| 1 |
Postoje samo četiri prihvaćene metode poimanja – što znači, da se suštine stvari shvaćaju pomoću ove četiri metode. |
There are only four accepted methods of comprehension—that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods. |
| 2 |
Prva je metoda ona shvaćanja putem osjetila – tj. sve što oko, uho, okus, miris, dodir opažaju, razumijeva se ovom metodom. Danas ovu metodu najsavršenijom drže europski filozofi: oni kažu da je metoda stjecanja znanja putem osjetila glavna. Drže je glavnom, premda je nesavršena jer griješi. Na primjer, najveća moć među osjetilima jest moć vida. Vid opaža fatamorganu kao vodu i slike koje se odražavaju u zrcalu kao stvarne i postojeće; velika tijela koja su daleko izgledaju malena, a vrtložna točka izgleda kao krug. Vid vjeruje da je zemlja nepokretna, a opaža sunce u pokretu, te u mnogo sličnih slučajeva griješi. Stoga mu ne možemo vjerovati. |
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 sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. 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. |
| 3 |
Druga je metoda – metoda razuma, ona antičkih filozofa, stupova mudrosti, metoda razumijevanja. Oni su dokazivali stvari uz pomoć razuma i čvrsto se držali logičkih dokaza; svi su njihovi argumenti argumenti razuma. Unatoč tome, uvelike su se razlikovali i mišljenja su im bila kotradiktorna. Čak su mijenjali svoje poglede – tj. tijekom dvadeset godina dokazivali bi postojanje neke stvari logičkim argumentima, a poslije bi to pobili logičkim argumentima – toliko da je Platon prvo logički dokazao nepomičnost zemlje i kretanje sunca, a kasnije je logičkim argumentima dokazao da je sunce nepomično središte, a da se zemlja kreće. Nakon toga proširila se ptolomejska teorija, a Platonova je posve zaboravljena dok je napokon neki novi promatrač nije dozvao u život. Tako se i svi matematičari nisu slagali, premda su se oslanjali na argumente razuma. Na isti način, logičkim argumentima, dokazali bi neki problem u određenom trenutku, a poslije bi ga argumentima iste naravi pobili. Tako bi neki od filozofa neko vrijeme čvrsto podržavao neku teoriju čvrstim argumentima i dokazima u njezinu korist, a kasnije bi ih opozvao i protuslovio im argumentima razuma. Stoga je očito da metoda razuma nije savršena jer to dokazuju razlike među antičkim filozofima, nedostatak stabilnosti i varijacije u njihovim mišljenjima. Jer, kad bi bila savršena, svi bi morali biti ujedinjeni u svojim zamislima i slagati se u mišljenjima. |
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 held 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. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. 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. |
| 4 |
Treća je metoda – metoda razumijevanja uz pomoć predaje, tj. uz pomoć teksta Svetih Spisa, jer ljudi kažu: “u Starom i Novom zavjetu, Bog je govorio tako”. Ni ta metoda jednako tako nije savršena, jer se usmena i pismena predaja shvaćaju putem razuma. Budući da je i sam razum podložan pogrešci, kako se može reći da se neće pogriješiti u tumačenju značenja predaje – jer pogriješiti je moguće, a sigurnost se ne može postići. To je metoda religijskih vođa; što god oni razumiju i poimaju iz teksta knjiga jest ono što njihov razum shvaća iz teksta, a nije nužno prava istina; jer razum je kao vaga, dok su značenja koja sadrže Svete knjige poput stvari koja se važe. Ako je vaga netočna, kako se može utvrditi težina? |
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? |
| 5 |
Znajte dakle: ono što je u rukama ljudi, ono u što vjeruju, podložno je grešci. Jer, pri dokazivanju ili opovrgavanju neke stvari, ako se iznese dokaz koji je dobiven putem naših osjetila, ova metoda, kako je postalo posve jasno, nije savršena; ako su dokazi intelektualni, vrijedi to isto; također, ni tradicionalni dokazi nisu savršeni. Stoga, nema standarda u rukama ljudi na koji bismo se mogli osloniti. |
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. |
| 6 |
No milost Svetoga Duha daje ispravnu metodu poimanja, koja je nepogrešiva i nedvojbena. A ona čovjeku dolazi uz pomoć Svetoga Duha i to je stanje u kojem se jedino može dosegnuti sigurnost. |
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. |
