no other. It’s also a point of entry into the history of ideas,
perusing the wisdom of the past to aid our decisions for the future.

That’s why, for me, philosophy is ‘for life’. It goes beyond taking an
interest in academic arguments and the history of ideas, presenting
us with an essential tool for rational living, sharpening up our ability
to think, to listen to the arguments of others, to weigh evidence and
to examine reasons. We live in a time (sometimes labelled ‘post-
truth’) when emotional appeals and unquestioned assumptions too
often dominate the media. Philosophy does not deny the power of
emotion or intuition, but it sets it in context. To live life to the full
requires balance, empathy, reason and the development of a
purposeful sense of what life is for. Philosophy therefore contributes
not just a body of wisdom, but an essential set of skills for living
well.

Mel Thompson, 2017

Introduction: Thinking to Enhance
your Life

In this Introduction you will:

• Be aware that philosophy is a skill as well as a

body of knowledge
• Consider how precise thinking puts you in control
• Explore different styles of argument
• Reflect on the therapeutic value of philosophy
According to the Concise Chambers Dictionary, philosophy is:
1 The search for truth and knowledge concerning the universe,
human existence, perception and behaviour, pursued by means of
reflection, reasoning and argument
2 Any particular system or set of beliefs established as a result of
this
3 A set of principles that serves as a basis for making judgements
and decisions

To philosophize involves thinking clearly and accurately, considering

evidence, reflecting on experience, sorting out arguments and
testing out claims. Philosophy also probes the meaning of life; it
examines morality, politics and religion; it challenges our
assumptions and invites us to think again about our opinions.

Some overall sense of who we are and what life is for may enhance
our appreciation of life in general. Where do we stand on the big
issues that face us? How can we find contentment in a world that
includes so much suffering and evil? How do we come to terms with
our own fragility and mortality? What does it mean to be an
individual, and how does that affect the way we treat others? What,
if anything, can we know for certain? These universal and personal
questions are not exclusively philosophical, nor are they necessarily
issues with which professional philosophers wrestle on a day-to-day
basis, but I want to suggest that most of the topics covered in
courses in philosophy can be related to them, so that some
knowledge of philosophy can yield immediate, personal benefits,
quite apart from the intellectual stimulus that studying philosophy
offers.

In order to enjoy and benefit from philosophy, it is important to

remember that it is both an activity and a body of knowledge:
As an activity, it is a matter of asking questions, challenging
assumptions, re-examining traditionally held views, unpacking the
meaning of words, weighing up the value of evidence and examining
the logic of arguments. It cultivates an enquiring and critical mind,
even if it sometimes infuriates those who want an easy intellectual
life. Philosophy clarifies your thinking, your way of expressing
yourself, your way of examining arguments, and sharpens up your
ability to make reasoned decisions. Philosophy is a tool with which to
expose nonsense, and express ideas in a way that is as
unambiguous as possible.

As a body of knowledge, philosophy is the cumulative wisdom of

some of the world’s greatest thinkers. It offers you a chance to
explore fundamental questions and to see what philosophers in
different periods of history have had to say about them. You can
examine the philosophy of a particular period. The philosophy of
ancient Greece, for example, is particularly important for
understanding the origins of much Western thought and culture. You
might look at the philosophy of the European Enlightenment, or of
the twentieth century, each giving an insight into ideas that
developed out of and shaped that particular period of history. This
historical perspective on ideas is valuable, because it frees you from
being limited by the unquestioned assumptions of those around you.
To be able to think through issues from first principles is helped by
having looked at the way in which philosophers have gone about
their work in the past, so this second aspect of philosophy reinforces
the first.

So we can see philosophy as a life-tool, a set of skills for engaging

with any subject, but also as a body of wisdom that can serve as a
guide and help inform our decisions and moral judgments.

Take back control!

In a lecture in 1854, Louis Pasteur is reported to have said ‘In the
fields of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind.’ It is
my view that, in life as in observation, the varied situations and
crises that chance throws up present both hazards and
opportunities. The person who is alert and sensitive to what life is
about, and who has already considered the fundamental principles of
what we can know or what we should do, will hopefully be better
able to grasp and use each situation to the full. It has always been
appreciated that information is needed in order to make good
business decisions. At one time, an advertisement for the Financial
Times said simply ‘No FT; no comment.’ To me, the same thing
applies to life in general: ‘No philosophy; no comment.’

We are constantly bombarded by facts, arguments and people

wanting to influence our decisions and shape the way we look at life.
Whether it comes from religious groups, political parties or
commercial enterprises, we are all vulnerable to being influenced in
ways that might not reflect our own best interests.

In 2016, ‘post-truth’ was added to the Oxford English Dictionary,

defined as:

‘Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are

less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion
and personal belief.’

Living with a mixture of truth and post-truth is now a feature of life

and the reason we need smart thinking. Understanding life has
always been a matter of balancing facts against hopes, aspirations,
emotions and traditions. Nobody can be completely objective
because we all have a particular perspective and intention behind all
that we say, think about or do. But the art is to be aware of that
balance, and particularly to be in control of that balance.
 Key idea for life

Are you content to live on the basis of other people’s ideas and values? At his trial, Socrates
is said to have claimed ‘The unexamined life is not worth living.’ Not everyone would go that
far, but it is at least worthwhile giving one’s life a mental workout once in a while, to find
out whether the examined life is more purposeful than the unexamined one, and whether it
genuinely encourages you to think for yourself rather than to be influenced by whatever
appealing post-truth is being offered. Whatever the limitations of your circumstances, and
whether you are eventually shown to be right or wrong on any issue, at the very least, the
examined life is genuinely your life, not one that you have borrowed from the media.

Different styles of argument

Philosophy can be presented in different ways. Plato, for example,
favoured the dialogue form. So his political philosophy in The
Republic has a range of characters, each of whom presents and
argues for a particular viewpoint. Other philosophers gradually
unpack the implications of their particular theory in a more linear
fashion.

There was a phase in Anglo-American philosophy – starting early in

the twentieth century – when some thinkers claimed that the sole
task of philosophy was to clarify the meaning of words. They
assumed that, once the linguistic problems were sorted out, all else
would follow. Today that view is giving way to a broader perspective.
Philosophy is indeed about language, and it is essential to
understand the language you use. However, it is also important to
rise above language in order to explore the basic ideas and concepts
it expresses, and then to move on to examine features about the
world which would not have come to light without that process of
serious thinking and analysis.

Of course, philosophers do not always agree on how to do

philosophy, or what is of value. The late A. J. Ayer, an Oxford
philosopher best known for his work on ‘logical positivism’ (see page
101), interviewed about his work in a 1980 interview, commented in
his usual direct way on the work of various other philosophers,
describing the German philosopher Heidegger’s idea about ‘the
Nothing’ as ‘sheer rubbish’ and saying that people might sometimes
be impressed because they like to be mystified. In Chapter 2, we
shall be looking briefly at the work of Heidegger. You may feel
inclined, after reading that, to agree with Ayer, or you might feel that
Heidegger is describing something of greater importance than Ayer’s
analytic approach. The essential thing to realize at this stage is that
philosophers do not all agree on the topics about which to
philosophize, the way to set about doing so, or the conclusions
reached. Philosophy is not monolithic. There is no body of
established and unquestioned work; it is an ongoing activity and one
that often raises more questions than it answers.

Ayer’s comment on Heidegger also reflects a division that held for

much of the twentieth century between ‘analytic’ philosophy,
practised mainly in English-speaking universities, and ‘continental’
philosophy from mainland Europe. The former was obsessed with
language, precision argument and definition of terms; the latter was
more literary and focused on broader questions of life’s meaning and
experience. Today, that division is less significant. Analytic
philosophy is regarded by some as largely defunct (although it still
represents a substantial core of academic work), replaced by a
broader approach which includes the issues and thinkers of the
continental tradition.

Philosophers have also disagreed about the extent to which their

work can make a difference to the world in any practical sense. In
the middle years of the twentieth century, when linguistic philosophy
dominated discussion of ethics, it was assumed that philosophers
would not argue about what was right or wrong but only about what
it might mean to say that something was right or wrong. Theirs was
language about language, sometimes called ‘second order’ language.
It was only later, from about the 1970s, that philosophers became
more engaged with practical issues, particularly in medical ethics,
the ethics of war and peace, sexual ethics, environmental ethics and
so on.

The range of views on the practical impact of philosophy may be

illustrated by comments from two hugely influential thinkers. The
nineteenth-century, political and social philosopher Karl Marx, said:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways.

The point, however, is to change it.
(Theses on Feuerbach, 1845)

Contrast this with arguably the most influential twentieth-century

thinker, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was quite happy to proclaim that:

Philosophy leaves everything as it is.

For most thinkers, the truth lies somewhere between the two.

Remember this: Eastern approaches

Philosophy is not limited to any one culture or continent. The philosophy introduced in this
book, and taught in departments of philosophy in most universities in Europe and North
America, is Western philosophy – but that is only one part of a much larger tradition.

Eastern philosophy is generally taken to include the major religious and philosophical
systems of India (the various traditions collectively known as Hinduism, along with Buddhist
and Jain philosophy) and the Far East, including Confucian and Taoist thought and the later
developments of Buddhism.

It is commonly said that the big difference between Eastern and Western philosophy is that
the former is religious, and is concerned with salvation as much as with knowledge,
whereas the latter is secular, seen by many as almost an alternative to religion. That is not
entirely true. In the West, the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions have had a profound
influence on philosophical thought, and the philosophy of religion continues to be an
important aspect of philosophy. In the East, although philosophy is seen as a matter of
practical and spiritual importance, the process of reasoning can be examined in itself, quite
apart from any religious connotations. It may also distort Eastern thought to try to draw a
distinction between religion and philosophy: Buddhism, for example, sees the path to
overcoming suffering in terms of understanding the fundamental truths of life. It is not a
matter of religious doctrines on the one hand and secular thought on the other – this is a
Western distinction that is not really relevant to Eastern thought.

As there is little enough scope within this book to introduce the main areas of Western
thought, no attempt has been made to explore Eastern philosophy. In this series there is a
book called Eastern Philosophy, by the same author.

Definite answers and progress?

When studying the natural sciences, you can generally trace a
progression of ideas and a gradual expansion of knowledge. By
contrast, in reading philosophy, you will find that, although you can
see who influenced who, progress can sometimes appear to be
circular rather than linear, so that the questions explored by the
ancient Greeks are still very much debated today. Philosophy is
always suggesting new ways of looking at questions, new ways of
expressing ideas, and new views about the purpose and function of
philosophy itself, but those new ideas may not necessarily be an
improvement on older ones. Each generation explores similar
questions, but does so in a new context.

It is not possible to live in Western Europe, or North America,

without having your language and ideas influenced by generations of
thinkers. To be aware of that heritage enhances your appreciation of
your own culture. Even though it may not always be easy to spot,
there is always going to be progress of some kind in philosophy,
because we benefit from this developing history of ideas. But just as
a modern painter may admire but not seek to copy the work of the
old masters, so philosophers continue to follow the tradition set by
their predecessors, but seek to explore familiar issues anew.

Hence, for those who crave a definitive answer to every question,

philosophy is likely to prove a source of constant frustration. But for
those who constantly question themselves, and are prepared to
examine and modify their own views where necessary, it is a source
of fascination and a means of sharpening the critical faculties.

Philosophy today – like the froth on the crest of a wave – is carried

forward by the whole movement of thought that stretches back at
least 2,500 years, and far further if you include Eastern thought.
What this book seeks to do (while acknowledging its severe
limitations in terms of coverage and depth) is to point to the reality
of the wave, and the general direction of the water within it. A
society without philosophy would be cut off from its own roots; it
would have to start from scratch, time and time again, to sort out its
values and its self-understanding. With philosophy, that process is
shown in its historical and logical perspectives. With philosophy, you
start at an advantage, for you look at each problem with the benefit
of knowing something of the accumulated wisdom of some of the
best thinkers in Western culture.

Philosophy as therapy
In this book, we shall be exploring a broad range of philosophical
arguments that continue to shape our view of the world today. By
doing that, and by appreciating the skill of good philosophical
argument, we achieve greater clarity in our thinking and precision in
presenting our own ideas. That, in itself, is a substantial benefit.
Some, however, take philosophy a step further and use it as a
therapeutic tool. You do not have to be clinically depressed or
schizophrenic to have your judgement clouded or your view of life
warped by emotional confusion or uncertainty. To some extent, we
all suffer from failure to see things clearly and appreciate their value
– that’s a problem inherent in the human condition. We may despair
of life, or become cynical about any attempt to improve it. We may
feel that we have not lived up to our own ideals, or those of others;
we may strive to make sense and make changes.

Since the 1980s there has developed a form of therapy generally

called Clinical Philosophy (or philosophical counselling), which seeks
to use the skills of philosophy to reshape the way people understand
their lives or deal with social issues. The theory behind such practice
is an extension of the aim of philosophy in general, namely to clarify
a person’s views and belief systems, or to give them new ways of
looking at issues they face, with a view to helping them to achieve a
measure of personal insight. This approach was popularized by Dr
Lou Marinoff, in his many publications, including Plato Not Prozac!
Applying Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems.

This present book does not set out to offer therapy, but the
fundamental principle behind it is the same: we can all benefit from
the attempt to clarify our thoughts and reflect on the values and
principles that shape our lives.

Worth the hemlock?

One of the most remarkable moments in the history of Western
philosophy was the death of Socrates in 399 BCE. The event was
recorded by Plato, whose respect for his teacher was such that he
set out most of his philosophy in the form of dialogues in which
Socrates plays the central role. Charged with impiety, Socrates was
condemned to death on the grounds that his questioning and
teaching was corrupting the young (with whom he appears to have
been popular for challenging conventional beliefs and ideas). Plato
presents Socrates as declining to propose an acceptable alternative
punishment, and being prepared to accept death (by drinking a cup
of hemlock). For Plato, reason and the freedom of the individual to
live in accordance with it, took priority over the social and political
order. Socrates would not compromise his freedom to pursue the
truth, even if it appeared subversive and a danger to the state.
Indeed, as Plato was later to expound in The Republic, justice and
the institutions of state should be based on reason, and rulers
should be philosophers, willing and able to apply reason with
disinterested objectivity.

For Socrates, the task of the philosopher was not peripheral to life,
but central. To stop questioning and challenging accepted concepts
was unthinkable; Socrates chose to accept death rather than leave
Athens. He is presented as calm, rational and a man of absolute
integrity.

Philosophy can be a frustrating discipline. Sometimes it appears dry

and remote from life. Sometimes it takes the role of linguistic
handmaid, clarifying the terms used by other disciplines without
appearing to offer anything of substance to the sum of human
knowledge. Sometimes philosophers insist on setting down their
thoughts in a style that obscures rather than clarifies. From time to
time, one may be tempted to ask, ‘Is it worth it? Why not settle for
established thoughts and values, however superficial? Why make life
difficult by this constant questioning?’ or, in the case of Socrates, ‘Is
it worth the hemlock?’

That I leave the reader to judge.

Why ‘Philosophy for Life’?

The earlier editions of this book – entitled Teach Yourself: Philosophy
and Understand Philosophy – aimed to provide an overview of
philosophy as a subject and to introduce some of the great thinkers,
as well as encouraging the practice of critical thinking about a wide
range of issues.

This book, Philosophy for Life, continues that approach but seeks to
add a new dimension. It will argue that philosophy matters because
it makes a difference, both to the individual thinker and to society.
So we shall start each chapter by asking ‘Why?’ and will regularly
step back and ask about the relevance of the ideas under discussion.

For convenience, it is usual to divide up philosophy into its different

branches – the Theory of Knowledge, the Philosophy of Mind, Ethics,
Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion and so on – so the book is
structured in the same way. However, the different branches of
philosophy interpenetrate; you can start from any one question and
find yourself drawn outwards to consider many others. Start with
‘the self’, and you find that matters of metaphysics or religion are
drawn into your thinking.

Philosophy for Life therefore seeks to offer a broad introduction to

the main branches of Western philosophy and its key arguments, not
just for those who want to go on to study the subject in an academic
context, but for everyone. However, reading other people’s thoughts
is no substitute for thinking. If this book attempts to offer ‘pegs’
upon which to hang a reasoned argument, it is merely a way of
assisting those who are new to philosophy to present their case
without having to re-invent the philosophical wheel!

One final point: Many philosophical arguments are presented simply

in terms of their logic rather than set within a historical context, and
that has been particularly true of Anglo-American analytic
philosophy. However, it is my personal conviction that philosophical
arguments are best seen against their historical background. There
really is no point in examining the arguments of a thirteenth-century
monk as though his context did not shape his thoughts, nor to
submit his works to rational scrutiny as though they were merely
logical puzzles waiting for some clever resolution. Wisdom and
insight always emerge from a context – personal, social, cultural and
historical – and only when set in their original context can they show
their relevance (or otherwise) to our own situation. So much of what
appears in this book is the historical context of philosophy,
examining where it has come from, so that you may assess where
you might want to take it.

Warning

This is a book about philosophy, rather than a book of philosophy. If it were the latter, it
would take a subject and present arguments and ‘thought experiments’ in order to come to
a conclusion or at least clarify a set of options. But the task of this book is rather different.
It aims to introduce philosophy by giving an outline of the range of topics covered and the
kinds of arguments that have been presented. It is a survey; more a ‘history of thought’
than a work of philosophy although, hopefully, the reader may pick up a fair bit of
philosophy along the way.
 1
The What and How of Knowing

In this chapter you will:

• Explore how some philosophers have sought to

explore the most basic and general feature of
existence
• Examine whether knowledge starts with thought
or with experience
• Consider whether your own approach should be
sceptical or pragmatic
 Why?

How exactly do we know what to believe? Is anything certain? Should I trust my senses or
my rationality? Why do intelligent people differ in their beliefs? Making sense of life requires
skill and clarity in thinking and balanced judgement in reflecting on what we already know.
Asking how we understand the world is a good starting point for philosophy. But be
warned: in a confusing world, philosophy does not always offer certainties and often raises
more questions than it answers.

There are two basic questions which have been asked throughout
the history of philosophy and which affect the way in which many
different topics are considered:

• What can we know?

This question is about the basic features of existence; not the sort of
information that science gives about particular things, but the
questions that lie beneath all such enquiry: questions about the
fundamental nature of space, time or causality; about whether
concepts like ‘justice’ or ‘love’ have any external, objective reality;
about the structure of the world as we experience it. In the collected
works of Aristotle, such questions were dealt with after his material
on physics and were therefore called metaphysics. But as soon as
we start considering metaphysics, yet another question arises:

• How can we know it?

Is there anything of which we can be absolutely certain? Do we

depend entirely on our senses, or can we discover basic truths
simply by thinking? How can we justify or prove the truth of what
we claim? All such questions are considered under epistemology –
the theory of knowledge.
Metaphysics is the oldest and most fundamental branch of
philosophy, but not always the most popular. However, it is important
to start with these basic questions, as they introduce us to some of
the great philosophers of the past.

As a starting point, to illustrate why metaphysical questions might be

interesting, we could ask ‘Which is more real, the whole or the parts
of which it is comprised?’ – the question may sound abstract to the
point of being irrelevant. However, unpack it and we arrive at issues
that are of importance both morally and politically. The basic
problem here concerns reductionism, the attempt to reduce
complex entities or general concepts to the parts of which they are
made, or even to deny their existence. Consider these questions:

• How does a painting relate to the individual pigments or threads

of canvas of which is it made?

• How does music relate to vibrations in the air?

• How does a person relate to the individual cells in his or her

body?

• How does a nation relate to the citizens from which it is made up?

A ‘reductionist’ approach to metaphysics takes the ‘nothing but’

view, for example that music is ‘nothing but’ vibrations in the air.

Key idea for life

When, on Christmas Day, the British and German soldiers facing one another in the First
World War came out of their trenches, played football together and shared cigarettes, they
ceased to be merely representatives of nations and acted as individuals. Later, they
returned to their trenches and continued to kill one another. There are many practical and
moral issues here, but also a metaphysical one. Which is more real – a nation or the
individuals who make it up? Should we act as a group of loosely connected individuals,
framing political decisions on the basis of what we want as individuals, or should we give
primacy to the ‘nation’ or the ‘class’, even if individuals have to suffer as a result?
That is a matter for ethics, but we can go further and ask, ‘Do nations actually exist? Is
there any such thing as society, or are there just people and families?’ Does ‘justice’ exist
over and above individual actions that we might choose to call ‘just’? These are
fundamental and rather abstract questions, but they have important practical and moral
consequences. People have been jailed in the name of ‘freedom’, killed in the name of
‘honour’ or given their lives in the quest for ‘justice’; so, it is always worth thinking about
the status of such abstract ideas.

If you believe that what is ultimately real is matter – the solid,

external world that we experience through our senses – then you
are probably going to call yourself a materialist or a naturalist. A
full-blown naturalist tends to see philosophy as a relic of the past, to
be replaced by the various branches of science – replacing
metaphysical speculation with solid facts and data.

On the other hand, if you hold that the basic reality is mental – that
the world of your experience is in fact the sum of all the sensations
and perceptions that have registered in your mind – you may call
yourself an idealist. Although idealism sounds improbable, consider
this: How can you tell whether, at this moment, you are experiencing
the external, physical world rather than dreaming it? If you just
consider the experience you are having, it’s not quite as simple as
common sense would suggest. We shall examine this approach
again in examining the philosophy of mind.

Knowledge and justification: are you

certain?
Within epistemology (the theory of knowledge) there is a
fundamental issue about whether our knowledge originates in, and
is therefore dependent upon, the data we receive through our
senses, or whether (because we know that all such sense data is
fallible) the only true certainties are those that come from our own
minds – from the way in which we think and organize our
experience; from the principles of reason and logic.
The following are two key terms:

• empiricism – all knowledge starts with the senses

• rationalism – all knowledge starts with the mind.

However, the issue of experience and the way the mind categorizes
it is far from straightforward.

Whenever I experience something, that experience involves two

things:

• The sensations of sight, sound, taste, touch or smell, all of which

seem to me to be coming from outside myself, and therefore to be
giving me information about the world.

• My own sense organs. If I am partially deaf, I may be mistaken in

what I hear. If I am colour-blind, I will not be able to distinguish
certain patterns, or appreciate the subtleties of a multi-coloured
fabric. If I am asleep, all sorts of things may go on around me of
which I am quite unaware.

Imagine that I am taken to a police station and questioned about

something that is alleged to have happened in the recent past. I give
my account of what I have heard or seen. If it sounds credible, or
agrees with the evidence of others, I am likely to be believed. On
the other hand, the police may ask, ‘Are you sure about that? Is it
possible that you were mistaken?’ The implication is that, even if I
am trying to be accurate and honest, the senses may be mistaken,
and there may be two quite different ways of interpreting an
experience.

When philosophers ask, ‘What can be known for certain?’ or ‘Are the
senses a reliable source of knowledge?’, they are trying to sort out
this element of uncertainty, so as to achieve statements that are
known to be true.
Basically, as we saw above, there are two ways of approaching this
problem, corresponding to the two elements in every experience.

Empiricists are those who start with the sensations of an experience,

and say that all of our knowledge of the world is based on sensation.

Rationalists are those who claim that the basis of knowledge is the
set of ideas we have – the mental element that sorts out and
interprets experience. Rationalists consider the mind to be primary,
and the actual data of experience to be secondary.

However, before we look at these approaches in more detail, let us

be clear about one category of things that we can know for certain.
If I say that 2 + 2 = 4, there is no doubt about the truth of that
statement. Mathematics and logic work from agreed definitions. In
general terms I can say that: If A = B + C, and if B and C are
contained in, or implied by, the definition of A, then that statement
will always be true. Understand the words in the statement and you
understand its truth.

DESCARTES (1596–1650)
René Descartes placed one question centre-stage: ‘Of what can I be
certain?’ He used the method of systematic doubt, by which he
would only accept what he could see clearly and distinctly to be true.
He knew that his senses could be deceived, therefore he would not
trust them, nor could he always trust his own logic. He realized that
he might even be dreaming what he took to be a waking reality. His
approach is one that will be examined below, in the section on
scepticism. Yet the one thing Descartes could not doubt was his own
existence. If he doubted, he was there to doubt; therefore he must
exist. The famous phrase which expresses this is ‘cogito ergo sum’
(‘I think, therefore I am’). His argument is set out in his Discourse
on Method (Section 4), 1637:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 E GA L I T É
DES
HOMMES ET DES FEMMES.

A LA REYNE.

M. D C . XX II .
 A LA REYNE.

adame,

Ceux qui s’adviserent de donner un Soleil pour devise au Roy vostre

Pere, avec ce mot, Il n’a point d’Occident pour moy, firent plus qu’ils ne
pensoient: parce qu’en representans sa grandeur qui voit presque tousjours ce Prince
des Astres sur quelqu’une de ses terres, sans intervale de nuict; ils rendirent la
devise hereditaire en vostre Majesté, presageans vos vertus, & de plus, la beatitude
des François sous vostre Auguste presence. C’est dis-je chez vostre Majesté,
Madame, que la lumiere des vertus n’aura point d’Occident, ny consequemment
l’heur & la felicité de nos Peuples qu’elles esclaireront. Or comme vous estes en
l’Orient de vostre aage & de vos vertus ensemble, Madame, daignez prendre courage
d’arriver en mesme point au midy de luy & d’elles, je dis de celles qui ne peuvent
meurir que par temps & culture: car il en est quelques unes des plus
recommendables, entre autres la Religion, la charité vers les pauvres, la chasteté &
l’amour conjugale, dont vous avez touché le midy dés le matin. Mais certes il faut le
courage requis à cet effort aussi grand & puissant que vostre Royauté, pour grande &
puissante qu’elle soit: les Roys estant battus de ce malheur, que la peste infernale
des flatteurs qui se glissent dans les Palais, leur rend la vertu & la clair voyance sa
guide & sa nourrice, d’un accez infiniment plus difficile qu’aux inferieurs. Je ne scay
qu’un seur moyen à vous faire esperer, d’atteindre ces deux midys en mesme instant:
c’est qu’il plaise à V. M. se jetter vivement sur les bons livres de prudence & de
mœurs: car aussi tost qu’un Prince s’est relevé l’esprit par cet exercice, les flatteurs
se trouvans les moins fins ne s’osent plus jouër à luy. Et ne peuvent communement
les Puissans & les Roys recevoir instruction opportune que des mors: parce que les
vivans estans partis en deux bandes, les foux & meschans, c’est à dire ces flateurs
dont est question, ne sçavent ny veulent bien dire pres d’eux; les sages & gens de
bien peuvent & veulent, mais ils n’osent. C’est en la vertu certes, Madame, qu’il faut
que les personnes de vostre rang cherchent la vraye hautesse & la Couronne des
Couronnes: d’autant qu’ils ont puissance & non droit de violer les loix & l’equité, &
qu’ils trouvent autant de peril & plus de honte que les autres hommes à faire ce coup.
Aussi nous apprend un grand Roy luy mesme, que toute la gloire de la fille du Roy
est par dedans. Quelle est cependant ma rusticité, tous autres abordent leurs Princes
& Roys en adorant & loüant, j’ose aborder ma Reyne en preschant? Pardonnez
neantmoins à mon zele, Madame, qui meurt d’envie d’ouyr la France crier ce mot, avec
applaudissement, La lumiere n’a point d’Occident pour moy, par tout où passera
vostre Majesté nouveau Soleil des vertus: & d’envie encore de tirer d’elle, ainsi que
j’espere de ses dignes commencemens, une des plus fortes preuves du Traicté que
j’offre à ses pieds, pour maintenir l’egalité des hommes & des femmes. Et non
seulement veu la grandeur unique qui vous est acquise par naissance & par mariage,
vous servirez de miroir au sexe & de sujet d’emulation aux hommes encore, en
l’estenduë de l’Univers, si vous vous eslevez au prix & merite que je vous propose:
mais aussi tost, Madame, que vous aurez pris resolution de vouloir luyre de ce bel &
precieux esclat, on croira que tout le mesme sexe esclaire en la splendeur de vos
rayons. Je suis de vostre Majesté

MADAME,
Tres-humble & Tres-obeissante
servante & subjecte.

Gournay.
 EGALITÉ DES HOMMES ET DES
FEMMES.

a pluspart de ceux qui prennent la cause, des femmes, contre cette

orgueilleuse preferance que les hommes s’attribuent, leur rendent le
change entier: r’envoyans la preferance vers elles. Moy qui fuys toutes
extremitez, je me contente de les esgaler aux hommes: la nature
s’opposant pour ce regard autant à la superiorité qu’à l’inferiorité. Que dis-
je, il ne suffit pas à quelques gens de leur preferer le sexe masculin, s’ils ne les
confinoient encores d’un arrest irrefragable & necessaire à la quenoüille, ouy mesme
à la quenouille seule. Mais ce qui les peut consoler contre ce mespris, c’est qu’il ne
se faict que par ceux d’entre les hommes ausquels elles voudroient moins
ressembler: personnes à donner vray semblance aux reproches qu’on pourroit vosmir
sur le sexe feminin, s’ils en estoient, & qui sentent en leur cœur ne se pouvoir
recommander que par le credit de l’autre. D’autant qu’ils ont ouy trompetter par les
ruës, que les femmes manquent de dignité, manquent aussi de suffisance, voire du
temperament & des organes pour arriver à cette-cy, leur eloquence triomphe à
prescher ces maximes: & tant plus opulemment, de ce que, dignité, suffisance,
organes & temperament sont beaux mots: n’ayans pas appris d’autre part, que la
premiere qualité d’un mal habill’homme, c’est de cautionner les choses soubs la foy
populaire & par ouyr dire. Voyez tels esprits comparer ces deux sexes: la plus haute
suffisance à leur advis où les femmes puissent arriver, c’est de ressembler le
commun des hommes: autant eslongnez d’imaginer, qu’une grande femme se peust
dire grand homme, le sexe changé, que de consentir qu’un homme se peust eslever
à l’estage d’un Dieu. Gens plus braves qu’Hercules vrayement, qui ne desfit que
douze monstres en douze combats; tandis que d’une seule parolle ils desfont la
moitié du Monde. Qui croira cependant, que ceux qui se veulent eslever & fortifier de
la foiblesse d’autruy, se puissent eslever ou fortifier de leur propre force? Et le bon
est, qu’ils pensent estre quittes de leur effronterie à vilipender ce sexe, usants d’une
effronterie pareille à se loüer & se dorer eux mesmes, je dis par fois en particulier
comme en general, voire à quelque tort que ce soit: comme si la verité de leur
vanterie recevoit mesure & qualité de son impudence. Et Dieu sçait si je congnois de
ces joyeux vanteurs, & dont les vanteries sont tantost passées en proverbe, entre les
plus eschauffez au mespris des femmes. Mais quoy, s’ils prennent droict d’estre
galans & suffisans hommes, de ce qu’ils se declarent tels comme par Edict; pourquoy
n’abestiront ils les femmes par le contrepied d’un autre Edict? Et si je juge bien, soit
de la dignité, soit de la capacité des dames, je ne pretends pas à cette heure de le
prouver par raisons, puisque les opiniastres les pouroient debattre, ny par exemples,
d’autant qu’ils sont trop communs; ains seulement par l’aucthorité de Dieu mesme,
des arcsboutans de son Eglise & de ces grands hommes qui ont servy de lumiere à
l’Univers. Rangeons ces glorieux tesmoins en teste, & reservons Dieu, puis les
Saincts Peres de son Eglise, au fonds, comme le tresor.
Platon à qui nul n’a debattu le tiltre de divin, & consequemment Socrates son
interprete & Protecole en ses Escripts; (s’il n’est là mesme celuy de Socrates, son
plus divin Precepteur) leur assignent mesmes droicts, facultez & functions, en leurs
Republiques & par tout ailleurs. Les maintiennent, en outre, avoir surpassé maintefois
tous les hommes de leur Patrie: comme en effect elles ont inventé partie des plus
beaux arts, ont excellé, voire enseigné cathedralement & souverainement sur tous les
hommes en toutes sortes de perfections & vertus, dans les plus fameuses villes
antiques entre autres Alexandrie, premiere de l’Empire apres Rome. Dont il Hypathia.
est arrivé que ces deux Philosophes, miracles de Nature, ont creu donner
plus de lustre à des discours de grand poix, s’ils les prononçoient en leurs livres par
la bouche de Diotime & d’Aspasie: Diotime que ce dernier ne craint point d’appeller
sa maistresse & Preceptrice, en quelques unes des plus hautes sciences, luy
Precepteur & maistre du genre humain. Ce que Theodoret releve si volontiers en
l’Oraison de la Foy, ce me semble; qu’il paroist bien que l’opinion favorable au sexe
luy estoit fort plausible. Apres tous ces tesmoignages de Socrates, sur le faict des
dames; on void assez que s’il lache quelque mot au Sympose de Xenophon contre
leur prudence, à comparaison de celle des hommes, il les regarde selon l’ignorance &
l’inexperience où elles sont nourries, ou bien au pis aller en general, laissant lieu
frequent & spatieux aux exceptions: à quoy les deviseurs dont est question ne
s’entendent point.
Que si les dames arrivent moins souvent que les hommes, aux degrez
d’excellence, c’est merveille que le deffaut de bonne instruction, voire l’affluence de la
mauvaise expresse & professoire ne face pis, les gardant d’y pouvoir arriver du tout.
Se trouve til plus de difference des hommes à elles que d’elles à elles mesmes, selon
l’institution qu’elles ont prinse, selon qu’elles sont eslevées en ville ou village, ou
selon les Nations? Et pourquoy leur institution ou nourriture aux affaires & Lettres à
l’egal des hommes, ne rempliroit elle ce vuide, qui paroist ordinairement entre les
testes des mesmes hommes & les leurs: puis que la nourriture est de telle importance
qu’un de ses membres seulement, c’est à dire le commerce du monde, abondant aux
Françoises & aux Angloises, & manquant aux Italiennes, celles cy sont de gros en
gros de si loing surpassées par celles là? Je dis de gros en gros, car en detail les
dames d’Italie triumphent par fois: & nous en avons tiré deux Reynes à la prudence
desquelles la France a trop d’obligation. Pourquoy vrayment la nourriture ne
frapperoit elle ce coup, de remplir la distance qui se void entre les entendemens des
hommes & des femmes; veu qu’en cet exemple icy le moins surmonte le plus, par
l’assistance d’une seule de ses parcelles, je dis ce commerce & conversation: l’air
des Italiennes estant plus subtil & propre à subtilizer les esprits, comme il paroist en
ceux de leurs hommes, confrontez communement contre ceux là des François & des
Anglois? Plutarque au Traicté des vertueux faicts des femmes maintient; que la vertu
de l’homme & de la femme est mesme chose. Seneque d’autre part publie aux
Consolations; qu’il faut croire que la Nature n’a point traicté les dames ingratement,
ou restrainct & racourcy leurs vertus & leurs esprits, plus que les vertus & les esprits
des hommes: mais qu’elle les a doüées de pareille vigueur & de pareille faculté à
toute chose honeste & loüable. Voyons ce qu’en juge apres ces deux, le tiers chef du
Triumvirat de la sagesse humaine & morale en ses Essais. Il luy semble, dit il, & si ne
sçait pourquoy, qu’il se trouve rarement des femmes dignes de commander aux
hommes. N’est ce pas les mettre en particulier à l’egale contrebalance des hommes,
& confesser, que s’il ne les y met en general il craint d’avoir tort: bien qu’il peust
excuser sa restrinction, sur la pauvre & disgraciée nourriture de ce sexe. N’oubliant
pas au reste d’alleguer & relever en autre lieu de son mesme livre, cette authorité que
Platon leur depart en sa Republique: & qu’Anthistenes nioit toute difference au talent
& en la vertu des deux sexes. Quant au Philosophe Aristote, puisque remuant Ciel &
terre, il n’a point contredit en gros, que je scache, l’opinion qui favorise les dames, il
l’a confirmée: s’en rapportant, sans doubte, aux sentences de son pere & grand pere
spirituels, Socrates & Platon, comme à chose constante & fixe soubs le credit de tels
personnages: par la bouche desquels il faut advoüer que le genre humain tout entier,
& la raison mesme, ont prononcé leur arrest. Est il besoing d’alleguer infinis autres
Erasme Epist: & anciens & modernes de nom illustre, ou parmy ces derniers,
Colloq. Politia: Epist. Erasme, Politien, Agripa, ny cet honneste & pertinent Precepteur
Agripa Precel: du des courtizans: outre tant de fameux Poëtes si contrepoinctez
sexe feminin tous ensemble aux mespriseurs du sexe feminin, & si partisans
Courtizan. de ses advantages aptitude & disposition à tout office & tout
exercice louable & digne? Les dames en verité se consolent,
que ces descrieurs de leur merite ne se peuvent prouver habiles gens, si tous ces
esprits le sont: & qu’un homme fin ne dira pas, encores qu’il le creust, que le merite &
passedroit du sexe feminin tire court, pres celuy du masculin; jusques à ce que par
arrest il ait faict declarer tous ceux là buffles, affin d’infirmer leur tesmoignage si
contraire à tel decry. Et buffles faudroit il encores declarer des Peuples entiers & des
plus sublins, entre autres ceux de Smyrne en Tacitus: qui pour obtenir jadis à Rome
presseance de noblesse sur leurs voisins, allegoient estre descendus, ou de Tantalus
fils de Jupiter ou de Theseus petit fils de Neptune ou d’une Amazone, laquelle par ce
moyen ils contrepesoient à ces Dieux. Pour le regard de la loy Salique, qui prive les
femmes de la couronne, elle n’a lieu qu’en France. Et fut inventée au temps de
Pharamond, pour la seulle consideration des guerres contre l’Empire duquel nos
Peres secoüoient le joug: le sexe feminin estant vray semblablement d’un corps
moins propre aux armes, par la necessité du port & nourriture des enfans. Il faut
rémarquer encores neantmoins, que les Pairs de France ayans esté créez en
Hotman pour premiere intention comme une espece de personniers des Roys,
ainsi que leur nom le declare: les dames Pairaisses de leur chef
l’etymologie des Pairs:
du Tillet & Math. ont seance, privilege & voix deliberative par tout où les Pairs en
Histoire du Roy pour ont & de mesme estendue. Comme aussi les Lacedemoniens ce
les Dames Pairresses. brave & genereux Peuple, consultoit de toutes affaires privées &
Plut. publiques avec ses femmes. Bien a servy cependant aux
François, de trouver l’invention des Regentes, pour un equivalent des Roys; car
sans cela combien y a il que leur Estat fust par terre? Nous sçaurions bien dire
aujourd’huy par espreuve, quelle necessité les minoritez des Roys ont de cette
recepte. Les Germains ces belliqueux Peuples, dit Tacitus, qui apres plus de deux
cens ans de guerre, furent plustost triumphéz que vaincus; portoient dot à leurs
femmes, non au rebours. Ils avoient au surplus des Nations, qui n’estoient jamais
regies que par ce sexe. Et quand Ænee presente à Didon le sceptre d’Ilione, les
scoliastes disent, que cela provient, de ce que les dames filles aisnées, telle qu’estoit
cette Princesse, regnoient anciennement aux maisons Royalles. Veult-on deux plus
beaux envers à la loy Salique, si deux envers elle peut souffrir? Si ne mesprisoient
pas les femmes nos anciens Gaulois, ny les Carthaginois aussi; lors qu’estans unis
en l’armée d’Hanibal pour passer les Alpes, ils establirent les dames Gauloises
arbitres de leurs differends. Et quand les hommes desroberoient à ce sexe en
plusieurs lieux, part aux meilleurs advantages; l’inegalité des forces corporelles plus
que des spirituelles, ou du merite, peut facilement estre cause du larrecin & de sa
souffrance: forces corporelles, qui sont vertus si basses, que la beste en tient plus
par dessus l’homme, que l’homme par dessus la femme. Et si ce mesme
Historiographe Latin nous apprend, qu’où la force regne, l’equité, la probité, la
modestie mesme, sont les attributs du vainqueur; s’estonnera-on, que la suffisance &
les merites en general, soient ceux de nos hommes, privativement aux femmes.
Au surplus l’animal humain n’est homme ny femme, à le bien prendre, les sexes
estants faicts non simplement, mais secundum quid, comme parle l’Eschole: c’est à
dire pour la seule propagation. L’unique forme & difference de cet animal, ne consiste
qu’en l’ame humaine. Et s’il est permis de rire en passant, le quolibet ne sera pas
hors de saison, nous apprenant; qu’il n’est rien plus semblable au chat sur une
fenestre, que la chatte. L’homme & la femme sont tellement uns, que si l’homme est
plus que la femme, la femme est plus que l’homme. L’homme fut creé masle &
femelle, dit l’Escriture, ne comptant ces deux que pour un. Dont Jesus-Christ est
appellé fils de l’homme, bien qu’il ne le soit que de la femme. Ainsi parle apres le
grand Sainct Basile: La vertu de l’homme & de la femme est mesme chose, Homil. I.
puis que Dieu leur a decerné mesme creation & mesme honneur: masculum
& fœminam fecit eos. Or en ceux de qui la Nature est une & mesme, il faut que les
actions aussi le soient, & que l’estime & loyer en suitte soient pareils, où les œuvres
sont pareilles. Voila donc la deposition de ce puissant pilier, & venerable tesmoing de
l’Eglise. Il n’est pas mauvais de se souvenir sur ce poinct, que certains ergotistes
anciens, ont passé jusques à cette niaise arrogance, de debattre au sexe feminin
l’image de Dieu à difference de l’homme: laquelle image ils devoient, selon ce calcul
attacher à la barbe. Il failloit de plus & par consequent, desnier aux femmes l’image
de l’homme, ne pouvant luy ressembler, sans qu’elles ressemblassent à celuy auquel
il ressemble. Dieu mesme leur a departy les dons de Prophetie Olda Debora.
indifferamment avec les hommes, les ayant establies aussi pour Juges,
instructrices & conductrices de son Peuple fidelle en paix & en guerre: & qui plus est,
rendu triumphantes avec luy des hautes victoires, qu’elles ont aussi maintefois
emportées & arborées en divers lieux du Monde: mais sur quelles gens, à vostre
advis? Cyrus & Theseus: à ces deux on adjouste Hercules, lequel elles ont sinon
vaincu, du moins bien battu. Aussi fut la cheute de Pentasilée, couronnement de la
gloire d’Achilles: oyez Seneque & Ronsard parlans de luy.

L’Amazone il vainquit dernier effroy des Grecs.

Pentasilée il rua sur la poudre.

Ont elles au surplus, (ce mot par occasion) moins excellé de foy, qui comprend toutes
les vertus principales, que de suffisance & de force magnanime & guerriere?
Paterculus nous apprend, qu’aux proscriptions Romaines, la fidelité des enfans fut
nulle, des affranchis legere, des femmes tresgrande. Que si Sainct Paul, suyvant ma
route des tesmoignages saincts, leur deffend le ministere & leur commande le silence
en l’Eglise: il est evident que ce n’est point par aucun mespris: ouy bien seulement,
de crainte qu’elles n’esmeuvent les tentations, par cette montre si claire & publique
qu’il faudroit faire en ministrant & preschant, de ce qu’elles ont de grace & de beauté
plus que les hommes. Je dis que l’exemption de mespris est evidente, puisque cet
Apostre parle de Thesbé comme de sa coadjutrice en l’œuvre de nostre Seigneur,
sans toucher le grand credit de Saincte Petronille vers sainct Pierre: & puis aussi que
la Magdeleine est nommée en l’Eglise egale aux Apostres, par Apostolis. Voire que
l’Eglise & eux-mesmes ont permis une exception de ceste reigle Entre autres au
de silence pour elle, qui prescha trente ans en la Baume de Calendrier des Grecs,
Marseille au rapport de toute la Provence. Et si quelqu’un publié par Genebrard.
impugne ce tesmoignage de predications, on luy demandera que
faisoient les Sibyles, sinon prescher l’Univers par divine inspiration, sur l’evenement
futur de Jesus-Christ? Toutes les anciennes Nations concedoient la Prestrise aux
femmes, indifferemment avec les hommes. Et les Chrestiens sont au moins forcez de
consentir, qu’elles soyent capables d’appliquer le Sacrement de Baptesme: mais
quelle faculté de distribuer les autres, leur peut estre justement deniée; si celle de
distribuer cestuy-là, leur est justement accordé? De dire que la necessité des petits
enfans mourans, ait forcé les Peres anciens d’establir cet usage en despit d’eux: il est
certain qu’ils n’auroient jamais creu que la necessité les peust dispenser de mal faire,
jusques aux termes de permettre violer & diffamer l’application d’un Sacrement. Et
partant concedans ceste faculté de distribution aux femmes, on void à clair qu’ils ne
les ont interdites de distribuer les autres Sacremens, que pour maintenir tousjours
plus entiere l’auctorité des hommes; soit pour estre de leur sexe, soit afin qu’à droit
ou à tort, la paix fust plus asseurée entre les deux sexes, par la foiblesse &
Epist. ravallement de l’un. Certes sainct Jerosme escrit sagement à nostre propos;
qu’en matiere du service de Dieu, l’esprit & la doctrine doivent estre
considerez, non le sexe. Sentence qu’on doit generaliser, pour permettre aux Dames
à plus forte raison, toute action & science honneste: & cela suyvant aussi les
intentions du mesme sainct, qui de sa part honnore & auctorise bien fort leur sexe.
Davantage sainct Jean l’Aigle & le plus chery des Evangelistes, ne mesprisoit pas les
femmes non plus que sainct Pierre, sainct Paul & ces deux Peres, j’entends saint
Basile & sainct Jerosme; puis qu’il leur addresse ses Epistres Electra.
particulierement: sans parler d’infinis autres Ss: ou Peres, qui font pareille
addresse de leurs Escrits. Quand au faict de Judith je n’en daignerois faire mention
s’il estoit particulier, cela s’appelle dependant du mouvement & volonté de son
auctrice: non plus que je ne parle des autres de ce qualibre; bien qu’ils soient
immenses en quantité, comme ils sont autant heroiques en qualité de toutes sortes,
que ceux qui couronnent les plus illustres hommes. Je n’enregistre point les faicts
privez, de crainte qu’ils semblent, non advantages & dons du sexe, ains boüillons
d’une vigueur privée & specialle. Mais celuy de Judith merite place en ce lieu, parce
qu’il est bien vray, que son dessein tombant au cœur d’une jeune dame, entre tant
d’hommes lasches & faillis de cœur, à tel besoing, en si haulte & si difficile entreprise,
& pour tel fruict, que le salut d’un Peuple & d’une Cité fidelle à Dieu: semble plustost
estre une inspiration & prerogative divine vers les femmes, qu’un traict purement
voluntaire. Comme aussi le semble estre celuy de la Pucelle d’Orleans, accompagné
de mesmes circonstances environ, mais de plus ample & large utilité, s’estendant
jusques au salut d’un grand Royaume & de son Prince.

Æneid. I.
allusion. Cette illustre Amazone instruicte aux soins de Mars,
Fauche les escadrons & brave les hazars:
Vestant le dur plastron sur sa ronde mammelle,
Dont le bouton pourpré de graces estincelle:
Pour couronner son chef de gloire & de lauriers,
Vierge elle ose affronter les plus fameux guerriers.

Adjoustons que la Magdelene est la seule ame, à qui le Redempteur ait jamais
prononcé ce mot, & promis cette auguste grace: En tous lieux où se preschera
l’Evangile il sera parlé de toy. Jesus-Christ d’autrepart, declara sa tres heureuse &
tres glorieuse resurrection aux dames les premieres, affin de les rendre, dit un
venerable Pere ancien, Apostresses aux propres Apostres: cela, comme lon sçait,
avec mission expresse: Va, dit il, à cette cy mesme, & recite aux Apostres & à Pierre
ce que tu as veu. Surquoy il faut notter, qu’il manifesta sa nouvelle naissance
esgalement aux femmes qu’aux hommes, en la personne d’Anne fille de Phannel, qui
le recongneut en mesme instant, que le bon vieillard Sainct Simeon. Laquelle
naissance, d’abondant, les Sybilles nommées, ont predite seules entre les Gentils,
excellent privilege du sexe feminin. Quel honneur faict aux femmes aussi, ce songe
survenu chez Pilate; s’addressant à l’une d’elles privativement à tous les hommes, &
en telle & si haulte occasion. Et si les hommes se vantent, que Jesus-Christ soit nay
de leur sexe, on respond, qu’il le failloit par necessaire bien sceance, ne se pouvant
pas sans scandale, mesler jeune & à toutes les heures du jour & de la nuict parmy les
presses, aux fins de convertir, secourir & sauver le genre humain, s’il eust esté du
sexe des femmes: notamment en face de la malignité des Juifs. Que si quelqu’un au
reste est si fade; d’imaginer masculin ou feminin en Dieu, bien que son nom semble
sonner le masculin, ny consequemment besoin d’acception d’un sexe plustost que de
l’autre, pour honnorer l’incarnation de son fils; cettuy cy monstre à plein jour, qu’il est
aussi mauvais Philosophe que Theologien. D’ailleurs, l’advantage qu’ont les hommes
par son incarnation en leur sexe; (s’ils en peuvent tirer un advantage, veu cette
necessité remarquée) est compensé par sa conception tres precieuse au corps d’une
femme, par l’entiere perfection de cette femme, unique à porter nom de parfaicte
entre toutes les creatures purement humaines, depuis la cheute de nos premiers
parens, & par son assumption unique en suject humain aussi.
Finalement si l’Escripture a declaré le mary, chef de la femme, la plus grande
sottise que l’homme peust faire, c’est de prendre cela pour passedroict de dignité.
Car veu les exemples, aucthoritez & raisons nottées en ce discours, par où l’egalité
des graces & faveurs de Dieu vers les deux especes ou sexes est prouvée, voire leur
unité mesme, & veu que Dieu prononce: Les deux ne seront qu’un: & prononce
encores: L’homme quittera pere & mere pour suivre sa femme; il paroist que cette
declaration n’est faicte que par le besoin expres de nourrir paix en mariage. Lequel
besoin requeroit, sans doubte, qu’une des parties cédast à l’autre, & la prestance des
forces du masle ne pouvoit pas souffrir que la soubmission vînt de sa part. Et quand
bien il seroit veritable, selon que quelques uns maintiennent, que cette soubmission
fut imposée à la femme pour chastiement du peché de la pomme: cela encores est
bien esloigné de conclure à la pretendue preferance de dignité en l’homme. Si lon
croioit que l’Escripture luy commendast de ceder à l’homme, comme indigne de le
contrecarrer, voyez l’absurdité qui suivroit: la femme se treuveroit digne d’estre faicte
à l’image du Createur, de jouyr de la tressaincte Eucaristie, des mysteres de la
Redemption, du Paradis & de la vision voire possession de Dieu, non pas des
advantages et privileges de l’homme: seroit ce pas declarer l’homme plus precieux &
relevé que telles choses, & partant commettre le plus grief des blasphemes?
FIN.
L’IMPRIMEUR A RANGÉ
ces vers icy pour emplir le reste
de la feuille.

AUTHEUR INCERTAIN.

Lumine Acron dextro captus, Leonilla sinistro,

Et potis est forma vincere uterque Deos.
Blande puer, lumen quod habes concede sorori:
Sic tu cæcus Amor, sic erit illa Venus.

VERSION.

Lys & sa jeune mere aussy beaux que les Dieux:

De deux costez divers ont perdu l’un des yeux.
Lys, donne ton bon œil à ta mere Argentine;
Tu seras Cupidon, elle sera Cyprine.

AUTREMENT.

Lyse & son petit Lys aussy beaux que les Dieux,
De deux costez divers ont perdu l’un des yeux.
Si Lys donne l’autre œil à sa mere admirée;
Il est l’aveugle Amour, & Lyse Cytherée.
 EX HORATIO.
Dial.

Donec gratus eram tibi,

Nec quisquam potior brachia candidæ
Cervici iuvenis dabat,
Persarum vigüi Rege beatior.
Donec non alia magis
Arsisti, neque erat Lydia post Chloen,
Lydia multi nominis,
Romana vigui clarior Ilia.
Me nunc Thrassa Chloe regit,
Dulces docta modos & Cytharæ sciens:
Pro qua non metuam mori,
Si parcent animæ fata superstiti.
Me torret face mutua
Thurini Calais filius Orinthi:
Pro quo bis patiar mori,
Si parcent puero fata superstiti.
Quid si prisca redit Venus,
Diductosque iugo cogit aheneo?
Si flava excutitur Chloe
Reiectæque patet ianua Lydiæ?
Quanquam sidere pulchrior
Ille est, tu levior cortice & improbo
Iracundior Adria;
Tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam libens.
 DIALOGUE D’HORACE
ET DE LYDIE.

Tandis que mon Amour t’enflammoit constamment,

Tandis qu’un jeune amy, bravant ma jalousie,
Ne pressoit ton beau col d’un mol embrassement,
J’ay flory plus heureux qu’un Monarque d’Asie.
Devant que ton esprit brisast sa loyauté,
Devant qu’il eust chery d’une aveugle folie
Cloé plus que Lydie, illustre de beauté,
J’ay surmonté l’esclat de la Romaine Ilie.
Cloé Greque sans pair me possede à son tour
Par son luth & sa voix qui scait charmer l’oreille:
Et mourrois volontiers, victime de l’Amour,
Pour conserver mourant cette jeune merveille.
Calaïs Thurien épris de mes appas,
Par un revers gentil de ses attraits me blesse:
Et souffrirois deux fois la rigueur du trespas,
Pour sauver du tombeau cette belle jeunesse.
Quoy si l’amour premier ressuscitant son feu
Ramenoit soubs ton joug mon ame revoltée?
Quoy si mon cœur solide éternisant son vœu,
Ma Lydie est reçeue & Cloé rejettée?
Encor qu’il soit plus beau qu’un astre au front des cieux,
Toy plus leger qu’un liege & plus mutin que l’onde;
Je veux rouler mes jours aux prisons de tes yeux,
Je veux que mon cercueuil tes obseques seconde.
INCERTAIN SUR L’HORLOGE
DE SABLE.

Exiguus vitro pulvis qui dividit horas,

Et levis angustum sæpe recurrit iter,
Olim Alcipus erat: qui Marthæ ut vidit ocellos
Arsit, & est subito factus ab igne cinis.
Irrequiete cinis, miseros testabere amantes,
More tuo, nulla posse quiete frui.

VERSION

Ce peu de poudre, helas qui fîle en ces deux verres,

Courant & recourant sur ses estroictes erres,
Affin de marquer l’heure & mesurer le jour,
Estoit jadis Alcipe esclave de l’Amour.
Bruslé des yeux de Marthe il coula tout en cendre:
Et faut, cendre inquiete, en ton aspect comprendre:
Qu’un miserable esprit blessé par un bel œil
N’a jamais de repos s’il te manque au cercueil.
 Au lecteur

Cette version numérisée reproduit dans son intégralité la version

originale.
La ponctuation a pu faire l’objet de quelques corrections mineures.
L’orthographe a été conservée. Seuls quelques mots ont été modifiés.
La version originale pouvant être difficile à déchiffrer, nous avons fait
suivre celle-ci d’une version modernisée dans laquelle nous avons remplacé
ſ et ß par s, ã par an ou am, ẽ par en ou em, le ĩ par in, õ par on ou om, le ũ
par um, ainsi que les abréviations de vo9 et pl9 par vous et plus.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EGALITÉ DES HOMMES ET
DES FEMMES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means
that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license,
including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do
not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark
license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of

electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated
in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the
terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of
this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do
not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and
return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of
this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you
paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or

associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms
of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do
with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or

PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public
domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a
right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating
derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work.
You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in
the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you
can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of
change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in
addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations
concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United
States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to,
the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any
copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated)
is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts

not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and
distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If
you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either
with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for
the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in
paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the

permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with
both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the
copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at
the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work
associated with Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work,
or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence
set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed,
marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or
hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format
used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user,
provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any
alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying
or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph
1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of
Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to
calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this
paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare
(or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments
should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing
(or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of
the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid
for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered
and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project
Gutenberg™ works.