, which see in III:[xi] Note), when it diminishes or
checks our power of action. (2) Therefore, if anything were bad for us
through that quality which it has in common with our nature, it would be
able itself to diminish or check that which it has in common with our
nature, which (III:[iv] ) is absurd. (30:3) Wherefore nothing can be bad
for us through that quality which it has in common with us, but, on the
other hand, in so far as it is bad for us, that is (as we have just shown),
in so far as it can diminish or check our power of action, it is contrary
to our nature. Q.E.D.
Prop. [XXXI] In so far as a thing is in harmony
with nature, it is necessarily good.
Proof.- (31:1) In so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature,
cannot be bad for it. It will therefore necessarily be either good or
indifferent. (2) If it be assumed that it be neither good nor bad,
nothing will follow from its nature ([D.i] ), which tends to the
preservation of our nature, that is (by the hypothesis), which tends
to the preservation of the thing itself; but this (III:[vi] ) is absurd;
therefore, in so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it is
necessarily good. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- (31:3) Hence it follows, that, in proportion as a thing is
in harmony with our nature, so is it more useful or better for us, and
vice versG, in proportion as a thing is more useful for us, so is it
more in harmony with our nature.
Pages:
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270