phenomenology of mind-第52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！


which　is　in　principle　the　same　as　what　psychology　sought　to　find　outside　him。　Opposition　thus
breaks　out　in　his　own　self；　it　has　this　twofold　nature；　it　is　a　process　or　movement　of　consciousness；
and　it　is　the　fixed　being　of　a　reality　with　a　phenomenal　character；　a　reality　which　in　it　is　directly　its
own。　This　being；　the　〃body〃　of　the　determinate　individuality；　is　its　original　source；　that　in　the　making
of　which　it　has　had　nothing　to　do。　But　since　the　individual　at　the　same　time　merely　is　what　he　has
done；　his　body　is　also　an　〃expression〃　of　himself　which　he　has　brought　about；　a　sign　and　indication
as　well；　which　has　not　remained　a　bare　immediate　fact；　but　through　which　the　individual　only
makes　known　what　is　actually　implied　by　his　setting　his　original　nature　to　work。

If　we　consider　the　moments　we　have　here　in　relation　to　the　view　previously　indicated；　we　find　a
general　human　shape　and　form；　or　at　least　the　general　character　of　a　climate；　of　a　portion　of　the
world；　of　a　people；　just　as　formerly　we　found　in　the　same　way　general　customs　and　culture。　In
addition　the　particular　circumstances　and　situation　are　within　the　universal　reality；　here　this
particular　reality　is　a　particular　formation　of　the　shape　of　the　individual。　On　the　other　side；　whereas
formerly　we　were　dealing　with　the　free　activity　of　the　individual；　and　reality　in　the　sense　of　his　own
reality　was　put　in　contrast　and　opposition　to　reality　as　given；　here　the　shape　assumed　by　the
individual　stands　as　an　expression　of　his　own　actualization　established　by　the　individual　himself；　it
bears　the　lineaments　and　forms　of　his　spontaneously　active　being。　But　the　reality；　both　universal　as
well　as　particular；　which　observation　formerly　found　outside　the　individual；　is　here　the　actual　reality
of　the　individual；　his　connate　body；　and　within　this　very　body　the　expression　due　to　his　own　action
appears。　From　the　psychological　point　of　view　objective　reality　in　and　for　itself　and　determinate
individuality　had　to　be　brought　into　relation　to　one　another；　here；　however；　it　is　the　whole
determinate　individuality　that　is　the　object　for　observation；　and　each　aspect　of　the　opposition　it
entails　is　itself　this　whole。　Thus；　to　the　outer　whole　belongs　not　merely　the　original　primordial　being；
the　connate　body；　but　the　formation　of　the　body　as　well；　which　is　due　to　activity　from　the　inner
side；　the　body　is　a　unity　of　unformed　and　formed　existence；　and　is　the　reality　of　the　individual
permeated　by　his　reference　to　self。　This　whole　embraces　the　definite　parts　fixed　originally　and　from
the　first；　and　also　the　lineaments　which　arise　only　as　the　result　of　action；　this　whole　so　formed　is；
and　this　being　is　an　expression　of　what　is　inner；　of　the　individual　constituted　as　a　consciousness　and
as　a　process。

This　inner　is；　too；　no　longer　formal；　spontaneous　activity　without　any　content　or　determinateness　of
its　own；　an　activity　With　its　content　and　specific　nature；　as　in　the　former　case；　lying　in　external
circumstances；　it　is　an　original　inherently　determinate　Character；　whose　form　alone　is　the　activity。
What；　then；　we　have　to　consider　here　is　the　relation　subsisting　between　the　two　sides；　the　point　to
observe　is　how　this　relation　is　determined；　and　what　is　to　be　understood　by　the　inner　finding
expression　in　the　outer。

This　outer；　in　the　first　place；　does　not　act　as　an　organ　making　the　inner　visible；　or；　in　general　terms；
a　being　for　another；　for　the　inner；　so　far　as　it　is　in　the　organ；　is　the　activity　itself。　The　mouth　that
speaks；　the　hand　that　works；　with　the　legs　too；　if　we　care　to　add　them；　are　the　operative　organs
effecting　the　actual　realization；　and　they　contain　the　action　qua　action；　or　the　inner　as　such；　the
externality；　however；　which　the　inner　obtains　by　their　means　is　the　deed；　the　act；　in　the　sense　of　a
reality　separated　and　cut　off　from　the　individual。　Language　and　labour　are　outer　expressions　in
which　the　individual　no　longer　retains　possession　of　himself　per　se；　but　lets　the　inner　get　right
outside　him；　and　surrenders　it　to　something　else。　For　that　reason　we　might　just　as　truly　say　that
these　outer　expressions　express　the　inner　too　much　as　that　they　do　so　too　little：　too　much　—
because　the　inner　itself　breaks　out　in　them；　and　there　remains　no　opposition　between　them　and　it；
they　not　merely　give　an　expression　of　the　inner；　they　give　the　inner　itself　directly　and　immediately：
too　little　—　because　in　speech　and　action　the　inner　turns　itself　into　something　else；　into　an　other；
and　thereby　puts　itself　at　the　mercy　of　the　element　of　change；　which　transforms　the　spoken　word
and　the　accomplished　act；　and　makes　something　else　out　of　them　than　they　are　in　and　for
themselves　as　actions　of　a　particular　determinate　individual。　Not　only　do　the　products　of　actions；
owing　to　this　externality；　lose　by　the　influence　of　others　the　character　of　being　something　constant
vis…a…vis　other　individualities；　but　by　their　assuming　towards　the　inner　which　they　contain；　the
attitude　of　something　external；　separate；　independent；　and　indifferent；　they　can；　through　the
individual　himself；　be　qua　inner　something　other　than　they　seem。　Either　the　individual　intentionally
makes　them　in　appearance　something　else　than　they　are　in　truth；　or　he　is　too　incompetent　to　give
himself　the　outer　aspect　be　really　wanted；　and　to　give　them　such　fixity　and　permanence　that　the
product　of　his　action　cannot　become　misrepresented　by　others。　The　action；　then；　in　the　form　of　a
completed　product　has　the　double　and　opposite　significance　of　being　either　the　inner　individuality
and　not　its　expression；　or；　qua　external；　a　reality　detached　from　the　inner；　a　reality　which　is
something　quite　different　from　the　inner。　On　account　of　this　ambiguity；　we　must　look　about　for　the
inner　as　it　still　is　within　the　individual　himself；　but　in　a　visible　or　external　form。　In　the　organ；
however；　it　exists　merely　as　immediate　activity　as　such；　which　attains　its　externalization　in　the　act　or
deed；　that　either　does　or　again　does　not　represent　the　inner。　The　organ；　in　the　light　of　this
opposition；　thus　does　not　afford　the　expression　which　is　sought。

If　now　the　external　shape　and　form　were　able　to　express　the　inner　individuality　only　in　so　far　as
that　shape　is　neither　an　organ　nor　action；　hence　only　in　so　far　as　it　is　an　inert　passive　whole；　it
would　then　play　the　r？le　of　a　subsistent　thing；　which　received　undisturbed　the　inner　as　an　alien
element　into　its　own　passive　being；　and　thereby　became　the　sign　and　symbol　of　it　—　an　external
contingent　expression；　whose　actual　concrete　aspect　has　no　meaning　of　its　own　—　a　language
whose　sounds　and　tone…combinations　are　not　the　real　fact　itself；　but　are　capriciously　connected
with　it　and　a　mere　accident　so　far　as　it　is　concerned。

Such　a　capricious　association　of　factors　that　are　external　for　one　another　does　not　give　a　law。
Physiognomy；　however；　would　claim　distinction　from　other　spurious　arts　and　unwholesome
studies　on　the　ground　that　in　dealing　with　determinate　individuality　it　considers　the　necessary
opposition　of　an　inner　and　an　outer；　of　character　as　a　conscious　nature　and　character　as　a
definitely　embodied　organic　shape；　and　relates　these　moments　to　one　another　in　the　way　they　are
related　to　one　another　by　their　very　conception；　and　hence　must　constitute　the　content　of　a　law。　In
astrology；　on　the　other　hand；　in　palmistry　and　similar　〃sciences〃；　there　appears　merely　external
element　related　to　external　element；　anything　whatsoever　to　an　element　alien　to　it。　A　given
constellation　at　birth；　and；　when　the　external　element　is　brought　closer　to　the　body　itself；　certain
given　lines　on　the　hand；　are　external　factors　making　for　long　or　short　life；　and　the　fate　in　general　of
the　particular　person。　Being　externalities　they　are　indifferent　towards　one　another；　and　have　none
of　the　necessity　for　one　another　which　is　supposed　to　lie　in　the　relation　of　what　is　outer　to　what　is
inner。

The　hand；　to　be　sure；　does　not　seem　to　be　such　a　very　external　thing　for　fate；　it　seems　rather　to
stand　to　it　as　something　inner。　For　fate　again　is　also　merely　the　phenomenal　manifestation　of　what
the　specifically　determinate　individuality　inherently　is　as　having　originally　an　inner　determinate
constitution。　Now　to　find　out　what　this　individuality　is　in　itself；　the　palmist；　as　well　as　the
physiognomist；　takes　a　shorter　cut　than；　e。g。；　Solon；　who　thought　he　could　only　know　this　from
and　after　the　course　of　the　whole　life：　the　latter　looked　at　the　phenomenal　explicit　reality；　while　the
former　considers　the　implicit　nature　（das　Ansich）。　That　the　band；　however；　must　exhibit　and　reveal
the　inherent　nature　of　individuality　as　regards　its　fate；　is　easily　seen　from　the　fact　that　after　the
organ　of　speech　it　is　the　hand　most　of　all　by　which　a　man　actualizes　and　manifests　himself。　It　is　the
animated　artificer　of　his　fortune：　we　may　say　of　the　band　it　is　what　a　man　does；　for　in　it　as　the
effective　organ　of　his　self…fulfilment　he　is　there　present　as　the　animating　soul；　and　since　he　is
ultimately　and　originally　his　own　fate；　the　hand　will　thus　express　this　innate　inherent　nature。

From　this　peculiarity；　that　the　organ　of　activity　is　at　once　a　form　of　being　and　the　operation　going
on　within　it；　or　again　that　the　inner　inherent　being　is　itself　explicitly　present　in　it　and　has　a　being　for
others；　we　come　upon　a　further　aspect　of　it　different　from　the　preceding。　For　if　the　organs　in
general　proved　to　be　incapable　of　being　taken　as　expressions　of　the　inner　for　the　reason　that　in
them　the　action　is　present　as　a　process；　while　the　action　as　a　deed　or　（finished）　act　is　merely
external；　and　inner　and　outer　in　this　way　fall　apart　and　are　or　can　be　alien　to　one　another；　the　organ
must；　in　view　of　the　peculiarity　now　considered；　be　again　taken　as　also　a　middle　term　for　both；
since　this　very　fact；　that　the　operation　takes　place　and　is　present　in　it；　constitutes　eo　ipso　an
external　attribute　of　it；　and　indeed　one　that　is　different　from　the　deed　or　act；　for　the　former　holds
by　the　individual　and　remains　with　him。

This　mediating　term　uniting　inner　and　outer　is　in　the　first　place　itself　external　too。　But　then　this
externality　is　at　the　same　time　taken　up　into　the　inner；　it　stands　in　the　form　of　simple　unbroken
externality　opposed　to　dispersed　externality；　which　either　is　a　single　performance　or　condition
contingent　for　the　individuality　as　a　whole；　or　else；　in　the　form　of　a　total　externality；　is　fate　or
destiny；　split　up　into　a　plurality　of　performances　and　conditions。　The　simple　lines　of　the　hand；　then；
the　ring　and　compass　of　the　voice；　as　also　the　individual　peculiarity　of　the　language　used：　or　again
this　idiosyncracy　of　language；　as　expressed　where　the　hand　gives　it　more　durable　existence　than
the　voice　can　do；　viz。　in　writing；　especially　in　the　particular　style　of　〃handwriting〃　—　all　this　is　an
expression　of　the　inner；　so　that；　as　against　the　multifarious　externality　of　action　and　fate；　this
expression　again　stands　in　the　position　of　simple　externality；　plays　the　part　of　an　inner　in　relation　to
the　externality　of　action　and　fate。　Thus；　then；　if　at　first　the　specific　nature　and　innate　peculiarity　of
the　individual　along　with　what　these　become　as　the　result　of　cultivation