Subtlety

Use in the book

The short rule reverses an expected correspondence: avoid subtlety when treating subtle things and use it for coarse things. A personal defense then makes subtlety sometimes the only way through obstructing opinions and ignorances. The distinction between natural and fabricated subtlety separates a talent for fine apprehension from knavery that swindles questions and makes them disappear. Images offer a further check: even subtle images retain some body in which error may be recognized, whereas bare reasoning can leave no hold for correction. In the later stick-and-light comparison, extreme subtlety is possible in ideas but forbidden in reasoning, which must offer something palpable. This is a distinction between modes of thought, not a general attack on intellectual delicacy.

Places to read

1. I, p. 176, entry 5, ¶1Subtlety must be adjusted to its subject.
2. I, p. 262, entry 1, ¶3It may be the mind’s only available means of penetration.
3. I, p. 353, entry 8, ¶1Natural aptitude is distinguished from fraudulent evasion.
4. I, p. 437, entry 3, ¶9An image retains a body in which error may be detected.
5. II, p. 808, entry 4, ¶1Ideas may be subtle; reasoning must remain palpable.

Translation in this edition

The English translation retains subtlety throughout. The fraud and conjuring images remain stronger than mere intellectual error. The Malebranche criticism preserves source-supplied brackets, the qualification “I believe” and the conditional possibility of finding error. May and must not remain distinct in the final witness.