phenomenology of mind-第22章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


〃mean〃　an　individual　I；　but　just　something　as　little　as　I　am　able　to　say　what　I　〃mean〃　by　Now；
Here；　so　it　is　impossible　in　the　case　of　the　I　too。　By　saying　〃this　Here〃；　〃this　Now〃；　〃an　individual
thing〃；　I　say　all　Thises；　Heres；　Nows；　or　Individuals。　In　the　same　way　when　I　say　〃I〃；　〃this
individual　I〃；　I　say　quite　generally　〃all　I's〃；　every　one　is　〃I〃；　this　individual　I。　When　philosophy
is。requested；　by　way　of　putting　it　to　a　crucial　test　—　a　test　which　it　could　not　possibly　sustain　—　to
〃deduce〃；　to　〃construe〃；　〃to　find　a　priori〃；　or　however　it　is　put；　a　so…called　this　thing；　or　this
particular　man；（4）　it　is　reasonable　that　the　person　making　this　demand　should　say　what　〃this
thing〃；　or　what　〃this　I〃；　he　means：　but　to　say　this　is　quite　impossible。

Sense…certainty　discovers　by　experience；　therefore；　that　its　essential　nature　lies　neither　in　the
object　nor　in　the　I；　and　that　the　immediacy　peculiar　to　it　is　neither　an　immediacy　of　the　one　nor　of
the　other。　For；　in　the　case　of　both；　what　I　〃mean〃　is　rather　something　non…essential；　and　the　object
and　the　I　are　universals；　in　which　that　Now　and　Here　and　I；　which　I　〃mean〃；　do　not　hold　out；　do
not　exist。　We　arrive　in　this　way　at　the　result；　that　we　have　to　put　the　whole；　of　sense…certainty　as
its　essential　reality；　and　no　longer　merely　one　of　its　moments；　as　happened　in　both　cases；　where
first　the　object　as　against　the　I；　and　then　the　I；　was　to　be　its　true　reality。　Thus　it　is　only　the　whole
sensecertainty　itself　which　persists　therein　as　immediacy；　and　in　consequence　excludes　from　itself
all　the　opposition　which　in　the　foregoing　had　a　place　there。

This　pure　immediacy；　then；　has　nothing　more　to　do　with　the　fact　of　otherness；　with　Here　in　the
form　of　a　tree　passing　into　a　Here　that　is　not　a　tree；　with　Now　in　the　sense　of　day…time　changing
into　a　Now　that　is　night…time；　or　with　there　being　an　other　I　to　which　something　else　is　object。　Its
truth　stands　fast　as　a　self…identical　relation　making　no　distinction　of　essential　and　non…essential；
between　I　and　object；　and　into　which；　therefore；　in　general；　no　distinction　can　find　its　way。　I；　this
I；　assert；　then；　the　Here　as　tree；　and　do　not　turn　round　so　that　for　me　Here　might　become　not　a
tree；　and　I　take　no　notice　of　the　fact　that　another　I　finds　the　Here　as　not…tree；　or　that　I　myself　at
some　other　time　take　the　Here　as　not…tree；　the　Now　as　not…day。　I　am　directly　conscious；　I　intuit
and　nothing　more；　I　am　pure　intuition；　I　am…seeing；　looking。　For　myself　I　stand　by　the　fact；　the
Now　is　day…time；　or；　again；　by　the　fact　the　Here　is　tree；　and；　again；　do　not　compare　Here　and
Now　themselves　with　one　another；　I　take　my　stand　on　one　immediate　relation：　the　Now　is　day。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2。　The　Subject　of　Sense　Certainty

Since；　then；　this　certainty　wholly　refuses　to　come　out　if　we　direct　its　attention　to　a　Now　that　is　night
or　an　I　to　whom　it　is　night；　we　will　go　to　it　and　let　ourselves　point　out　the　Now　that　is　asserted。　We
must　let　ourselves　point　it　out　for　the　truth　of　this　immediate　relation　is　the　truth　of　this　ego　which
restricts　itself　to　a　Now　or　a　Here。　Were　we　to　examine　this　truth　afterwards；　or　stand　at　a
distance　from　it；。　it　would　have　no　meaning　at　all；　for　that　would　do　away　with　the　immediacy；
which　is　of　its　essence。　We　have　therefore　to　enter　the　same　point　of　time　or　of　space；　indicate
them；　point　them　out　to　ourselves；　i。e。　we　must　let　ourselves　take　the　place　of　the　very　same　I；　the
very　same　This；　which　is　the　subject　knowing　with　certainty。　Let　us；　then；　see　how　that　immediate
is　constituted；　which　is　shown　to　us。

The　Now　is　pointed　out；　this　Now。　〃Now〃；　it　has　already　ceased　to　be　when　it　is　pointed　out。　The
Now　that　is；　is　other　than　the　one　indicated；　and　we　see　that　the　Now　is　just　this　—　to　be　no　longer
the　very　time　when　it　is。　The　Now　as　it　is　shown　to　us　is　one　that　has　been；　and　that　is　its　truth；　it
does　not　have　the　truth　of　being；　of　something　that　is。　No　doubt　this　is　true；　that　it　has　been；　but
what　has　been　is　in　point　of　fact　not　genuinely　real；　it　is　not；　and　the　point　in　question　concerned
what　is；　concerned　being。

In　thus　pointing　out　the　Now　we　see　then　merely　a　process　which　takes　the　following　course：　First
I　point　out　the　Now；　and　it　is　asserted　to　be　the　truth。　I　point　it　out；　however；　as　something　that
has　been；　or　as　something　cancelled　and　done　away　with。　I　thus　annul　and　pass　beyond　that　first
truth　and　in　the　second　place　I　now　assert　as　the　second　truth　that　it　has　been；　that　it　is
superseded。　But；　thirdly；　what　has　been　is　not；　I　then　supersede；　cancel；　its　having　been；　the　fact
of　its　being　annulled；　the　second　truth；　negate　thereby　the　negation　of　the　Now　and　return　in　so
doing　to　the　first　position：　that　Now　is。　The　Now　and　pointing　out　the　Now　are　thus　so　constituted
that　neither　the　one　nor　the　other　is　an　immediate　simple　fact；　but　a　process　with　diverse　moments
in　it。　A　This　is　set　up；　it　is；　however；　rather　an　other　that　is　set　up；　the　This　is　superseded：　and　this
otherness；　this　cancelling　of　the　former；　is　itself　again　annulled；　and　so　turned　back　to　the　first。　But
this　first；　reflected　thus　into　itself；　is　not　exactly　the　same　as　it　was　to　begin　with；　namely　something
immediate：　rather　it　is　a　something　reflected　into…self；　a　simple　entity　which　remains　in　its　otherness；
what　it　is：　a　Now　which　is　any　number　of　Nows。　And　that　is　the　Genuinely　true　Now；　the　Now　is
simple　day…time　which　has　many　Nows　within　it　—　hours。　A　Now　of　that　sort；　again　—　an　hour　—
is　similarly　many　minutes；　and　this　Now　—　a　minute　—　in　the　same　way　many　Nows　and　so　on。
Showing；　indicating；　pointing　out　＇the　Now＇　is　thus　itself　the　very　process　which　expresses　what
the　Now　in　truth　really　is：　namely　a　result；　or　a　plurality　of　Nows　all　taken　together。　And　the
pointing；　out　is　the　way　of　getting　to　know；　of　experiencing；　that　Now　is　a　universal。

The　Here　pointed　out；　which　I　keep　hold　of；　is　likewise　a　this　Here　which；　in　fact；　is　not　this
Here；　but　a　Before　and　Behind；　an　Above　and　Below；　a　Right　and　Left。　The　Above　is　itself
likewise　this　manifold　otherness　—　above；　below；　etc。　The　Here；　which　was　to　be　pointed　out；
disappears　in　other　Heres；　and　these　disappear　similarly。　What　is　pointed　out；　held　fast；　and　is
permanents　a　negative　This；　which　only　is　so　when　the　Heres　are　taken　as　they　should　be；　but
therein　cancel　one　another；　it　is　a　simple　complex　of　many　Heres。　The　Here　that　is　〃meant〃　would
be　the　point。　But　it　is　not：　rather；　when　it　is　pointed　out　as　being；　as　having　existence；　that　very　act
of　pointing　out　proves　to　be　not　immediate　knowledge；　but　a　process；　a　movement　from　the　Here
〃meant〃　through　a　plurality　of　Heres　to　the　universal　Here；　which　is　a　simple　plurality　of　Heres；　just
as　day　is　a　simple　plurality　of　Nows。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3。　The　Concrete　Experience　of　Sense　Certainty

It　is　clear　from　all　this　that　the　dialectic　process　involved　in　sense…certainty　is　nothing　else　than　the
mere　history　of　its　process…of　its　experience；　and　sense…certainty　itself　is　nothing　else　than　simply
this　history。　The　na？ve　consciousness；　too；　for　that　reason；　is　of　itself　always　coming　to　this　result；
which　is　the　real　truth　in　this　case；　and　is　always　having　experience　of　it：　but　is　always　forgetting　it
again　and　beginning　the　process　all　over。　It　is　therefore　astonishing　when；　in　defiance　of　this
experience；　it　is　announced　as　〃universal　experience〃　—　nay；　even　as　a　philosophical　doctrine；　the
outcome；　in　fact；　of　scepticism　—　that　the　reality　or　being　of　external　things　in　the　sense　of　〃Thises〃；
particular　sense　objects；　has　absolute　validity　and　truth　for　consciousness。　One　who　makes　such
an　assertion　really　does　not　know　what　he　is　saying；　does　not　know　that　he　is　stating　the　opposite
of　what　he　wants　to　say。　The　truth　for　consciousness　of　a　〃This〃　of　sense　is　said　to　be　universal
experience；　but　the　very　opposite　is　universal　experience。　Every　consciousness　of　itself　cancels
again；　as　soon　as　made；　such　a　truth　as　e。g。　the　Here　is　a　tree；　or　the　Now　is　noon；　and　expresses
the　very　opposite：　the　Here　is　not　a　tree　but　a　house。　And　similarly　it　straightway　cancels　again　the
assertion　which　here　annuls　the　first；　and　which　is　also　just　such　an　assertion　of　a　sensuous　This。
And　in　all　sense…certainty　what　we　find　by　experience　is　in　truth　merely；　as　we　have　seen；　that
〃This〃　is　a　universal；　the　very　opposite　of　what　that　assertion　maintained　to　be　universal
experience。

We　may　be　permitted　here；　in　this　appeal　to　universal　experience；　to　anticipate（5）　with　a　reference
to　the　practical　sphere。　In　this　connection　we　may　answer　those　who　thus　insist　on　the　truth　and
certainty　of　the　reality　of　objects　of　sense；　by　saying　that　they　had　better　be　sent　back　to　the　most
elementary　school　of　wisdom；　the　ancient　Eleusinian　mysteries　of　Ceres　and　Bacchus；　they　have
not　yet　learnt　the　inner　secret　of　the　eating　of　bread　and　the　drinking　of　wine。　For　one　who　is
initiated　into　these　mysteries　not　only　comes　to　doubt　the　being　of　things　of　sense；　but　gets　into　a
state　of　despair　about　it　altogether；　and　in　dealing　with　them　he　partly　himself　brings　about　the
nothingness　of　those　things；　partly　he　sees　these　bring　about　their　own　nothingness。　Even　animals
are　not　shut　off　from　this　wisdom；　but　show　they　are　deeply　initiated　into　it。　For　they　do　not　stand
stock　still　before　things　of　sense　as　if　these　were　things　per　se；　with　being　in　themselves：　they
despair　of　this　reality　altogether；　and　in　complete　assurance　of　the　nothingness　of　things　they　fall…to
without　more　ado　and　eat　them　up。　And　all　nature　proclaims；　as　animals　do；　these　open　secrets；
these　mysteries　revealed　to　all；　which　teach　what　the　truth　of　things　of　sense　is。

Those　who　put　forward　such　assertions　really　themselves　say；　if　we　bear　in　mind　what　we
remarked　before；　the　direct　opposite　of　what　they　mean：　a　fact　which　is　perhaps　best　able　to　bring
them　to　reflect　on　the　nature　of　the　certainty　of　sense…experience。　They　speak　of　the　〃existence〃　of
external　objects；　which　can　be　more　precisely　characterized　as　actual；　absolutely　particular；　wholly
personal；　individual　things；　each　of　them　not　like　anything　or　anyone　else；　this　is　the　existence
which　they　say　has　absolute　certainty　and　truty。　They　〃mean〃　this　bit　of　paper　I　am　writing　on；　or
rather　have　written　on：　but　they　do　not　say　what　they　〃mean〃。　If　they　really　wanted　to　say　this　bit
of　paper　which　they　〃mean〃；　and　they　wanted　to　say　so；　that　is　impossible；　because　the　This　of
sense；　which　is　〃meant〃；　cannot　be　reached　by　language；　which　belongs　to　consciousness；　i。e。　to
what　is　inherently　universal。　In　the　very　attempt　to　say　it；　it　would；　therefore；　crumble　in　their
hands；　those　who　have　begun　to　describe　it　would　not　be　able　to　finish　doing　so：　they　would　have
to　hand　it　over　to　others；　who　would　themselves　in　the　last　resort　have　to　confess　to　speaking
about　a　thing　that　has　no　being。　They　mean；　then；　doubtless　this　bit　of　paper　here；　which　is　quite
different　from　that　bit　over　there；　but　they　speak　of　actual　things；　external　or　sensible　objects；
absolutely　individual；　real；　and　so　on；　that　is；　they　say　about　them　what　is　simply　universal。
Consequently　what　is　called　unspeakab