phenomenology of mind-第89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！


its　bone；　but　is　surreptitiously　foisted　on　it　like　a　changeling　child。　But　here　enlightenment　is　entirely
foolish；　belief　experiences　it　as　a　way　of　speaking　which　does　not　know　what　it　is　saying；　and　does
not　understand　the　facts　of　the　case　when　it　talks　about　priestly　deception；　and　deluding　the
people。　It　speaks　about　this　as　if　by　means　of　some　hocus…pocus　of　conjuring　priestcraft　there
were　foisted　on　consciousness　as　true　Reality　something　that　is　absolutely　foreign；　and　absolutely
alien　to　it；　and　yet　says　all　the　while　that　this　is　an　essential　reality　for　consciousness；　that
consciousness　believes　in　it；　trusts　in　it；　and　seeks　to　make　it　favourably　disposed　towards　itself；
i。e。　that　consciousness　therein　sees　its　pure　ultimate　Being　just　as　much　as　its　own　single　and
universal　individuality；　and　creates　by　its　own　action　this　unity　of　itself　with　its　essential　reality。　In
other　words；　it　directly　declares　that　to　be　the　very　inmost　nature　of　consciousness　which　it
declares　to　be　something　alien　to　consciousness。　

How；　then；　can　it　possibly　speak　about　deception　and　delusion？　By　the　fact　that　it　directly
expresses　about　belief　the　very　opposite　of　what　it　asserts　of　belief；　it　ipso　facto　really　reveals
itself　to　belief　as　the　conscious　lie。　How　are　deception　and　delusion　to　take　place；　where
consciousness　in　its　very　truth　has　directly　and　immediately　the　certitude　of　itself；　where　it
possesses　itself　in　its　object；　since　it　just　as　much　finds　as　produces　itself　there？　The　distinction　no
longer　exists；　even　in　words。　

When　the　general　question　has　been　raised；　whether　it　is　permissible　to　delude　a　people；　the
answer；　as　a　fact；　was　bound　to　be　that　the　question　is　pointless；　because　it　is　impossible　to
deceive　a　people　in　this　matter。　Brass　in　place　of　gold；　counterfeit　instead　of　genuine　coin　may
doubtless　have　swindled　individuals　many　a　time；　lots　of　people　have　stuck　to　it　that　a　battle　lost
was　a　battle　won；　and　lies　of　all　sorts　about　things　of　sense　and　particular　events　have　been
plausible　for　a　time；　but　in　the　knowledge　of　that　inmost　reality　where　consciousness　finds　the
direct　certainty　of　its　own　self；　the　idea　of　delusion　is　entirely　baseless。　

Let　us　see　further　how　belief　undergoes　enlightenment　in　the　case　of　the　different　moments　of　its
own　conscious　experience；　to　which　the　view　just　noted　referred　in　the　first　instance　only　in　a
general　way。　These　moments　are　pure　thought；　or；　qua　object；　absolute　Being　per　se　（an　und　für
sich）；　then　its　relation；　as　a　form　of　knowledge；　to　absolute　Being；　the　ultimate　basis　of　its　belief；
and　finally　its　relation　to　absolute　Being　in　its　acts；　i。e。　its　〃worship〃　and　service。（5）　Just　as　pure
insight　has　failed　to　recognize　itself　in　belief　as　a　whole　and　denied　its　own　nature；　we　shall　find　it
taking　up　in　these　moments；　too；　an　attitude　similarly　perverted　and　distorted。　

Pure　insight　assumes　towards　the　absolute　Being　of　the　believing　mind　a　negative　attitude。　This
Being　is　pure　thought；　and　pure　thought　established　within　itself　as　object　or　as　the　true　Being；　in
the　believing　consciousness　this　immanent　and　essential　reality　of　thought　acquires　at　the　same　time
for　the　self…existent　consciousness　the　form　of　objectivity；　but　merely　the　empty　form；　it　exists　in
the　character　of　something　〃presented〃　to　consciousness。　To　pure　insight；　however；　since　it　is　pure
consciousness　in　its　aspect　of　self　existing　for　itself；　this　other　appears　as　something　negative　of
self…consciousness。　This　might　still　be　taken　either　as　the　pure　essential　reality　of　thought；　or　also　as
the　being　found　in　sense…experience；　the　object　of　sense…certainty。　But　since　it　is　at　the　same　time
for　the　self；　and　this　self；　qua　self　which　has　an　object；　is　an　actual　consciousness；　for　insight　the
peculiar　object　as　such　is　an　ordinary　existing　thing　of　sense。　This　its　object　appears　before　it　in　the
picture…presentation　found　in　belief。　It　condemns　this　idea　and　in　doing　so　condemns　its　own
proper　object。　It　really　commits　a　wrong；　however；　against　belief　in　so　apprehending　the　object　of
belief　as　if　it　were　its　own　object。　Accordingly　it　states　regarding　belief　that　its　absolute　Being　is　a
piece　of　stone；　a　block　of　wood；　having　eyes　and　seeing　not；　or　again　a　bit　of　bread…dough；　which
is　obtained　from　grain　grown　on　the　field　and　transformed　by　men　and　is　returned　to　earth　again；
or　in　whatever　other　ways　belief　may　be　said　to　anthropomorphize　absolute　Being；　making　it
objective　and　representable。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（2）　The　Doctrine　of　Enlightenment

Enlightenment；　proclaiming　itself　as　the　pure　and　true；　here　turns　what　is　held　to　be　eternal　life　and
holy　spirit　into　a　concrete　passing　thing　of　sense；　and　contaminates　it　with　what　belongs　to
sense…certainty　—　with　an　aspect　inherently　worthless　and　one　which　is　not　to　be　found　at　all　in　the
worshiping　attitude　of　belief；　so　that　enlightenment　simply　calumniates　it　by　introducing　such　an
aspect。　What　belief　reveres　is　for　belief　assuredly　neither　stone　nor　wood；　nor　bread…dough；　nor
any　other　sort　of　thing　of　time　and　sense。　If　enlightenment　thinks　it　worth　while　to　say　its　object　all
the　same　is　this　as　well；　or　even　that　it　is　this　in　its　inherent　nature　and　in　truth；　then　belief　also
knows　that　something　which　it　is　〃as　well〃；　but　for　it　this　something　lies　outside；　its　worship；　on　the
other　hand；　however；　belief　does　not　look　on　such　things　as　stones；　etc。；　as　having　an　inherent　and
essential　being　at　all；　the　essential　nature　as　grasped　by　pure　thought　is　alone　for　it　something
inherently　real。　

The　second　moment　is　the　relation　of　belief　as　a　form　of　knowing　consciousness　to　this　ultimate
Being。　As　pure　thinking　consciousness　belief　has　this　Being　immediately　before　it。　But　pure
consciousness　is　just　as　much　a　mediate　relation　of　conscious　certainty　to　truth；　a　relation
constituting　the　ground　of　belief。　For　enlightenment　this　ground　comes　similarly　to　be　regarded　as　a
chance　knowledge　of　chance　occurrences。　The　ground　of　knowledge；　however；　is　the　conscious
universal；　and　in　its　ultimate　meaning　is　absolute　spirit；　which　in　abstract　pure　consciousness；　or
thought　as　such；　is　merely　absolute　Being；　but　qua　self…consciousness　is　the　knowledge　of　itself。
Pure　insight　treats　this　conscious　universal；　self…knowing　spirit　pure　and　simple；　likewise　as　an
element　negative　of　self…consciousness。　Doubtless　this　insight　is　itself　pure　mediate　thought；；　i。e。
thought　mediating　itself　with　itself；　it　is　pure　knowledge；　but　since　it　is　pure　insight；　or　pure
knowledge；　which　does　not　yet　know　itself；　i。e。　for　which　as　yet　there　is　no　awareness　that　it　is　this
pure　process　of　mediation；　this　process　seems　to　insight；　like　everything　else　constituting　it；　to　be
something　external；　an　other。　When　realizing　its　inherent　principle；　then；　it　develops　this　moment
essential　to　it；　but　that　moment　seems　to　it　to　belong　to　belief；　and　to　be；　in　its　character　of　an
external　other；　a　fortuitous　knowledge　of　stories　of　〃real〃　events　in　this　ordinary　sense　of　〃real〃。　It
thus　here　charges　religious　belief　with　basing　its　certainty　on　some　particular　historical　evidences；
which；　considered　as　historical　evidences；　would　assuredly　not　even　warrant　that　degree　of
certainty　about　the　matter　which　we　get　regarding　any　event　mentioned　in　the　newspapers。　It
further　makes　the　imputation　that　the　certainty　in　the　case　of　religious　belief　rests　on　the　accidental
fact　of　the　preservation　of　all　this　evidence：　on　the　preservation　of　this　evidence　partly　by　means　of
paper；　and　partly　through　the　skill　and　honesty　in　transferring　what　is　written　from　one　paper　to
another；　and　lastly　rests　upon　the　accurate　interpretation　of　the　sense　of　dead　words　and　letters。
As　a　matter　of　fact；　however；　it　never　occurs　to　belief　to　make　its　certainty　depend　on　such
evidences　and　such　fortuitous　circumstances。　Belief　in　its　conscious　assurance　occupies　a　na？ve
unsophisticated　attitude　towards　its　absolute　object；　knows　it　with　a　purity；　which　never　mixes　up
letters；　paper；　or　copyists　with　its　consciousness　of　the　Absolute　Being；　and　does　not　make　use　of
things　of　that　sort　to　affect　its　union　with　the　Absolute。　On　the　contrary；　this　consciousness　is　the
self…mediating；　self…relating　ground　of　its　knowledge；　it　is　spirit　itself　which　bears　witness　of　itself
both　in　the　inner　heart　of　the　individual　consciousness；　as　well　as　through　the　presence　everywhere
and　in　all　men　of　belief　in　it。　If　belief　wants　to　appeal　to　historical　evidences　in　order　to　get　also　that
kind　of　foundation；　or　at　least　confirmation；　for　its　content　which　enlightenment　speaks　of；　and　is
really　serious　in　thinking　and　acting　as　if　that　were　an　important　matter；　then　it　has　eo　ipso　allowed
itself　to　be　corrupted　and　led　astray　by　the　insinuations　of　enlightenment；　the　efforts　it　makes　to
secure　a　basis　or　support　in　this　way　are　merely　indications　that　show　how　it　has　been　affected　and
infected　by　enlightenment。　

There　still　remains　the　third　aspect；　the　active　relation　of　consciousness　to　Absolute　Being；　its
forms　of　service。（6）　This　action　consists　in　cancelling　the　particularity　of　the　individual；　or　the
natural　form　of　its　self…existence；　whence　arises　its　certainty　of　being　pure　self…consciousness；　of
being；　as　the　result　of　its　action；　i。e。　as　a　self…existing　conscious　individual；　one　with　ultimate
Reality。　

Since　in　this　action　purposiveness　and　end　are　distinguished；　and　pure　insight　likewise　takes　up　a
negative　attitude　towards　this　action；　and　denies　itself　just　as　it　did　in　the　other　moments；　it　must　as
regards　purposiveness　present　the　appearance　of　being　stupid　and　unintelligent；　since　insight　united
with　intention；　accordance　of　end　with　means；　appears　to　it　as　an　other；　as　really　the　opposite　of
what　insight　is。　As　regards　the　end；　however；　it　has　to　make　badness；　enjoyment；　and　possession；
its　purpose；　and　prove　itself　in　consequence　to　be　the　impurest　kind　of　intention；　since　pure
intention；　qua　external；　an　other；　is　similarly　impure　intention。　

Accordingly　we　find　that；　so　far　as　concerns　purposiveness；　enlightenment　thinks　it　foolish　if　the
believing　individual　seeks　to　obtain　the　higher　consciousness　of　freedom　from　entanglement　with
natural　enjoyment　and　pleasure；　by　positively　denying　itself　natural　enjoyment　and　pleasure；　and
proving　through　its　acts　that　there　is　no　lie　in　its　open　contempt　for　them；　but　rather　that　the
contempt　is　quite　genuine。　

In　the　same　way　enlightenment　finds　it　foolish　for　consciousness　to　absolve　itself　of　its
characteristic　of　being　absolutely　individual；　excluding　all　others；　and　possessing　property　of　its
own；　by　itself　demitting　its　own　property；　for　thereby　it　shows　in　reality　that　this　isolation　is　not
really　serious。　It　shows　rather　that　itself　is　something　that　can　rise　above　the　natural　necessity　of
isolating　itself　and　of　denying；　in　this　absolute　isolation　of　its　own　individual　existence；　that　e　others
are　one　and　the　same　with　itself。　

Pure　insight　finds　both　purposeless　as　well　as　wrong。　It　is　purposeless　to　renounce　a　pleasure　and
give　away　a　possession　in　order　to　show　oneself　independent　of　pleasure　and　possession；　hence；
in　the　c