The existence of the world, according to my teaching, is explained by the omnipotence of the will. Also, the phenomena of animal magnetism and those similar to it show that magical actions, previously considered as actions of the devil, are done by force of will. Due to the fact that these actions have empirical authenticity, from now on my teaching will no longer seem so paradoxical and will become easier to understand. Indeed, if the will of man can sometimes do what was considered only the power of the devil, then it can also do what was hitherto attributed only to the omnipotence of the gods.
In mathematics, the mind is exclusively occupied with its own forms of knowledge - time and space - and is therefore like a cat playing with its own tail.
At the moment of death, egoism falls apart. Thus the fear of death arises. Death, therefore, is a kind of lesson given to selfishness, addressed by the nature of things.
There are few good features in the national character, for its subject is a mob.
In solitude, everyone sees in himself what he really is.
In practical life a genius is as useful as a telescope in the theater.
In old age, there is no greater comfort than the knowledge that all the powers of youth have been laid down in a work that does not grow old.
Along with the law of foundation (in the form of causal foundation) matter is also given; because, if we go deeper, it is identical to this law. Indeed, matter is nothing but causality; its existence consists in the impact of one substance on another (that is, in the impact on the self). The fact that a part of matter (namely the organic one) is the immediate object of the subject and is explained by the existence of the object, that is, of the world, matter, only together with the subject and for the subject. But the true essence of matter consists exclusively in its reality (matter without action, that is, without power, is inconceivable, being an internal contradiction) - and it acts only on itself. Its essence, therefore, is, on the one hand, its connection with itself and, on the other, its relation to the subject.
The human will is directed towards the same goal as in animals - towards food and reproduction. But what a complex and intelligent apparatus is given to men to achieve this end - how much mind, thought and subtle abstractions man uses even in everyday affairs! However, a man, like an animal, pursues and achieves the same goal. To clarify, I will make two comparisons: wine poured into a clay pot or a well-crafted cup remains the same; or two absolutely identical blades of the same metal and made in the same way may have different handles: one of gold, the other of brass.
The question of the reality of morality boils down to whether there really is a grounded principle, opposed to the principle of selfishness. Since selfishness demands welfare for only one individual, the contrary principle should extend this demand to all others.
All natural sciences have an inevitable shortcoming, which is that they look exclusively at the objective side of nature, forgetting about its subjective side. Meanwhile, the whole essence lies in the latter, and this, of necessity, relates to philosophy.
Whatever is intellectual (created works, capacities, and merits) relates to morality, as image relates to reality.
All villains are unfortunately very sociable.
All general norms of behavior are not sufficient, because they are based on a false assumption of equality between men - the assumption established in Helvetia's system; meanwhile the fundamental difference between men in intellect and morality is boundless.
Any restriction makes you happy. The narrower our horizon, the sphere of action and contact, the happier we are; the wider it is, the more we suffer from torment and anguish. Because with their expansion, our desires, concerns and fears multiply and grow.
Every kind of human perfection is related to some shortcoming, into which it can turn; and conversely, to each imperfection corresponds a certain perfection. That's why the mistake we sometimes make about a person is often based on the fact that at the beginning of the relationship we confuse their shortcomings with their related perfections or vice versa. Thus, we can consider a coward cautious, a hoarder a miser, and a spendthrift - generous, rudeness appears to us as frankness, and sincerity and arrogance appear in our eyes as noble self-confidence.
Newspapers are secondary to history.
A man of genius is not merely a moral being, as ordinary men are; on the contrary, he is the bearer of the intelligence of several centuries and of the whole world. That is why he lives more for others than for himself.
A man of genius, living and creating, sacrifices his personal interests for the good of all mankind. Therefore he is not obliged to sacrifice himself in particular for the interests of particular persons, and therefore has the right to waive some requirements binding on others; even though he suffers, he gives much more than others.
A man of genius cannot be a monster, because anger is an expression of unbridled desire that demands an entire intelligence for the satisfaction of its needs and therefore excludes the possibility of pure contemplation. A monster may have a great mind, but he can only use it for what pertains to will. A bad man may therefore be a great conqueror, a statesman, &c. Finally, he may actually have talent. This word, as is well known, in ancient times meant money, and now denotes skills by which the approval of the crowd is acquired, and therefore money.
The main characteristic of the Italian national character is the absolute lack of shame. A shameless man behaves either too badly, and then he is cheeky and arrogant, or too modest, and then he is nothing. On the contrary, a shy man is either too shy or too proud.
A fool pursues pleasure and finds disappointment; and the wise man avoids suffering.
A fool is like a drowsy and dreamy fool, a wise man, on the contrary, is one who watches, who sees his chains and hears their rattle. Will he take advantage of the wakefulness to escape?
Stupid people are mostly bad for the same reason that ugly people are generally bad. On the other hand, genius and holiness also have something in common. However simple a saint may be, certain traits of genius are observed in him, and conversely, no matter how corrupt the character of a genius, he is distinguished by a state of mind elevated almost to sainthood.
Pride is man's inner conviction of great personal worth, while vanity is the desire to create this conviction for others, with the secret hope of later appropriating it for ourselves.
Nine tenths of our happiness is based on health. Hence the conclusion that the greatest folly would be to sacrifice our health for whatever it is: wealth, career, education, fame, not to mention sensual and fleeting pleasures; rather, all these are worth sacrificing for health.
Action according to instinct differs from all other actions in that the notion of purpose arises from it as a consequence, while to other actions this notion is antecedent. An instinct, therefore, is a priori a rule given to some action, the end of which may therefore be as yet unknown; in order to achieve this goal it is not necessary to have any notion of it. On the contrary, a reasonable or prudent action is performed according to a certain rule, drawn up according to the notion of purpose, and therefore it may turn out to be a mistake, while instinct never errs.
Do we not become arrogant or, on the contrary, humbled at the sight of the poverty of others? On one, it acts in one way, on another, in another way - this also explains the differences in character.
To be an artist or a philosopher requires two qualities: 1) genius, namely the capacity for knowledge beyond the founding law or the capacity for knowledge of ideas, and 2) the capacity to study ideas through the science of reproducing them in a material some (as concepts are for a philosopher). Spinoza possessed the first quality as befits a philosopher - to the greatest degree; however, he lacked the second quality - he did not have, so to speak, a philosophical technique, he did not know how to reproduce in abstracto the essence of the world that he knew intuitively. He was in the nets of Cartesian and scholastic concepts, from which he could not escape.
Philosophers before me dealt with the doctrine of free will; and I speak of the omnipotence of the will.