clearly perceived； and external reality or existence。 “Thereby an end is put to doubt； as if it could
be the case that what appears quite evident to us should not be really true。 We can thus no longer
have any suspicion of mathematical truths。 Likewise if we give heed to what we distinguish by our
senses in waking or in sleeping； clearly and distinctly； it is easy to recognize in each thing what in it
is true。” By saying that what is rightly and clearly thought likewise is； Descartes maintains that man
comes to know by means of thought what in fact is in things； the sources of errors lie on the other
hand in the finitude of our nature。 “It is certain； because of God’s truth； that the faculty of
perceiving and that of assenting through the will； if it extends no further than to that which is clearly
perceived； cannot lead to error。 Even if this cannot be in any way proved； it is by nature so
established in all things； that as often as we clearly perceive anything； we assent to it from
ourselves and can in no wise doubt that it is true。” （23）
All this is set forth very plausibly； but it is still indeterminate； formal； and shallow； we only have the
assertion made to us that this is so。 Descartes’ method is the method of the clear understanding
merely。 Certainty with him takes the first place； from it no content is deduced of necessity； no
content generally； and still less its objectivity as distinguished from the inward subjectivity of the
‘I。’ At one time we have the opposition of subjective knowledge and actuality； and at another
their inseparable union。 In the first case the necessity of mediating them enters in； and the truth of
God is asserted to be this mediating power。 It consists in this； that His Notion contains reality
immediately in itself。 The proof of this unity then rests solely upon the fact of its being said that we
find within us the idea of complete perfection； thus this conception here appears simply as one
found ready to hand。 With this is compared the mere conception of God which contains no
existence within it； and it is found that without existence it would be imperfect。 This unity of God
Himself； of His Idea； with His existence； is undoubtedly the Truth； in this we find the ground for
holding as true what is for us just as certain as the truth of ourselves。 As Descartes proceeds
further we thus find that in reality everything has truth for him only in so far as it is really an object
of thought； a universal。 This truth of God has been； as we shall see； expressed even more clearly
and in a more concise way by a disciple of Descartes； if one may venture to call him so — I mean
Malebranche （who might really be dealt with here）； （24） in his Recherche de la vérité。
The first of the fundamental determinations of the Cartesian metaphysics is from the certainty of
oneself to arrive at the truth； to recognize Being in the Notion of thought。 But because in the
thought “I think；” I am an individual； thought comes before my mind as subjective； Being is hence
not demonstrated in the Notion of thought itself； for what advance has been made is merely in the
direction of separation generally。 In the second place the negative of Being likewise comes before
self…consciousness； and this negative； united with the positive I； is so to speak implicitly united in a
third； in God。 God； who before this was a non…contradictory potentiality； now takes objective
form to self…consciousness； He is all reality in so far as it is positive； i。e。； as it is Being； unity of
thought and Being； the highest perfection of existence； it is just in the negative； in the Notion of this；
in its being an object of thought； that Being is contained。 An objection to this identity is now old —
Kant urged it likewise — that from the Notion of the most perfect existence more does not follow
than that in thought existence here and now and the most perfect essence are conjoined； but not
outside of thought。 But the very Notion of present existence is this negative of self…consciousness；
not out of thought； — but the thought of the ‘out of thought。’
2。 Descartes accepts Being in the entirely positive sense； and has not the conception of its being
the negative of self…consciousness： but simple Being； set forth as the negative of
self…consciousness； is extension。 Descartes thus separates extension from God； remains constant
to this separation； unites the universe； matter； with God in such a way as to make Him its creator
and first cause： and he has the true perception that conservation is a continuous creation； in so far
as creation as activity is asserted to be separated。 Descartes does not； however； trace extension in
a true method back to thought； matter； extended substances； stand over against the thinking
substances which are simple； in as far as the universe is created by God； it could not be as perfect
as its cause。 As a matter of fact the effect is less perfect than the cause； since it is that which is
posited； if we are to remain at the conception of cause pertaining to the understanding。 Hence
according to Descartes extension is the less perfect。 But as imperfect the extended substances
cannot exist and subsist through themselves or their Notion； they thus require every moment the
assistance of God for their maintenance； and without this they would in a moment sink back into
nothing。 Preservation is； however； unceasing re…production。 （25）
Descartes now proceeds to further particulars； and expresses himself as follows： “We consider
what comes under consciousness either as things or their qualities； or as eternal truths which have
no existence outside our thought〃 — which do not belong to this or that time； to this or that place。
He calls these last something inborn within us； something not made by us or merely felt； （26） but
the eternal Notion of mind itself and the eternal determinations of its freedom； of itself as itself。
From this point the conception that ideas are inborn （innat？ ide？） hence proceeds； this is the
question over which Locke and Leibnitz dispute。 The expression “eternal truths” is current even
in these modern times； and it signifies the universal determinations and relations which exist entirely
on their own account。 The word ‘Inborn’ is however a clumsy and stupid expression； because
the conception of physical birth thereby indicated； does not apply to mind。 To Descartes inborn
ideas are not universal； as they are to Plato and his successors； but that which has evidence；
immediate certainty； an immediate multiplicity founded in thought itself — manifold conceptions in
the form of a Being； resembling what Cicero calls natural feelings implanted in the heart。 We would
rather say that such is implied in the nature and essence of our mind and spirit。 Mind is active and
conducts itself in its activity in a determinate manner； but this activity has no other ground than its
freedom。 Yet if this is the case more is required than merely to say so； it must be deduced as a
necessary product of our mind。 We have such ideas； for instance； in the logical laws： “From
nothing comes nothing；” “A thing cannot both be and not be；” （27） as also in moral principles。
These are facts of consciousness which Descartes however soon passes from again； they are only
present in thought as subjective； and he has thus not yet inquired respecting their content。
As regards things； on which Descartes now directs his attention； the other side to these eternal
verities； the universal determinations of things are substance； permanence； order； &c。 （28） He then
gives definitions of these thoughts； just as Aristotle draws up a list of the categories。 But although
Descartes laid it down formerly as essential that no hypotheses must be made； yet now he takes
the conceptions； and passes on to them as something found within our consciousness。 He defines
substance thus： “By substance I understand none other than a thing （rem） which requires no other
something for existence； and there is only one thing； namely God； which can be regarded as such a
substance requiring no other thing。” This is what Spinoza says； we may say that it is likewise the
true definition； the unity of Notion and reality： “All other” （things） “can only exist by means of a
concurrence （concursus） of God；” what we still call substance outside of God thus does not exist
for itself； does not have its existence in the Notion itself。 That is then called the system of
assistance （systema assistenti？） which is； however； transcendental。 God is the absolute uniter of
Notion and actuality； other things； finite things which have a limit and； stand in dependence； require
something else。 “Hence if we likewise call other things substances； this expression is not applicable
both to them and to God univoce； as is said in the schools； that is to say no definite significance
can be given to this word which would equally apply both to God and to the creatures。” （29）
“But I do not recognize more than two sorts of things； the one is that of thinking things； and the
other that of things which relate to what is extended。” Thought； the Notion； the spiritual； the
self…conscious； is what is at home with i