Three letters to Gaston Gallimard

Dear Gaston,

Have you ever wondered why Spinoza's treatise is called The Ethics? In fact, we find not a word of ethics or morality, but simply metaphysical propositions, often as "difficult" as:

by the knowledge that I have of the essence of the soul, I know that it is united to the body

sometimes as baroque as:

Intelligence and will are one and the same thing.

Here, I believe, is the secret: It is that Spinoza only allows himself to be understood, and even read, if one is decided in advance to (oneself) change, to become what he claims that one is, to at least try the experience (which is properly ethical). But he does not say this, he wants — and this is part of the experience — that the reader, if he wants to continue reading, is forced to guess.

I believe that it is the same decision that must be made before starting the Upanisads. We should not, despite appearances, read them as The Iliad, but rather as a treatise by Spinoza or Hegel. Besides, their doctrine is almost the same. (But it is not entirely accurate to call it doctrine. It would be better to say "the transformation of the reader.")
I'll talk to you about it again, if you want.
Affectionately,
J.P.

*
*     *

Dear Gaston,

Why did Spinoza never explain his title? Why did he keep an obviously absurd title for his book?
Try to find the answer. If you find it, you will already be close to understanding the Upanisads.

We can say (a little crudely) that the Europeans (1) began with a religion — Christianity — which they then tried to make coherent, and acceptable, by means of metaphysics: you must, to understand Malebranche, have read the Bible. But the Hindus are quite the opposite: they begin with a very abstract metaphysics and end (or continue) with religions: to understand anything about Buddhism, you must have read this treatise on metaphysics: the Upanisads.

But on this subject: what is metaphysics for you? It is likely that you have never asked yourself the question (any more than me or anyone) and that you read and repeat the word out of habit. If you are wondering about its meaning:

I take the dictionary definition: it is knowledge beyond physics, of universal principles. What does this mean?

Well, it has, in any case, if nothing else, a negative meaning which is clear:

is that metaphysics does not care about what is individual, or personal, or particular. For example, it is absolutely not interested (like science) in the experiments that can be done; nor (like religion) to the feelings and emotions that one can experience; nor even (like the arts and morality, or techniques) to the actions that one can do. She absolutely doesn't care. She even finds it all — observations, experiences, emotions, activity — completely ridiculous. It's not his department. She even finds it dangerous and false (because each feeling or each observation, the more advanced and precise they are, the more particular they become). She would just as much like it not to be there.
See you tomorrow
J.P.

*
*     *

Dear Gaston,

It is not at all necessary, of course, for you to read the Upanisads. Nor is it necessary that by reading them you become interested in them. But if you want to both read them and be interested in them, you should expect two or three things, which I will try to tell you as best I can.

I would add a word to what I told you yesterday: it is that — no more than it can support science or morality, metaphysics cannot support philosophy.
For philosophy asks, for example, whether the world is made of matter or of spirit (or both) — but for the metaphysician there is no reason to distinguish matter from spirit. The philosopher wonders what is the degree of truth of the sciences - but for the metaphysician, all science, once it has chosen a particular object, is radically false. The philosopher wonders, in general, what human knowledge is worth, and what progress it is capable of - but the metaphysician, who refuses to separate man from the world, sees only weakness and absurdity in all "theories of knowledge" (2).
It is a strange condition, you see, that of metaphysics. Of course, she cannot make any progress (since no human research could bring her anything); it could have been discovered, at any time, by anyone (and we are much closer to it, in our moments of boredom, of bad humor, of disgust for everything, of ignorance, than in our moments of application or seriousness.)
Here, I hear you add very clearly: and in our moments of silence only words, explanations (and letters). Yes, for sure. but it's not that simple. I'll tell you about it tomorrow.
Affectionately
John P.

These three letters have not been followed up to our knowledge. Perhaps Gaston asked Paulhan to stop there. They probably date from the second half of the 1930s. We see Jean Paulhan in one of the roles he likes, that of teacher.

---

    1 - The Greeks excepted, who seem to have been the disciples of the Hindus, and more Oriental than European. ↩
    2 - Besides, the best sign that you are a metaphysician is that the philosopher annoys you. ↩