The idea, internal order and plan of this work
What is the benefit and duty of a person: how to ensure that he comprehends them and is guided by them
1. Order. - People neglect faith; they hate and fear the thought that perhaps it contains the truth. In order to cure them of this, first of all prove that faith is not in the least contrary to reason, nay, that it is worthy of praise, and in this way inspire respect for it; then, having shown that it deserves love, sow in virtuous hearts the hope of its truth, and, finally, prove that it is the true faith.
Faith is praiseworthy because it has known the nature of man; faith is worthy of love, because it opens the way to the true good.
2. For sinners who are doomed to eternal damnation, one of the most unexpected shocks will be the discovery that they are condemned by their own reason, to which they referred, daring to condemn the Christian faith.
3. Two extremes: cross out the mind, recognize only the mind.
4. If everything in the world were subject to reason, there would be no room left in the Christian doctrine for what is mysterious and supernatural in it; if nothing in the world were subject to the laws of reason, the Christian doctrine would be meaningless and ridiculous.
Ways to Convert to the True Faith: Encourage People to Listen to the Voice of Their Own Heart
5. Notification. - The metaphysical proofs of the existence of God are so different from the arguments we are accustomed to and so complex that, as a rule, they do not affect people's minds, and if someone is convinced, then only for a short time, while a person follows the development of this proof, but already an hour later he begins to think apprehensively whether this is an attempt to fool him. Quod curiositate cognoverunt superbia amiserunt.
This is what happens to everyone who tries to know God without calling on the help of Jesus Christ, who wants to partake of God without an intermediary, known without an intermediary. Meanwhile, people who have come to know God through His Mediator have also come to know their own nothingness.
6. How wonderful it is that the canonical authors never proved the existence of God by drawing arguments from the natural world. They simply called to believe in Him. David, Solomon, and others never said: "There is no void in nature, therefore, God exists." They were undoubtedly smarter than the smartest of those who came to replace them and constantly resorted to such evidence. This is very, very important.
7. If all the proofs of the existence of God, gleaned from the world of nature, inevitably speak of the weakness of our reason, do not be dismissive of the Holy Scriptures because of this; if the understanding of such contradictions speaks of the power of our mind, read the Holy Scriptures for it.
8. I am not talking about the system here, but about the features inherent in the human heart. Not about zealous reverence for the Lord, not about detachment from oneself, but about the guiding human principle, about selfish and selfish aspirations. And since we cannot but be moved by a firm answer to a question that touches us so closely - after all the sorrows of life, where inevitable death will plunge us with monstrous inevitability, threatening us every hour - into eternity of non-existence or into eternity of torment ...
9. The Almighty brings people's minds to faith with arguments, and hearts with grace, for His instrument is meekness, but to try to convert minds and hearts by force and threats is to instill terror in them, not faith, terrorem potius quam religionem.
10. In any conversation, in any dispute, it is necessary to reserve the right to reason with those who lose their temper: “And what, in fact, revolts you?”
11. Those of little faith should first of all be pitied - this unbelief itself makes them unhappy. Offensive speech would be appropriate when it would do them good, but it goes to the detriment.
12. Pity the atheists, while they are tirelessly searching - is not their plight worthy of pity? To stigmatize those who boast of godlessness.
13. And he showers ridicule on him who seeks? But which of these two is more derisive? Meanwhile, the seeker does not mock, but pities the mocker.
14. A fair wit is a trashy person.
15. Do you want people to believe in your virtues? Don't brag about them.
16. You should feel sorry for both of them, but in the first case, let this pity be nourished by sympathy, and in the second, contempt.
The difference between human minds
17. The smarter a person is, the more originality he sees in everyone with whom he communicates. For an ordinary person, all people look the same.
Current page: 1 (total book has 12 pages)
Blaise Pascal
Thoughts. Aphorisms
The life of Mr. Pascal
written by Madame Perrier, his sister, wife of Monsieur Perrier, Councilor of the Assemblies at Clermont
My brother was born at Clermont on June 19, 1623. My father's name was Etienne Pascal, he was the President of the Chamber of Duties. My mother's name was Antoinette Begon. As soon as my brother reached the age when one could talk to him, he began to show an extraordinary mind - with short answers, very accurate, and even more - with questions about the nature of things that surprised everyone around. Such a beginning, which offered brilliant promises, never deceived us, for, as he grew older, so did the power of his reasoning, which far surpassed his bodily powers.
My mother died in 1626, when my brother was only three years old, and my father, left alone, redoubled the care of his family; since he had no other sons, the position of the only son and other qualities that he guessed in this child made him have such affection for him that he could not decide to entrust his upbringing to someone else and decided to teach him himself that he and did; my brother never attended college and knew no other teacher than his father.
In 1632, my father moved to Paris, took us all there and settled there. For my brother, who was then only eight years old, this move was very useful, based on his father's plans for his upbringing; his father, no doubt, could not have given him so much care in the provinces, where his office and the numerous company that constantly gathered at his place took up a lot of his time. And in Paris he was completely free; he devoted himself entirely to it, and achieved as much success as the cares of a father so sensible and loving can bring.
The main rule of his upbringing was that the child should always remain above what he studied; therefore, his father did not want to teach him Latin until he was twelve years old, so that it would come easier to him. During this time, he did not allow him idleness, but occupied him with all sorts of things that he considered him capable of. He explained to him in general what languages are; he showed that languages were subject to certain rules of grammar, that there were exceptions to these rules, which people took care to note, and that in this way a means was found to make all languages understandable from country to country. This general thought clarified his concepts and made him see what the rules of grammar were for, so that when he began to study them, he already knew why he was doing it, and was engaged in just those things where diligence was most required.
After all this knowledge, his father taught him others. He often talked to him about extraordinary phenomena in nature, for example, about gunpowder and other things that amaze the mind when you think about them. My brother took great pleasure in these conversations, but he wanted to know the explanation of all things; and since they are not all known, then when the father did not give them to him or gave only those that are usually given and are nothing more than excuses, this did not satisfy him. For he always possessed an amazing precision of mind in determining the false; it can be said that always and in everything the only object to which his mind aspired was truth, since he never knew how and could not find satisfaction in anything, except for his knowledge. Therefore, from childhood, he could only agree with what seemed to him undoubtedly correct, so that when he was not given exact explanations, he looked for them himself and, thinking about some thing, did not leave it until he found it for no satisfying explanation.
One day, at the table, someone accidentally stabbed a faience plate with a knife; he noticed that at the same time a loud sound is heard, which subsides if you cover the plate with your hand. He certainly wanted to know the reason for this, and this experience led him to many others with sound. He discovered so much in the process that at the age of eleven he wrote a treatise on it, which was found to be very convincing.
His genius in geometry began to manifest itself when he was only twelve years old, and under circumstances so unusual that it is worth telling about them in detail. My father had a vast knowledge of mathematics and used to talk about it with all the people who were versed in this science who visited him. But since he intended to teach my brother languages, and knew that mathematics had the property of captivating and contenting the mind, he did not want my brother to get acquainted with it, fearing that this would make him neglect Latin and other languages in which he wanted to. improve it. So he hid all the math books. He refrained from talking to his friends about mathematics in his presence; but in spite of such precautions, the child's curiosity was piqued, and he often asked his father to teach him mathematics. But the father refused, offering him this as a reward. He promised that as soon as he succeeded in Latin and Greek, he would begin to teach him mathematics.
My brother, seeing such resistance, once asked him what this science is and what it does. The father answered him in general, that this is the ability to build correct figures and find proportions between them; at the same time, he forbade talking about it further and thinking at any time. But his mind, which could not stay within the prescribed boundaries, as soon as it learned this simple introduction - that geometry is a means of building perfectly regular figures - began to think about it in its free hours; going into the room where he used to play, he took a coal and began to draw figures on the floor, looking for a way to build a perfect circle, a triangle with equal sides and angles, and other similar things.
He found it all without difficulty; then he began to look for the proportions of the figures among themselves. But since his father concealed such things from him so carefully that he did not even know the names of the figures, he had to invent them himself. He called a circle a ringlet, a straight line a stick; so with the rest. After the names, he came up with axioms, and finally perfect proofs, and, passing from one to another, he advanced so far in his research that he came to the thirty-second theorem of the first book of Euclid. When he was doing it, his father accidentally entered his room, so that his brother did not hear it. Before his father's eyes, he was so absorbed in his studies that for a long time he did not notice his arrival. It is difficult to say who was more amazed - the son, seeing his father, who strictly forbade him such activities, or the father, seeing his son immersed in such things. But the father's surprise increased even more when, having asked his son what he was doing, he heard in response - that he was looking for such and such things - which was the thirty-second theorem of Euclid.
The father asked what led him to such an idea, he replied that he had discovered such and such; in answer to the next question, he told a few more proofs, and so, going back and using both the names "rings" and "sticks", he came to his definitions and axioms.
My father was so shocked by the greatness and power of his talent that, without saying a word to him, he went out and went to M. Le Payeur, his close friend and a very learned man. When he came to him, he remained motionless for a long time and seemed beside himself. Monsieur Le Payeur, seeing all this and, in addition, tears rolling from his eyes, was seriously alarmed and asked him not to hide the cause of his grief any longer. His father said to him: “I am crying not from grief, but from joy. You know how I tried to prevent my son from learning geometry for fear of distracting him from other studies. But look what he did."
Monsieur Le Payeur was no less surprised than my father, and said that he considered it unfair to continue to fetter such a mind and hide this knowledge from him, that he should be shown books and no longer hold him back.
His father agreed with this and gave him Euclid's Elements to read in his leisure hours. He read and understood them himself, and he never needed an explanation. While he was reading them, he also invented his own and advanced so far that he was able to constantly attend weekly meetings where the most learned people in Paris gathered to bring their works and discuss others.
My brother became very noticeable both in discussions and in his own works, being one of those who most often brought new works there. In these meetings, problems sent from Germany and other countries were also often analyzed, and his opinion on all this was listened to more attentively than anyone else: he had a mind so lively that it happened that he found errors where others did not. noticed. Meanwhile, he devoted only hours of leisure to these studies, since he studied Latin then, according to the rules established for him by his father. But since he found in this science the truth that he had always so ardently sought, he was so happy with this that he put his whole soul into it; and however little he occupied himself with it, he progressed so rapidly that at the age of sixteen he wrote a Treatise on Conic Sections, which was said to be such an achievement of the mind that it was said that nothing like it had happened since the time of Archimedes.
All scholars believed that it should be printed immediately, because, they said, although such a work would always be admired, nevertheless, if it were printed in the year when the author was only sixteen years old, this circumstance would add a lot to his merits. . But since my brother never had a thirst for fame, he did not attach any importance to this, and this work was never printed.
All this time he continued to study Latin and Greek, and besides, at meals and after it, his father talked with him now about logic, then about physics and other branches of philosophy, and he learned all about this, having never been to a college and had no other teachers, neither in this nor in everything else.
One can only imagine how my father rejoiced at my brother's success in all sciences; but he did not think that such an intensified and constant tension of the mind at such a tender age could have a bad effect on his health; and indeed, it began to deteriorate as soon as he reached the age of eighteen. But the ailments that he then experienced were not great and did not prevent him from continuing all his usual activities, so that just at that time, at the age of nineteen, he invented an arithmetic machine with which you can perform all kinds of actions, not only without a pen or tokens, but also without knowledge of the rules of arithmetic, and, moreover, with unmistakable accuracy. This invention was considered a thing quite unprecedented, since it put the science that lives in the human mind into a machine, and indicated the means to do everything with it with perfect correctness, without resorting to reflection. This work made him very tired, not because of the idea or the mechanism, which he invented without difficulty, but by the need to explain all this to the workers, so that he spent two years bringing it to its present perfection.
But this weariness and frailty of his health, which had been manifesting itself for several years, caused him ailments from which he has not been relieved since; and he used to tell us that from the age of eighteen he had never had a day without suffering. These ailments were of varying severity, and as soon as they gave him a respite, his mind immediately rushed in search of something new.
In one of these intervals, at the age of twenty-three, having seen the experiment of Torricelli, he then invented and carried out his own, called "experiment with emptiness", clearly proving that all phenomena previously attributed to emptiness are caused by the gravity of air. This was the last work in the earthly sciences in which he occupied his mind, and although he subsequently invented the cycloid, there is no contradiction in my words, because he found it without thinking about it and under circumstances that lead to believe that he did not apply to it. effort, as I would say in his place. Immediately after, when he was not yet twenty-four years old, the Providence of God presented an opportunity that prompted him to read pious books, and God so enlightened him through this holy reading that he completely understood that the Christian religion requires us to live only for God and have no other purpose than Him. This truth seemed to him so obvious, and so indispensable, and so beneficial, that he abandoned all his investigations. And from that time on he rejected all other knowledge in order to indulge in that which Jesus Christ said was the only thing needed (Luke 10:42).
Until that time, he was protected from all the vices of youth by the special patronage of Providence, and, even more surprisingly, with his mindset and direction, he was never inclined to freethinking in regard to religion, always limiting his curiosity to natural phenomena; and he told me more than once that this rule joined him with all the others bequeathed to him by his father, who himself had a reverence for religion, inspired it and his son from childhood and punished him that everything that constitutes an object of faith cannot be an object reasoning.
These rules, often repeated to him by his father, for whom he had the deepest reverence and in whom extensive knowledge was combined with a strong and precise mind, cut into his soul so much that no matter what speeches he heard from freethinkers, they did not offend him in any way, and although he was still very young, but he considered them people who professed the false idea that the human mind is above all, and did not understand the very nature of faith.
So this great mind, so broad and so full of curiosity, so tirelessly looking for reasons and explanations for everything in the world, was at the same time subjugated to all the precepts of religion, like a child. And such simplicity reigned in his soul all his life, so that from the very moment when he decided to study nothing more than religion, he never dealt with complex theological questions and used all the powers of his mind to learn the rules of Christian morality and to improve in it, to which he dedicated all the gifts given to him by God, and for the rest of his life he did nothing but meditate day and night on the law of God. But, although he did not particularly study scholasticism, he was aware of the decrees of the Church against heresies invented by the cunning and errors of the human mind; this kind of research revolted him most of all, and at this time God sent him an opportunity to show his zeal for religion.
He lived then in Rouen, where our father was employed in the royal service; at that time a certain man appeared there, who taught a new philosophy, which attracted all the curious. Two young people, from among my brother's friends, called him to this man; he went with them. But in a conversation with the philosopher, they were quite surprised, convinced that, expounding to them the foundations of his philosophy, he drew conclusions from them about matters of faith that contradicted the decisions of the Church. He argued with the help of reasoning that the body of Jesus Christ was not formed from the blood of the Blessed Virgin, and much more in the same spirit. They tried to argue with him, but he stood his ground. After discussing among themselves how dangerous it would be to allow a person with such false views to be instructed unhindered, they decided to first warn him, and if he persisted, then inform on him. And so it happened, because he neglected their advice; then they considered it their duty to denounce him to Monseigneur Du Bellay, who was then acting Bishop of Rouen on behalf of Monsignor Archbishop. Monseigneur Du Bellay sent for this man, interrogated him, but was deceived by an ambiguous confession, which he wrote with his own hand and sealed with his signature; however, he did not attach much importance to the warning given by the three young men. But as soon as they read this confession of faith, they immediately understood all its omissions, and this forced them to go to Monsignor Archbishop of Rouen in Guyon. Having delved into everything, he found it so important that he gave authority to his council, and sent a special order to Monseigneur Du Bellay to force this man to explain himself on all articles of the accusation and not accept anything from him except through those who denounced him. This was done, and he appeared before the archiepiscopal council and renounced all his views; it can be said that he did it sincerely, because he never showed resentment towards those to whom he was indebted to this story, which makes it possible to think that he himself was deceived by the false conclusions that he deduced from his false premises. It is also true that there was no malicious intent against him, and no other intention than to open his own eyes and prevent him from seducing young people who would not be able to distinguish true from false in such subtle things. So this story was resolved successfully. And as my brother became more and more immersed in the search for ways to please the Lord, this love of perfection burned in him from the age of twenty-four that it swept the whole house. The father, not ashamed to learn from his son, from then on began to lead a more strict life through constant exercises in virtue until his death, and his death was completely Christian.
My sister, endowed with extraordinary talents, which from childhood earned her such a great name, which girls much older than her rarely achieve, was so touched by her brother's speeches that she decided to abandon all success, which until then she had loved so much, and devote herself entirely to God. Since she was very intelligent, as soon as God visited her heart, she understood, together with her brother, everything that he said about the holiness of the Christian religion, and could no longer endure her imperfection, in which, it seemed to her, she was in the world; she became a nun in a very austere convent at Port-Royal-in-the-Files, and died there at the age of thirty-six, having gone through the most difficult obediences, and established herself in a short time in such virtues as others achieve only in long years.
My brother was then twenty-four; his ailments grew worse, and it came to the point that he could not swallow any liquid unless it was warmed up, and then only in drops. But since, in addition, he suffered from unbearable headaches, inflammation of the viscera, and many other ailments, the doctors ordered him to cleanse himself every other day for three months; he had to swallow all the drugs as best he could, that is, heated and drop by drop. It was real torture, and it was difficult for those around him to even look at it; but my brother never complained. He considered all this to be a boon to himself. After all, he did not know any other science than the science of virtue, and, realizing that it is perfected in ailments, he gladly went to all the painful sacrifices of his repentance, seeing in everything the advantages of Christianity. He often said that earlier illnesses interfered with his studies, and he suffered from this, but that a Christian must accept everything, and especially suffering, because in them Jesus Christ crucified is known, Who should be for a Christian all science and the only glory in life.
Prolonged use of these drugs, together with others prescribed to him, brought some relief, but not a complete recovery. The doctors decided that in order to fully restore his strength, he should give up all prolonged mental work and, as far as possible, look for opportunities to direct his mind to what would occupy him and would please him, that is, in a word, to ordinary secular conversations; for there was no other entertainment suitable for my brother. But how to make a person like him, whom God has already visited, decide on this? Indeed, at first it turned out to be very difficult. But he was so pressed on all sides that he finally gave in to the arguments about the need to strengthen his health: he was convinced that this was a treasury that God told us to protect.
And now he was in the light; he was at court more than once, and experienced courtiers noticed that he adopted the look and manners of a courtier with such ease, as if he had been brought up there from birth. In fact, when he talked about light, he so penetratingly opened all its springs that it was not difficult to imagine how he would be able to press them and delve into everything that is required to adapt to such a life, as far as he would consider it. reasonable.
That was the time of his life, used in the worst way: although the mercy of God protected him from vices, it was still a worldly spirit, very different from the Gospel. God, who expected more perfection from him, was not pleased to leave him in such a state for a long time, and He used my sister to extract it, as He once used my brother to extract her from her worldly pursuits.
Ever since she became a nun, her ardor has increased every day, and all her thoughts have breathed one infinite holiness. That is why she could not bear that the one to whom, after God, she was most indebted for the grace that had descended upon her, did not have the same grace; and as my brother saw her often, she often spoke of it, and finally her words gained such power that she persuaded him - as he persuaded her first - to leave the world and all worldly talk, the most innocent of which is but a repetition trifles, completely unworthy of the holiness of Christianity, to which we are all called and the model of which Jesus Christ gave us.
Considerations of health, which had shaken him before, now seemed to him so pathetic that he himself was ashamed of them. The light of true wisdom revealed to him that the salvation of the soul should be preferred to everything else, and that to be satisfied with temporary good for the body, when it comes to eternal good for the soul, is to reason falsely.
He was thirty years old when he made up his mind to leave his new worldly duties; he began by changing the district, and in order to break irrevocably with his habits, he went to the village; returning from there after a long absence, he so clearly showed his desire to leave the world that the light also left him.
As in everything, he wanted to get to the very bottom in this too: his mind and heart were so arranged that he could not do otherwise. The rules that he laid down for himself in his seclusion were the firm rules of true piety: one is to renounce all pleasures, and the other is to renounce all kinds of excesses.
To fulfill the first rule, he first of all began, as far as possible, to do without servants, and since then he always did this: he made his own bed, dined in the kitchen, brought dishes, in a word, allowed the servants to do only what he could not do himself. .
It was impossible to do without sensual sensations at all; but when, of necessity, he had to give some pleasure to the senses, he surprisingly skillfully turned the soul away from him, so that she would not have her share here. We never heard him praise any dish he was served; and when they sometimes tried to cook something tastier for him, when asked if he liked the food, he answered simply: “I should have warned me in advance, but now I don’t remember about it and, I confess, didn’t pay attention.” And when someone, following the custom accepted in the world, admired a delicious meal, he could not bear it and called it sensuality, although it was the most ordinary thing, “because,” he said, “what does it mean that you eat to please your taste, which is always bad, or at least that you speak the same language as sensual people, and this does not fit a Christian who should not say anything that would not breathe holiness. He would not allow any sauces or stews to be served to him, not even oranges or sour grape juice, nothing to stimulate the appetite, although he naturally loved all these.
From the very beginning of his retreat, he determined the amount of food needed for the needs of his stomach; and since then, whatever his appetite, he never overstepped this limit, and no matter how disgusted he was, he ate everything that he decided for himself. When asked why he did this, he replied that it was necessary to satisfy the needs of the stomach, and not the appetite.
But the mortification of feelings was not limited to him only by the rejection of everything that could be pleasant to him, both in food and in treatment: for four years in a row he took various drugs without showing the slightest disgust. As soon as he was prescribed some medicine, he began to take it without effort, and when I wondered how it was not disgusting for him to take such terrible drugs, he laughed at me and said that he did not understand how it could be disgusting that one accepts of good will and being warned of its evil properties, that such an action should be produced only by violence and surprise. In the future it will not be difficult to see how he applied this rule, refusing all kinds of pleasures of the spirit, in which pride could be involved.
He was no less concerned about the fulfillment of another rule he set for himself, which follows from the first - to refuse all kinds of excesses. Gradually he removed all the curtains, bedspreads and upholstery from his room, because he did not consider them necessary; besides, decency did not oblige him to do so, for from now on he was visited only by those people whom he tirelessly called for abstinence and who, therefore, were not surprised to see that he lives as he advises others to live.
This is how he spent five years of his life, from thirty years to thirty-five, in tireless labor for God or for his neighbor, or for himself, striving for ever greater self-perfection; in a sense, we can say that this was the whole period of his life, because the four years that God gave him to live after that were one continuous torment. It was not some new disease that happened to him, but the ailments that he had suffered from his youth doubled. But then they attacked him so violently that in the end they killed him; and during all this time he could not at all work for a minute on the great work that he started in defense of religion, could not support people who asked him for advice, either verbally or in writing: his ailments were so severe that he could not to help, even though he really wanted to.
We have already said that he refused unnecessary visits and did not want to see anyone at all.
But since people are looking for treasures wherever they are, and it is not pleasing to God that a lit candle be covered with a vessel, then some of the smart people who knew him before looked for him in his solitude and asked for advice. Others, who had doubts in matters of faith, and knew how versed he was in them, also turned to him; both of them - and many of them are alive - always returned satisfied and testify to this day, on every occasion, that it is to his explanations and advice that they owe the good that they know and do.
Although he entered into such conversations only out of mercy and vigilantly watched himself so as not to lose what he was trying to achieve in his seclusion, they were still difficult for him, and he feared that vanity would make him find pleasure in these conversations. ; and it was his rule not to allow such pleasures in which vanity would be in any way implicated. On the other hand, he did not consider himself entitled to deny these people the help they needed. This is where the fight came from. But the spirit of self-deprecation, which is the spirit of love, reconciling everything, came to his aid and inspired him to get an iron belt, all studded with spikes, and put it on directly on his naked body whenever he was informed that some gentlemen were asking him. He did so, and when the spirit of vanity awakened in him, or when he felt some pleasure from the conversation, he pressed him to himself with his elbow in order to increase the pain from the injections and thus remind himself of his duty. Such a custom seemed to him so useful that he also resorted to it in order to protect himself from idleness, to which he was forced in the last years of his life. Since he could neither read nor write, he had to indulge in idleness and go for a walk, unable to think about anything coherently. He rightly feared that such a lack of study, which is the root of all evil, would turn him away from his views. And in order to always be on the alert, it was as if he implanted in his body this voluntarily invited enemy, who, biting into his flesh, constantly encouraged his spirit to cheerfulness and thus gave him the opportunity for a certain victory. But all this was kept in such a secret that we knew nothing, and it became known to us only after his death from a very virtuous person whom he loved and to whom he was obliged to tell about this for reasons that concerned this person himself.
All the time that was not taken away from him by works of mercy, such as those we have described, he gave to prayers and reading the Holy Scriptures. It was like the center of his heart, where he found all the joy and all the peace of his solitude. He truly had a special gift for tasting the benefit of these two precious and holy pursuits. It can even be said that for him they did not differ: while praying, he meditated on the Holy Scriptures. He often said that the Holy Scripture is a science not for the mind, but for the heart, that it is understandable only to those who have a pure heart, and everyone else sees only darkness in it, that the veil that hides the Scripture from the Jews hides it from the bad Christians, and that love is not only the subject of Scripture, but also the gateway to it. He went even further and said that the ability to comprehend the Holy Scriptures comes to those who hate themselves and love the mortified life of Jesus Christ. In such a state of mind he read the Holy Scriptures and did it so diligently that he knew almost all of it by heart, so that it was impossible for him to misquote, and he could say with confidence: "This is not in the Scriptures," or: "It is there. ”, and accurately named the place and knew in fact everything that could be useful to him for a perfect understanding of all the truths of both faith and morality.
He had such a wonderful mindset that adorned everything he said; and although he learned many things from books, he digested them in his own way, and they seemed completely different, because he always knew how to express himself in such a way that they should penetrate the mind of another person.
He had an extraordinary mindset by nature; but he created for himself very special rules of eloquence, which still strengthened his talent. It was not at all what they call brilliant thoughts and which in fact is a fake diamond and does not mean anything: no big words and very few metaphorical expressions, nothing dark or rude, neither flashy, nor omitted, nor superfluous. But he understood eloquence as a way of expressing thoughts in such a way that those to whom they are addressed could grasp them easily and with pleasure; and he believed that this art consisted in a certain relationship between the mind and heart of those addressed to, and the thoughts and expressions used, but these relationships are connected together properly only when they are given a proper turn. That is why he carefully studied the heart and mind of man: he knew perfectly well all their springs. When he thought about something, he put himself in the place of those who would listen to him, and, having checked whether all the correlations were there, he then looked for what turn should be given to them, and was satisfied only when he saw undoubtedly that one so corresponded to the other, that is, that he thought, as it were, with the mind of his future interlocutor, that when the time came for all this to unite in a conversation, it was impossible for the human mind not to accept his arguments with pleasure. He did not make great things out of small things, and small things out of great things. It was not enough for him that the phrase seemed beautiful; it also had to correspond to its subject, so that there was nothing superfluous in it, but also nothing missing. In a word, he was so master of his style that he could express whatever he wanted, and his speech always produced the impression that he intended. And this manner of writing, at the same time simple, precise, pleasant and natural, was so peculiar to him and so different from others that the “Letters to a Provincial” barely appeared when everyone guessed that they were written by him, no matter how hard he tried to hide it even from your loved ones.
Sage Blaise Pascal: read short thoughts and best sayings. Blaise Pascal: the best words, short and wise!
Blaise Pascal
(1623 Clermont-Ferrand, France - 1662 Paris, France)
French mathematician, physicist, writer and religious philosopher.
I equally condemn those who take it upon themselves to praise a person, and those who see only humiliating sides in him, as well as those who think only how to entertain him; I can approve only with a sigh of those who seek the truth. The Stoics say: go inside yourself, there is your peace; and that's not true. Others say: do not delve into yourself, look for your happiness outside yourself - in entertainment; and that's not true. Sickness will come, and happiness will be neither inside nor outside of us: it is in God and outside and inside of us.
We have such a lofty conception of the human soul that we cannot endure its contempt, do without at least some soul not honoring us; all the bliss of people consists in this honor.
The lowest trait in a man, but at the same time the greatest sign of his superiority, is the pursuit of glory. Indeed, no matter what a person has on earth, no matter what health and comfort he enjoys, he is dissatisfied if he does not enjoy respect among people. He respects the mind of man so much that, having all sorts of advantages, if he does not occupy an advantageous place in the minds of people, he is dissatisfied. He likes this place more than anything in the world: nothing can distract him from this desire; and this is the most indelible property of the human heart. Even those who despise the human race, equating it with animals, even they want people to be surprised and believe them. At the same time, they contradict themselves, their own views: their nature, which overcomes everything, convinces them of the greatness of man more than reason - of his baseness.
Despite all the weaknesses that overwhelm us, we cannot suppress the involuntary instinct that elevates us.
The greatness of man is so noticeable that it is proved even by his very weakness. What is characteristic of the nature of animals, we call weakness in man, proving by this that if now his nature is likened to the nature of animals, then, therefore, he has lost the best nature that was once characteristic of him.
Man is great, conscious of his miserable condition. The tree does not recognize itself as miserable. Therefore, to be poor means to be aware of one's plight: but this consciousness is a sign of greatness.
Since insignificance is judged by greatness, and greatness by insignificance, some proved the complete poverty of a person all the more easily because they based this proof on greatness; and since others were just as successful in proving greatness, deriving it from poverty itself, everything that some could adduce in proof of greatness served others only as an argument in favor of disaster, because disaster is the more palpable, they said, the fuller was the previous one. happiness; others have argued the opposite. So their disputes revolved in an endless circle, for, as they understand their own, people find in themselves both greatness and insignificance. In a word, man is conscious of his miserable condition. He is pathetic because he really is; but he is great because he knows it.
I can easily imagine a man without arms, without legs, without a head, since only experience teaches us that the head is more necessary than the legs; but I cannot imagine a man without thinking: it would be a stone or an animal.
Therefore, thought distinguishes the essence of man, and without it it is impossible to imagine him. How exactly do we feel pleasure? Is it fingers? Is it by hand? Muscles or blood? It is clear that this feeling in us must be something immaterial.
It is not in the space occupied by me that I should place my dignity, but in the direction of my thought. I will not become richer by possessing the expanses of the earth. In relation to space, the universe embraces and absorbs me like a point; I embrace her with my thought.
Man is the most insignificant blade of grass in nature, but a thinking blade of grass. You don't have to arm the entire universe to crush it. To kill it, a small evaporation, one drop of water, is enough. But let the universe crush him, the man will become even higher and nobler than his murderer, because he is aware of his death; the universe does not know its superiority over man.
Thus, all our dignity lies in thought. This is how we must rise, and not by space and duration, which we cannot fill. Let us try to think well: this is the beginning of morality.
It is dangerous to point out to man too much his resemblance to animals without showing him his greatness. It is also dangerous to draw his attention too often to his greatness, without reminding him of his insignificance. The most dangerous thing is to leave him in the dark about both. On the contrary, it is very useful to present both to him.
A person should not think what he is equal to animals, nor that he is equal to angels, and it must not be allowed that he does not know either one or the other; he should know both at the same time.
Let the man know now the value of himself. Let him love himself, for in his nature is the capacity for good; but let him for this reason not love the evil sides inherent in him. Let him despise himself, because this faculty is idle; but for this he does not despise his natural inclination towards goodness. Let him hate, let him love himself: he carries in himself the ability to know the truth and be happy; but the truth itself, constant and satisfying, is not in it.
Therefore, I would like to arouse in a person the desire to find this truth, to bring him to freedom from passions and readiness to follow the truth where he finds it. Knowing how much his knowledge is obscured by passions, I would like him to hate in himself the sensuality that governs his will, so that it would not blind him when choosing and would not be able to stop him when the choice was made.
I realize that I could not exist at all, for my "I" is contained in my thought; therefore, I, who think, would not exist if my mother were killed before I received a soul; therefore, I am not a necessary being. Equally, I am neither eternal nor infinite; but I clearly see that in nature there is a necessary, eternal and infinite Being.
Pride outweighs all infirmities. She either hides them, or if she discovers them, she is conceited by their consciousness. Among all our weaknesses, delusions, etc., it is so naturally strong in us that we gladly give up our very lives, if only we would talk about it.
Vanity is so rooted in the heart of a man that the soldier, and the batman, and the cook, and the porter are not averse to boasting; everyone likes to have his admirers; and philosophers are not alien to this feeling. Those who write against fame themselves want to have the fame of good writers, and their readers to boast that they have read them; and I myself, who write this, perhaps have the same desire, as well as the reader.
Curiosity is also vanity. More often than not, we only want to know in order to report what we have learned. They would not travel the seas for the mere pleasure of seeing the sea without the hope of ever telling what they saw.
In a city through which one only passes one does not care to gain respect; it's a different matter if you have to stay in it for a while. But how much exactly? Looking at the duration of our vain and miserable life.
It is surprising that such an obvious thing as human vanity is so little known that it seems strange and unusual to call the desire for honors and greatness stupidity.
Without grace, a person is full of innate and irremediable error. Nothing shows him the truth; on the contrary, everything deceives him. The two vehicles of truth, reason and feeling, in addition to their inherent lack of truthfulness, still abuse each other. Feelings deceive the mind with false signs.
The mind also does not remain in debt: spiritual passions darken the senses and give them false impressions. Thus, both sources for the knowledge of truth only obscure each other.
How difficult it is to propose something to the discussion of another without impairing his judgment by the very manner of the proposal! If you say: I find that this is good or that this is unclear, or the like, then the opinion of the judge is either carried away by this judgment, or, on the contrary, is irritated. It's better not to say anything; then he will judge the object as it is, that is, according to what it is at that time, and according to other circumstances given to the object against his will. But even if you have not made any remarks, it is very possible that your silence itself will have its effect, depending on how he reacts to it, how he explains it to himself - and it may also be that, if he is a physiognomist, then the very expression your face or the tone of your voice will affect his decision. It is so difficult not to shift a judgment from its natural foundation, or rather, how few firm, unshakable judgments!
The most important thing in life is the choice of craft. This choice depends on the case. According to custom, they become a bricklayer, a soldier, a roofer. "He is a good roofer," or "foolish soldiers" alone say; others, on the contrary, express themselves as follows: the great thing is only war, the rest of the occupations are trifles. As from childhood they hear a lot of praise for famous crafts and censure of all others, so they choose; because everyone naturally seeks a laudable occupation, and not a ridiculous one. Reviews of others undoubtedly affect us; we err only in applying them. The power of custom is so great that from those whom nature has created as mere people, representatives of various specialties are developed; whole regions produce only masons, others only soldiers, and so on. Of course, nature is not so monotonous, but it is subject to custom. Sometimes nature also takes over, keeping a person in his innate inclinations, regardless of custom, whether good or bad.
Our imagination so expands before us the finite time of this life, as a result of constant reflection on it, and so diminishes eternity, thanks to insufficient reflection on it, that we make nothing out of eternity, and eternity out of nothing. And all this is so deeply rooted in us that no power of reason can protect us from it.
Cromwell was ready to shake the whole Christian world: the king's family died, it seemed that he had gained power forever, but a fine grain of sand got into his bladder - and what? When Rome itself began to tremble before him, this small grain of sand killed him, reduced his family to its former state, established peace and restored the king to the throne.
The will is one of the main organs of belief: it does not form beliefs, but evaluates things that can be considered either true or false, depending on how you look at them. The will, which gives priority to one over the other, turns the mind away from exploring the properties of a thing that is not pleasing to it, and therefore the mind, walking in step with the will, stops its attention on what the will indicates, and judges by what it sees.
Imagination enlarges small objects to the extent that they completely fill our soul, and, in reckless audacity, reduces great objects to their own size, speaking, for example, about God.
All human occupations tend to acquire property, but people would not be able to prove that they own it in all justice. Their right is based only on the imagination of legislators, and the very strength of possession is highly doubtful. The same is true of knowledge: disease takes it away from us.
We assume that all people equally perceive the impressions of external objects, but we make this assumption at random, because we have no evidence for this. I understand that the same words are used in the same cases, and whenever two people see that a body or an object changes its place, both express the impression of the same object in the same words, saying to both that it moves . And from this identity of definitions a strong proof of the identity of ideas is derived. But the latter is hardly proved by this definitively, although much can be said in defense of such a conclusion. We know that the same consequences are often deduced from different assumptions.
Seeing an action repeated constantly with the same data, we deduce from this the concept of natural necessity, as we expect that tomorrow will be a day, and so on; but often nature deceives us and does not obey its own laws.
It is easier to die without thinking about death than to bear the thought of death without being in danger.
If a man were happy at all, he would feel happier the less he was entertained. But such happiness is known only to God and the saints.
Yes, but doesn't it mean to be happy, finding pleasure in fun? No, because this happiness is external and depends on many accidents, which can be the cause of inevitable grief.
Entertainment is the only means of consoling us in our sorrows, but at the same time it is our greatest misfortune, because it mainly prevents us from thinking about ourselves. Without it, we would live in boredom, and this boredom would prompt us to look for surer means of getting rid of it. But entertainment delights us, and with it we insensibly live to death.
Human condition: inconstancy, boredom, restlessness.
Everything is unbearable for a person, it is complete peace, without passion, without work, without entertainment. He then feels his insignificance, his imperfection, his dependence, weakness, emptiness. Boredom, gloom, sorrow, sadness, annoyance, despair rise immediately from the depths of the soul.
When a soldier or worker complains about their work, leave them without any business.
Faith, of course, reveals to us something that we cannot know through the senses, but it never contradicts them. She is above them, not against them.
When playing a human, they think they are playing an ordinary organ; it is really an organ, but a strange, changeable organ, the pipes of which do not follow one another along the neighboring degrees. Those who know how to play only on ordinary organs will not evoke harmonious chords on such an organ.
Never is evil done more fully and more joyfully than as a result of a false conclusion of conscience.
.......................................................................
This is what happens to everyone who tries to know God without calling on the help of Jesus Christ, who wants to partake of God without an intermediary, known without an intermediary. Meanwhile, people who have come to know God through His Mediator have also come to know their own nothingness.
6 . How wonderful it is that the canonical authors never proved the existence of God by drawing arguments from the natural world. They simply called to believe in Him. David, Solomon, and others never said: "There is no void in nature, therefore, God exists." They were undoubtedly smarter than the smartest of those who came to replace them and constantly resorted to such evidence. This is very, very important.
7 . If all the proofs of the existence of God, gleaned from the world of nature, inevitably speak of the weakness of our reason, do not be dismissive of the Holy Scriptures because of this; if the understanding of such contradictions speaks of the power of our mind, read the Holy Scriptures for it.
8 . I am not talking about the system here, but about the features inherent in the human heart. Not about zealous reverence for the Lord, not about detachment from oneself, but about the guiding human principle, about selfish and selfish aspirations. And since we cannot but be moved by a firm answer to a question that touches us so closely – after all the sorrows of life, where inevitable death will plunge us with monstrous inevitability, threatening us every hour – into eternity of non-existence or into eternity of torment...
9 . The Almighty leads people's minds to faith with arguments, and hearts with grace, for His instrument is meekness, but to try to convert minds and hearts by force and threats is to instill terror in them, not faith, terrorem potius quam religionem.
10 . In any conversation, in any dispute, it is necessary to reserve the right to reason with those who lose their temper: “And what, in fact, revolts you?”
11 . Those of little faith should first of all be pitied—this disbelief itself makes them unhappy. Offensive speech would be appropriate when it would do them good, but it goes to the detriment.
12 . To pity the atheists while they tirelessly seek—isn't their plight worthy of pity? To stigmatize those who boast of godlessness.
13 . And he showers ridicule on the one who seeks? But which of these two is more derisive? Meanwhile, the seeker does not mock, but pities the mocker.
14 . A fair wit is a mean person.
15 . Do you want people to believe in your virtues? Don't brag about them.
16 . One should pity both of them, but in the first case, let sympathy feed this pity, and in the second, contempt.
17 . The smarter a person is, the more originality he sees in everyone with whom he communicates. For an ordinary person, all people look the same.
18 . How many people in the world listen to the sermon as if it were an ordinary evening service!
19 . There are two kinds of people for whom everything is the same: holidays and weekdays, laymen and priests, each is similar to the other. But some draw the conclusion from this that what is forbidden to the priests is also forbidden to the laity, and others - that what is permitted to the laity is also permitted to the priests.
20 . Universality. - The sciences of morality and language, although isolated, are nevertheless universal.
21 . The difference between mathematical and direct knowledge. - The principles of mathematical knowledge are quite distinct, but in everyday life they are not used, therefore it is difficult to penetrate into them out of habit, but for anyone who understands, they are completely clear, and only a very bad mind is not able to build a correct reasoning on the basis of such self-evident principles.
The beginnings of direct knowledge, on the contrary, are widespread and commonly used. There is no need to delve into something, to make an effort on oneself, all that is needed here is good vision, but not just good, but impeccable, because there are so many of these principles and they are so ramified that it is almost impossible to cover them all at once. Meanwhile, if you miss one thing - and a mistake is inevitable: that is why great vigilance is needed in order to see everything to the last, and a clear mind, in order, based on such well-known principles, to draw correct conclusions later.
So, if all mathematicians had vigilance, they would be capable of direct cognition, because they are able to draw correct conclusions from well-known principles, and those capable of direct cognition would be capable of mathematical ones, if they would take the trouble to peer closely into mathematical principles that are unusual for them .
But such a combination is not common, because a person capable of direct knowledge does not even try to delve into mathematical principles, but a person capable of mathematics is mostly blind to what is before his eyes; moreover, having become accustomed to making conclusions on the basis of precise and clear mathematical principles well studied by him, he is lost when faced with principles of a completely different order, on which direct knowledge is based. They are barely distinguishable, they are felt rather than seen, and whoever does not feel is hardly worth teaching: they are so subtle and diverse that only a person whose feelings are refined and unmistakable are able to catch and draw the correct, undeniable conclusions from what is prompted. feelings; moreover, often he cannot prove the correctness of his conclusions point by point, as is customary in mathematics, because the principles of direct knowledge almost never line up in a row, like the principles of mathematical knowledge, and such a proof would be infinitely difficult. A cognizable subject must be grasped immediately and entirely, and not studied gradually, by inference - at first, in any case. Thus, mathematicians are seldom capable of direct knowledge, and those who know directly are rarely capable of mathematical knowledge, because mathematicians try to apply mathematical measures to what is accessible only to direct knowledge, and end up in absurdity, because they want to give definitions at all costs, and only then move on to the basic principles, meanwhile, for this subject, the method of inference is unsuitable. This does not mean that the mind generally refuses them, but it makes them imperceptibly, naturally, without any tricks; to clearly tell how exactly this work of the mind takes place is beyond the power of anyone, and to feel that it is happening at all is accessible to very few.
On the other hand, when a person who knows an object directly and is accustomed to grasping it with a single glance, is faced with a problem that is completely incomprehensible to him and requires prior acquaintance with a multitude of definitions and unusually dry beginnings to solve, he is not only afraid, but also turns away from it.
As for the bad mind, both mathematical and direct knowledge is equally inaccessible to him.
Therefore, a purely mathematical mind will work correctly only if all definitions and beginnings are known to it in advance, otherwise it gets confused and becomes unbearable, because it works correctly only on the basis of beginnings that are completely clear to it.
And the mind, knowing directly, is not able to patiently seek out the first principles underlying purely speculative, abstract concepts that it has not encountered in everyday life and is unusual for it.
22 . Varieties of Sanity: Some people talk sensibly about phenomena of a certain order, but begin to talk nonsense when it comes to all other phenomena.
Some are able to draw many conclusions from a few beginnings - this testifies to their sanity.
Others draw many conclusions from phenomena based on many beginnings.
For example, some correctly deduce consequences from the few principles that determine the properties of water, but for this you need to be distinguished by outstanding common sense, because these consequences are almost imperceptible.
But this by no means means that all capable of such conclusions are good mathematicians, for mathematics contains many principles, and there is a mind of such a turn that it is able to comprehend only a few principles, but to their very depth, while phenomena based on many principles are incomprehensible to him.
Therefore, there are two mindsets: one quickly and deeply comprehends the consequences arising from this or that beginning - this is a penetrating mind; the other is capable of embracing many principles without becoming entangled in them—this is the mathematical mind. In the first case, a person has a strong and sound mind, in the second - a broad one, and these properties are not always combined: a strong mind at the same time can be limited, a broad mind - superficial.
23 . He who is accustomed to judging everything by the prompting of the senses does not understand anything in logical conclusions, because he strives at first glance to make a judgment about the subject under study and does not want to delve into the principles on which he is based. On the contrary, one who is accustomed to delve into the principles understands nothing about the arguments of the senses, because first of all he tries to single out these principles and is not able to cover the whole subject with one glance.
24 . Mathematical judgment, direct judgment. - True eloquence neglects eloquence, true morality neglects morality - in other words, morality that makes judgments neglects morality that comes from the mind and does not know the rules.
For judgment is as much inherent in feeling as scientific reasoning is inherent in reason. Direct knowledge is inherent in judgment, mathematical - in the mind.
Neglect of philosophizing is true philosophy.
25 . Whoever judges a work without adhering to any rules, compared to a person who knows these rules, is like having no watch compared to a person with a watch. The first will say: “Two hours have passed”, the other will object: “No, only three quarters of an hour”, and I will look at the clock and answer the first: “You seem to be bored”, and the second: “Time flies for you”, because that an hour and a half had passed. And if they tell me that for me it drags on and that in general my judgment is based on a whim, I will only laugh: the disputants do not know that it is based on the readings of the clock.
26 . The feeling is as easy to corrupt as the mind.
Both the mind and the feeling we improve or, on the contrary, corrupt by talking with people. Therefore, some conversations corrupt us, others improve us. This means that you should carefully choose your interlocutors; but this is impossible if the mind and feeling are not yet developed or corrupted. So it turns out a vicious circle, and happy is the one who manages to jump out of it.
27 . Nature diversifies and repeats, art repeats and diversifies.
28 . The differences are so diverse that the sound of voices, and gait, and coughing, and blowing your nose, and sneezing ... We are able to distinguish grape varieties, we distinguish among others, say, nutmeg: here, by the way, recall Desargues, and Condrier, and the well-known vaccination. But is this the end of the question? Has the vine ever produced two identical clusters? Are there two identical grapes in a brush? Etc.
I am incapable of judging the same subject twice in the same way. I am not a judge of my own composition while I am writing it: like an artist, I need to move away from it at some distance, but not too much. But what exactly? Guess.
29 . Manifold. – Theology is a science, but how many sciences are combined in it at the same time! A man is made up of many parts, but if he is dissected, will each of his parts turn out to be a man?
Head, heart, veins, every vein, every segment of it, blood, every drop of it?
A city or a village from a distance seems like a city or a village, but as soon as we get closer, we see houses, trees, tiled roofs, leaves, grass, ants, ant legs, and so on ad infinitum. And all this is contained in the word "village".
30 . Any language is cryptography, and in order to comprehend a language unknown to us, one has to replace not a letter with a letter, but a word with a word.
31 . Nature repeats itself: the seed sown in the rich earth bears fruit; a thought sown into a receptive mind bears fruit; numbers repeat space, although they are so different from it.
Everything is created and led by the One Creator: roots, branches, fruits, causes, effects.
32 . I can't stand the lovers of buffoonery and lovers of pomposity either: neither one nor the other can be chosen as your friend. “Only he trusts his ears completely who has no heart. Integrity is the only measure. A poet, but a decent person? - The beauty of reticence, sound judgment.
33 . We scold Cicero for pomposity, meanwhile he has admirers, and in no small number.
34 . (Epigrams.) - An epigram on two curves is no good, because it does not console them at all, but it brings a modicum of glory to the author. Everything that is needed only by the author is no good. Ambitiosa recide omamenta.
35 . If lightning struck lowlands, poets and those who like to talk about such subjects in general would be at an impasse due to the lack of evidence-based explanations.
36 . When you read an essay written in a simple, natural style, you involuntarily wonder and rejoice: you thought that you would get to know the author, and suddenly you found a person! But what is the bewilderment of people endowed with good taste, who hoped that after reading the book they would get to know a person, but only got to know the author! Plus poetice quam humane locatus es. How human nature is ennobled by people who know how to convince it that it is capable of speaking about everything, even about theology!
37 . Between our nature, whether weak or strong, and what we like, there is always an affinity that underlies our pattern of pleasantness and beauty.
Everything that corresponds to this model is pleasant to us, whether it be a melody, a house, speech, poetry, prose, a woman, birds, trees, rivers, room decoration, dress, etc. And what does not answer, then a person with good taste cannot like .
And just as there is a deep affinity between the house and the chant, created in accordance with this unique and beautiful pattern, for they resemble it, although both the house and the chant retain their individuality, so there is an affinity between everything that is created according to a bad pattern. . This does not mean at all that the bad model is also one and only, on the contrary, there are a great many of them, but, for example, between a bad sonnet, no matter what bad model it follows, and a woman dressed according to this model, there is always a striking resemblance. .
To understand how ridiculous a wretched sonnet is, it is enough to understand what kind of nature and what model it corresponds to, and then imagine a house or a woman's outfit created according to this model.
38 . Poetic beauty. - Since we are talking about “poetic beauty”, we should say both “mathematical beauty” and “medical beauty”, but they don’t say that, and the reason for this is as follows: everyone knows perfectly well what the essence of mathematics is and what it consists in proofs, just as they know what the essence of medicine is and that it consists in healing, but they do not know what the very pleasantness consists in, which is the essence of poetry. No one knows what he is, that pattern inherent in nature, which should be imitated, and in order to fill this gap, they come up with the most intricate expressions - for example, "golden age", "miracle of our days", "fatal" and the like - and call this inconsistent adverb "poetic beauties".
But imagine a woman dressed up in such a fashion - and it consists in the fact that any trifle is clothed in magnificent words - and you will see a beauty hung with mirrors and chains, and you cannot help but burst out laughing, for it is much clearer what a pleasant dress should be. kind of woman, than what pleasant verses should be. But uncouth people will admire the appearance of this woman, and there are many villages where she will be mistaken for a queen. That is why we call sonnets cut according to this pattern “the first in the village”.
39 . In the world one does not pass for a connoisseur of poetry, if one does not hang signs “poet”, “mathematician”, etc. But the all-round man does not want any signs and does not make a difference between the craft of a poet and a gold embroiderer.
The nickname “poet” or “mathematician” does not stick to a comprehensive person: he is both and can judge a variety of subjects. In it, nothing catches the eye. He can take part in any conversation that began before his arrival. No one notices his knowledge in this or that area until there is a need for it, but then he is immediately remembered, for he is one of those sorts of people about whom no one will say that they are eloquent until they talk about eloquence, but as soon as they speak, everyone begins to praise the beauty of their speeches.
Therefore, when, at the sight of a person, the first thing to remember is that he has become proficient in poetry, this is by no means praise; on the other hand, if it is about poetry and no one asks his opinion, this is also a bad sign.
40 . It is good when, after naming someone, they forget to add that he is a "mathematician", or "preacher", or is distinguished by eloquence, but simply say: "He is a decent person." I just like this all-encompassing property. I consider it a bad sign when, when looking at a person, everyone immediately remembers that he wrote a book: let such a particular circumstance come to mind only if it comes to this particular circumstance (Ne quid nimis): otherwise it will replace itself person and become a household name. Let them say about a person that he is a skillful orator when the conversation concerns oratory, but here let them not forget about him.
41 . A person has many needs, and he is disposed only to those people who are able to please them - every single one. “So-and-so is an excellent mathematician,” they will tell him about the name. “What do I need a mathematician for? He, what good, will take me for a theorem. “And so-and-so is an excellent commander.” “It doesn't get any easier! He will take me for a besieged fortress. And I'm looking for just a decent person who will try to do everything for me that I need.
42 . (A little of everything. If it is impossible to be omniscient and know everything about everything thoroughly, you should know a little of everything. For it is much better to have partial knowledge, but about everything, than thorough knowledge about some particle: all-encompassing knowledge is preferable. Of course, it is better to know everything everything in general and in particular, but if you have to choose, you should choose all-encompassing knowledge, and secular people understand this and strive for this, because secular people are often good judges.)
43 . The arguments that a person thought of himself usually seem to him much more convincing than those that came to the mind of others.
44 . Listening to a story that depicts with all authenticity some kind of passion or its consequences, we find in ourselves confirmation of the truth of what we heard, although until now it seems that we have not experienced anything like this, and now we begin to love the one who helped us to feel it all, for speech it is no longer about his property, but about our own; thus, we are imbued with affection for him for his worthy deed, not to mention the fact that such mutual understanding always disposes to love.
45 . Rivers are roads that themselves move, and we are carried to where we are heading.
46 . Language. - The mind should be distracted from the work begun only in order to give it rest, and even then not at all when it pleases, but when it is necessary, when the time has come for this: rest, if it is not in time, tires and, therefore, distracts from work; this is how cunningly carnal intemperance forces us to do the opposite of what is required, and at the same time does not pay with the slightest pleasure - the only coin for which we are ready for anything.
47 . Eloquence. – The essential should be combined with the pleasant, but the pleasant should also be drawn from the true, and only from the true.
48 . Eloquence is the pictorial representation of thought; therefore, if, having expressed a thought, the speaker adds some more features to it, he no longer creates a portrait, but a picture.
49 . Miscellaneous. Language. - Who, not sparing words, piles up antitheses, he is likened to an architect who, for the sake of symmetry, depicts false windows on the wall: he thinks not about the correct choice of words, but about the correct arrangement of figures of speech.
50 . Symmetry, perceived at first sight, is based both on the fact that there is no reason to do without it, and on the fact that the human physique is also symmetrical; that is why we are committed to symmetry in width, but not in depth and height.
51 . Thought changes according to the words that express it. It is not thoughts that give dignity to words, but words to thoughts. Find examples.
52 . Hide a thought and put on a mask on it. It is no longer a king, not a Pope, not a bishop, but “the most August monarch”, etc., not Paris, but “the capital city of the state”. In some circles, it is customary to call. Paris Paris, and in others - certainly the capital city.
53 . “The carriage overturned” or “the carriage was overturned” - depending on the meaning. “Pour” or “pour” - depending on the intention.
(Speech by M. Lemaitre in defense of a man forcibly ordained a monk of the Order of the Cordeliers.)
54 . "A henchman of those in power" - only one who is himself a henchman is able to say so; "pedant" - only one who is himself a pedant; "provincial" is only one who is himself a provincial, and I am ready to bet that this word in the title of the book "Letters to a Provincial" was stamped by the printer himself.
55 . Miscellaneous. - The current expression: "I was willing to take on this."
56 . The “opening” ability of the key, the “attractive” ability of the hook.
57 . Unravel the meaning: "My part in this trouble of yours." Mr. Cardinal did not at all strive to be unraveled. “My spirit is full of anxiety.” “I am disturbed” is much better.
58 . I feel uncomfortable with pleasantries like this: "I'm causing you too much trouble, I'm so afraid that I bore you, I'm so afraid that I encroach on your precious time." Either you start talking like that yourself, or you get annoyed.
59 . What a bad manner: "Forgive me, do me a favor!" Were it not for this request for forgiveness, I would not have noticed anything offensive to myself. “Excuse the expression...” Only an apology is bad here.
60 . “Extinguish the blazing torch of rebellion” is too pompous. "Anxiety of his genius" - two superfluous words, and very bold ones.
61 . Sometimes, having prepared a certain essay, we notice that the same words are repeated in it, we try to replace them and spoil everything, they were so appropriate: this is a sign that everything should be left as it was; let envy gloat over itself, it is blind and does not understand that repetition is not always a vice, for there is no single rule here.
62 . Some people speak well, but they don't write very well. The environment and the audience kindle their mind, and it works much faster than when this fuel is not available.
63 . It is only when we finish writing the planned essay that we understand how we should have started it.
64 . Speaking of their writings, other authors keep saying: “My book, my interpretation, my work on history” and the like. Just like those upstarts who got their own house and do not get tired of repeating: "My mansion." It would be better to say: “Our book, our interpretation, our work on history,” because, as a rule, there is more of someone else's than their own.
65 . Let them not reproach me for not saying anything new: the very arrangement of the material is new; ball players hit the same ball, but with unequal accuracy.
With the same success, I can be reproached for the fact that I use words invented a long time ago. It is worth arranging the same thoughts in a different way - and a new composition is obtained, just as if the same words are arranged in a different way, a new thought will be obtained.
66 . It is worth changing the order of words - their meaning changes, it is worth changing the order of thoughts - the impression of them changes.
67 . In proving some statement of their own, people resort to examples, but if they had a need to prove the undoubtedness of these examples, they would resort to new examples, because everyone considers difficult only what he wants to prove, while examples are simple and explain everything. . That is why, when proving any general proposition, one should bring it under a rule derived from a particular case, and when proving any particular case, one should begin with a general rule. For everyone seems obscure only what they are going to prove, and the evidence, on the contrary, is completely clear, although such confidence is the fruit of the prevailing prejudice: if something requires proof, then it is obscure, while the evidence is completely clear and, therefore, are generally understood.
68 . Order. Why should I agree that my morality consists of four parts, and not six? Why should I consider that there are four of them in virtue, and not two, not one and only? Why is "Abstine et sustine" preferable to "Follow Nature" or Plato's "Do your own thing without doing injustice" or something like that? “But all this,” you object, “can be expressed in a single word.” You are right, but if you do not explain it, it is useless, and as soon as you begin to explain, to interpret this rule; containing all the others, as they immediately go beyond its boundaries and form the very confusion that you wanted to avoid. Thus, when all the rules are contained in one, they are useless, they seem to be hidden in a chest, and come out in their natural confusion. Nature established them, but one does not follow from the other.
69 . Nature has limited each of its truths by its own limits, and we do our best to combine them and thus go against nature: every truth has its own place.
70 . Order. - I would develop the reasoning about the order in approximately the following way: so that the futility of any efforts of human existence becomes clear, to clearly show the futility of everyday life, and then - life that is consistent with the philosophy of the Pyrrhonics, the Stoics; but there will still be no order in it. I know more or less how it should be and how few people in the world have this knowledge. Not a single science created by people has been able to comply with it. Saint Thomas could not keep it either. There is order in mathematics, but, for all its depth, it is useless.
71 . Pyrrhonism. - I decided to write down my thoughts here, moreover, without observing any order, and this patchwork will probably be intentional: it is in it that the real order is laid, which, with the help of this very disorder, will reveal the essence of the subject I am interpreting. I would do him too much honor if I stated my thoughts in a strict order, while my goal is to prove that there is no order in him and cannot be.
72 . Order. - Against the assertion that there is no order in the exposition of Holy Scripture. The heart has its own order, the mind has its own order, based on the evidence of certain main provisions: the order inherent in the heart is of a completely different nature. No one will prove that it is he who should be loved by arranging in a strict order the reasons for this obligation - that would be ridiculous.
Jesus Christ, Saint Paul has his own order in the preaching of mercy, for their goal is not teaching, but the kindling of fire in people's souls. Exactly the same for . This order is based on constant digressions from the main theme, so that, invariably returning to it at the end, it is stronger to capture it.
73 . First part. - The sad insignificance of a man who has not found God.
What is the benefit and duty of a person: how to ensure that he comprehends them and is guided by them
1. Order. - People neglect faith; they hate and fear the thought that perhaps it contains the truth. In order to cure them of this, first of all prove that faith is not in the least contrary to reason, nay, that it is worthy of praise, and in this way inspire respect for it; then, having shown that it deserves love, sow in virtuous hearts the hope of its truth, and, finally, prove that it is the true faith.
Faith is praiseworthy because it has known the nature of man; faith is worthy of love, because it opens the way to the true good.
2. For sinners who are doomed to eternal damnation, one of the most unexpected shocks will be the discovery that they are condemned by their own reason, to which they referred, daring to condemn the Christian faith.
3. Two extremes: cross out the mind, recognize only the mind.
4. If everything in the world were subject to reason, there would be no room left in the Christian doctrine for what is mysterious and supernatural in it; if nothing in the world were subject to the laws of reason, the Christian doctrine would be meaningless and ridiculous.
Ways to Convert to the True Faith: Encourage People to Listen to the Voice of Their Own Heart
5. Notification. - The metaphysical proofs of the existence of God are so different from the arguments we are accustomed to and so complex that, as a rule, they do not affect people's minds, and if someone is convinced, then only for a short time, while a person follows the development of this proof, but already an hour later he begins to think apprehensively whether this is an attempt to fool him. Quod curiositate cognoverunt superbia amiserunt.
This is what happens to everyone who tries to know God without calling on the help of Jesus Christ, who wants to partake of God without an intermediary, known without an intermediary. Meanwhile, people who have come to know God through His Mediator have also come to know their own nothingness.
6. How wonderful it is that the canonical authors never proved the existence of God by drawing arguments from the natural world. They simply called to believe in Him. David, Solomon, and others never said: "There is no void in nature, therefore, God exists." They were undoubtedly smarter than the smartest of those who came to replace them and constantly resorted to such evidence. This is very, very important.
7. If all the proofs of the existence of God, gleaned from the world of nature, inevitably speak of the weakness of our reason, do not be dismissive of the Holy Scriptures because of this; if the understanding of such contradictions speaks of the power of our mind, read the Holy Scriptures for it.
8. I am not talking about the system here, but about the features inherent in the human heart. Not about zealous reverence for the Lord, not about detachment from oneself, but about the guiding human principle, about selfish and selfish aspirations. And since we cannot but be moved by a firm answer to a question that touches us so closely - after all the sorrows of life, where inevitable death will plunge us with monstrous inevitability, threatening us every hour - into eternity of non-existence or into eternity of torment ...
9. The Almighty leads people's minds to faith with arguments, and hearts with grace, for His instrument is meekness, but to try to convert minds and hearts by force and threats is to instill terror in them, not faith, terrorem potius quam religionem.
10. In any conversation, in any dispute, it is necessary to reserve the right to reason with those who lose their temper: “And what, in fact, revolts you?”
11. Those of little faith should first of all be pitied - this unbelief itself makes them unhappy. Offensive speech would be appropriate when it would do them good, but it goes to the detriment.
12. Pity the atheists, while they are tirelessly searching - is not their plight worthy of pity? To stigmatize those who boast of godlessness.
13. And he showers ridicule on him who seeks? But which of these two is more derisive? Meanwhile, the seeker does not mock, but pities the mocker.
14. A fair wit is a trashy person.
15. Do you want people to believe in your virtues? Don't brag about them.
16. You should feel sorry for both of them, but in the first case, let this pity be nourished by sympathy, and in the second, contempt.
The difference between human minds
17. The smarter a person is, the more originality he sees in everyone with whom he communicates. For an ordinary person, all people look the same.
18. How many people in the world listen to a sermon as if it were an ordinary evening service!
19. There are two kinds of people for whom everything is the same: holidays and weekdays, laymen and priests, any sin is similar to another. But some draw the conclusion from this that what is forbidden to the priests is also forbidden to the laity, and others - that what is permitted to the laity is also permitted to the priests.
20. Universality. - The sciences of morality and language, although isolated, are nevertheless universal.
Mathematical knowledge and direct knowledge
21. The difference between mathematical and direct knowledge. - The beginnings of mathematical knowledge are quite distinct, but in everyday life they are not used, therefore, out of habit it is difficult to penetrate into them, but for anyone who penetrates, they are completely clear, and only a very bad mind is not able to build a correct reasoning on the basis of such self-evident principles.
The beginnings of direct knowledge, on the contrary, are widespread and commonly used. There is no need to delve into something, to make an effort on oneself, all that is needed here is good vision, but not just good, but impeccable, because there are so many of these principles and they are so ramified that it is almost impossible to cover them all at once. Meanwhile, if you miss one thing, a mistake is inevitable: that is why great vigilance is needed in order to see everything to the last, and a clear mind, in order, based on such well-known principles, to draw correct conclusions later.
So, if all mathematicians had vigilance, they would be capable of direct cognition, because they are able to draw correct conclusions from well-known principles, and those capable of direct cognition would be capable of mathematical ones, if they would take the trouble to peer closely into mathematical principles that are unusual for them .
But such a combination is not common, because a person capable of direct knowledge does not even try to delve into mathematical principles, but a person capable of mathematics is mostly blind to what is before his eyes; moreover, having become accustomed to making conclusions on the basis of precise and clear mathematical principles well studied by him, he is lost when faced with principles of a completely different order, on which direct knowledge is based. They are barely distinguishable, they are felt rather than seen, and whoever does not feel is hardly worth teaching: they are so subtle and diverse that only a person whose feelings are refined and unmistakable are able to catch and draw the correct, undeniable conclusions from what is prompted. feelings; moreover, often he cannot prove the correctness of his conclusions point by point, as is customary in mathematics, because the principles of direct knowledge almost never line up in a row, like the principles of mathematical knowledge, and such a proof would be infinitely difficult. A cognizable subject must be grasped immediately and entirely, and not studied gradually, by inference - at first, in any case. Thus, mathematicians are rarely capable of direct knowledge, and those who know directly - of mathematical, because mathematicians try to apply mathematical measures to what is accessible only to direct knowledge, and come to absurdity, because they want to give definitions at all costs, and only then move on to the basic principles, meanwhile, for this subject, the method of inference is unsuitable. This does not mean that the mind generally refuses them, but it makes them imperceptibly, naturally, without any tricks; to clearly tell how exactly this work of the mind takes place is beyond the power of anyone, and to feel that it is happening at all is accessible to very few.