196、古时，那些信赖感官事物超过启示之物的人就被称为“蛇”。如今的情形更糟糕，因为现在有些人不仅不相信他们无法看见和感觉到的一切，还以古人所不知的知识来证实这种不相信，从而造成更大的盲目。为叫人们知道那些基于感官事物、记忆知识和哲学而得出关于天上事物的结论之人如何使自己变得盲目，以至于后来什么都看不见，什么都听不见，不仅是圣言中提到的“聋蛇”，还是更为有害的“飞蛇”，我们举一个他们不相信灵的例子。
感官人，或只相信感官证据的人否认灵的存在，因为他看不见灵，说：“它什么都不是，因为我感觉不到；我看得见，摸得着的东西，我知道是存在的。”记忆知识的人，或出于记忆知识得出结论的人则说：“灵是什么？不就是气息或生命之热，或别的我所不知道的东西，很快会消失于稀薄的空气中吗？动物不也有一个躯体，感官和类似于理性的东西吗？然而，有人却断言，动物注定死亡，而人的灵则会活着。”他们就这样否认灵的存在。
比其他人更敏锐的哲学家们则以连他们自己都不明白的专业术语来谈论灵，因为他们争论这些术语，声称源于物质材料、有机物质或空间的词，一个都不适用于灵。他们以这种方式把灵从他们的观念中剔除，以致它从他们的意识中消失，变成虚无。而他们当中相对理智的人则声称，灵是思维；但当他们推理思维时，由于将思维与一切实体分离，所以他们最终得出这样的结论：当肉体断气时，它就会消失。凡出于感官事物，记忆知识和哲学进行推理的人，都以这种方式否认灵的存在，并因此不相信论及灵和属灵事物的任何话。心思单纯的人则不是这样，如果有人问他们灵是否存在，他们就会说，他们知道灵是存在的，因为主说，他们死后会活着。因此，他们没有扼杀自己的理性，而是通过主的圣言培育了它。
New Century Edition
Cooper(2008,2013)
[NCE]196. In ancient times, people who put more trust in what they learned through their senses than in what had been revealed were called snakes. The situation now is even worse, since some people not only believe nothing except what they can see and touch but also use facts unknown to the ancients to confirm their point of view. The result is that they blind themselves far more profoundly.
People who judge heavenly matters on the basis of the senses, book learning, or philosophical reasoning blind themselves so badly that they no longer see or hear anything at all. They become not just deaf snakes but the much more deadly flying snakes the Word also mentions [Isaiah 14:29; 30:6]. To see how they do this to themselves, take their beliefs about spirit as an illustration.
[2] Sense-oriented people, or those who believe only what their senses tell them, deny that spirit exists because they cannot see it. "It isn't anything," they say, "because I can't sense it. If I can see or touch something, then I know it exists."
Scholars, or people who depend on written knowledge for their conclusions, say, "What is spirit but a puff of air, maybe, or body heat?" — or something else within the scope of their learning. "And when it's snuffed out, the spirit vanishes. Don't animals also have a body, physical senses, and something like reason? Yet people say animals are destined to die, while the human spirit is destined to live on."{*1} So they deny that spirit exists.
[3] Philosophers, who claim to be keener of intellect than anyone else, speak of spirit in technical terms. These terms they do not even understand themselves, since they debate them, claiming that not a single word that derives from [notions of] matter, organic substance, or extension in space can be applied [to the human spirit]. So they bury the idea in speculation until it disappears from their sight and turns into nothing.
The saner ones admit that thought exists; but when they argue about thought, they eventually come to the conclusion that it will dissolve when the body dies, because they separate it from any kind of substance.{*2} Everyone, then, who analyzes the question on the basis of the senses, written knowledge, or philosophy denies that spirit exists. And when they deny its existence, they believe absolutely nothing that is said about spirit or spiritual things. If you ask the simple at heart, on the other hand, they say that they know it exists because the Lord said they would live on after death. They do not snuff out their rational capacity; instead they make it a living thing by means of the Lord's Word.
Footnotes:
{*1} Philosophers and scientists of the Enlightenment period were especially intrigued with the question of the difference between animals and humans. Some thinkers averred that animals did not have souls; others were just as confident that they did. Some saw the distinguishing feature of humanity as the possession of the reasoning soul (compare Swedenborg's view in Heaven and Hell 39), and others, like the putative speaker here, argued that if animals did not have souls, humans could not possess them either — since a human being is only a special form of animal. For a fuller discussion and refutation of this argument, see Secrets of Heaven 4760:2, 5114:5. For further resources and discussion of the general topic of the animal during the Enlightenment, see Swedenborg [1771] 2006, 688 note 1 in 46. [JSR, SS]
{*2} Swedenborg is here reflecting on a philosophical debate that generated much controversy in his own day and continues down to the present: Does mind, or consciousness, precede physical existence, or is it an epiphenomenon, that is, a side-effect, of matter? The "sense-oriented people" here are those who give no credence to anything but sensory experience, believing that only the experience of the senses gives rise to consciousness. In his later work Soul-Body Interaction (published in 1769), Swedenborg characterizes this as the view of the disciples of Aristotle (384-322 b.c.e.) — that is, the adherents of Scholastic philosophy. The followers of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) adhere to a notion of "preestablished harmony," where the soul and body operate in parallel without any physical interaction. These could be the philosophers Swedenborg has in mind here who "separate [thought] from any kind of substance." (Swedenborg considers spiritual "substance" a necessary medium for thought. See, for instance, 444. Concerning spiritual substance, see note 2 in 272.) In the summary in Soul-Body Interaction 19, the followers of René Descartes (1596-1650) seem closest to Swedenborg's own view, insofar as they hold to the doctrine of "spiritual influx," granting primacy to the unseen realities rather than to those we can see and touch. In fact, Descartes's view of this issue was considerably more complex than the summary in Soul-Body Interaction suggests. Descartes felt the need to assert the essential independence of soul and body — that is, of mind and brain — while acknowledging their interdependence in numerous capacities, and, moreover, insisting that the soul could survive the body after death. In his mature philosophy, he posited the substantial union of mind and body, while granting that certain mental functions were independent of the brain (Gaukroger 1995, 388-394). In the early modern era, as in ours, a tremendous amount of literature was written on the mind-body issue, though no theory then or now has won universal approval. [RS]
Potts(1905-1910) 196
196. In ancient times those were called "serpents" who had more confidence in sensuous things than in revealed ones. But it is still worse at the present day, for now there are persons who not only disbelieve everything they cannot see and feel, but who also confirm themselves in such incredulity by knowledges [scientifica] unknown to the ancients, and thus occasion in themselves a far greater degree of blindness. In order that it may be known how those blind themselves, so as afterwards to see and hear nothing, who form their conclusions concerning heavenly matters from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, and who are not only "deaf serpents" but also the "flying serpents" frequently spoken of in the Word, which are much more pernicious, we will take as an example what they believe about the spirit. [2] The sensuous man, or he who only believes on the evidence of his senses, denies the existence of the spirit because he cannot see it, saying, "It is nothing because I do not feel it: that which I see and touch I know exists." The man of memory-knowledge [scientificus], or he who forms his conclusions from memory-knowledges [scientiae], says, What is the spirit, except perhaps vapor or heat, or some other entity of his science, that presently vanishes into thin air? Have not the animals also a body, senses, and something analogous to reason? and yet it is asserted that these will die, while the spirit of man will live. Thus they deny the existence of the spirit. [3] Philosophers also, who would be more acute than the rest of mankind, speak of the spirit in terms which they themselves do not understand, for they dispute about them, contending that not a single expression is applicable to the spirit which derives anything from what is material, organic, or extended; thus they so abstract it from their ideas that it vanishes from them, and becomes nothing. The more sane however assert that the spirit is thought; but in their reasonings about thought, in consequence of separating from it all substantiality, they at last conclude that it must vanish away when the body expires. Thus all who reason from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, deny the existence of the spirit, and therefore believe nothing of what is said about the spirit and spiritual things. Not so the simple in heart: if these are questioned about the existence of spirit, they say they know it exists, because the Lord has said that they will live after death; thus instead of extinguishing their rational, they vivify it by the Word of the Lord.
Elliott(1983-1999) 196
196. In ancient times people who relied on sensory evidence rather than matters of revelation were called serpents. Nowadays the position is even worse, for not only are there people who believe nothing unless they can see it with their eyes and apprehend it with their senses, there are also those who confirm themselves in that attitude by means of facts unknown to the most ancient people, and who in so doing blind themselves very much more. To make known how people who draw conclusions about heavenly things on the basis of sensory evidence, facts, and philosophical arguments, so blind themselves that they subsequently see and hear absolutely nothing, and who are not only the deaf serpents but also the far more deadly flying serpents, mentioned in the Word as well, let their belief concerning the spirit serve as an example.
[2] Anybody who is sensory-minded, that is, whose belief is rooted solely in the senses, denies the existence of the spirit because he does not see it. He says, 'Because I do not feel it, it is nothing; what I see and touch, I know to exist'. Anybody who is factually-minded, that is, who bases his conclusions on factual knowledge, says, 'What is the spirit but perhaps breath, or vital heat, or something else known to me, which is dissipated when it comes to an end? Do not animals as well have a body, and senses, and something analogous to reason? Yet people say that animals are destined to die but man's spirit to live.' In this way they deny the existence of the spirit. Philosophers, men wishing to be more incisive than everybody else, speak of the spirit in terms which they themselves are not clear about since they argue about them. They contend that not a single expression is applicable which in any way derives from what is material, organic, or spatial. In this way they dismiss the spirit from their ideas, and as a result it passes from their notice and becomes nothing at all.
[3] Those among them however who are more sensible say that the spirit is thought, but when they begin to reason about thought they at length conclude, since they separate thought from substance, that it will disappear when the body breathes its last. In this way everyone who reasons on the basis of sensory evidence, facts, and philosophical arguments denies the existence of the spirit, and in denying its existence never believes anything that is said about the spirit or about spiritual things. But if indeed the simple in heart are questioned they say that they know that the spirit exists because the Lord has said that they will live after death. Instead of smothering their rationality they nurture it by means of the Word of the Lord.
Latin(1748-1756) 196
196. Antiquitus dicti serpentes qui fiderunt sensualibus plus quam revelatis; hodie adhuc pejus, sunt enim non solum qui nihil credunt nisi videant et sentiant, sed etiam qui se confirmant per scientifica antiquissimis ignota, ac ita se multo magis occaecant: ut sciatur quomodo ii qui ex sensualibus, scientificis et philosophicis concludunt de caelestibus, se occaecant ut dein nihil prorsus videant et audiant sintque non solum serpentes surdi, sed etiam serpentes volantes, qui multo perniciosiores, de quibus etiam in Verbo; sit in exemplum quid credant de spiritu: [2] qui sensualis est seu sensibus modo credit, is negat dari spiritum, quia eum non videt, dicens nihil esse 'quia non sentio; quod video et tango, hoc scio quod sit.' Qui scientificus est seu ex scientiis concludit, is dicit, 'Quid spiritus, nisi forte halitus vel calor vel aliud quidpiam quod scientiae ejus est, quo extincto evanescit? annon animalia quoque habent corpus, sensus, analogon rationis? et illa dicunt moritura, et hominis spiritum victurum: ita negant dari spiritum. Philosophi, qui ceteris acutiores volunt esse, de spiritu per terminos loquuntur quos ipsi non sciunt, quia de iis litigant; contendentes non applicabilem esse unicam vocem quae aliquid ex materiali, organico aut extenso trahit; ita subducunt eum suis ideis, sic ut iis evanescat fiatque nihil. [3] Saniores autem usque dicant esse cogitationem; sed cum de cogitatione ratiocinantur, tandem, quia separant illam a substantiali, concludant, quod evanitura sit cum corpus exspirat. Ita omnes qui ex sensualibus, scientificis et philosophicis ratiocinantur, negant quod sit spiritus, et cum negant quod sit, nihil usquam credunt, quid de spiritu et de spiritualibus dicitur. At vero, si interrogantur simplices corde, dicunt ii quod sciant dari, quia Dominus dixit se victuros post mortem; ii non exstinguunt suum rationale sed vivere faciunt per Verbum Domini.