67: "There are only four accepted methods of comprehension--that is to
say,..."
There are only four accepted methods of comprehension--that is to say, the
realities of things are understood by these four methods.
The first method is by the senses--that is to say, all that the eye, the
ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this
method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the
European philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining
knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is
imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses
is the power of sight.... The sight believes the earth to be motionless
and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes.
Therefore, we cannot trust it.
The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient
philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the
understanding. They proved things by reason and hold firmly to logical
proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this,
they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even
changed their views--that is to say, during twenty years they would prove
the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would
deny it by logical arguments--so much so that Plato at first logically
proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by
logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and
that the earth was moving.... Therefore, it is evident that the method of
reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers,
the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this.
For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed
in their opinions.
The third method of understanding is by tradition--that is, through the
text of the Holy Scriptures--for people say, "In the Old and New
Testaments, God spoke thus." This method equally is not perfect, because
the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is
liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the
traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes,
and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious
leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the
books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not
necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the
meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which
is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?
Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe,
is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is
brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this
method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are
intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs
also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of
people upon which we can rely.
But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension
which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy
Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty
can alone be attained.
("Some Answered Questions", pp. 297-299) [67]