history of philosophy-第7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！


can　be　known。　Each　one　asserts　its　genuineness；　each　even　gives　different　signs　and　tokens　by
which　the　Truth　can　be　discovered；　sober　reflective　thought　must　therefore　hesitate　to　give　its
judgment。　

This；　then；　is　the　wider　interest　which　the　history　of　Philosophy　is　said　to　afford。　Cicero　（De
natura　Deorum　I。　8　sq。）　gives　us　from　this　point　of　view；　a　most　slovenly　history　of　philosophic
thought　on　God。　He　puts　it　in　the　mouth　of　an　Epicurean；　but　he　himself　knew　of　nothing　more
favourable　to　say；　and　it　is　thus　his　own　view。　The　Epicurean　says　that　no　certain　knowledge　has
been　arrived　at。　The　proof　that　the　efforts　of　philosophy　are　futile　is　derived　directly　from　the　usual
superficial　view　taken　of　its　history；　the　results　attendant　on　that　history　make　it　appear　to　be　a
process　in　which　the　most　various　thoughts　arise　in　numerous　philosophies；　each　of　which
opposes；　contradicts　and　refutes　the　other。　This　fact；　which　cannot　be　denied；　seems　to　contain
the　justification；　indeed　the　necessity　for　applying　to　Philosophy　the　words　of　Christ；　〃Let　the　dead
bury　their　dead；　arise；　and　follow　Me。〃　The　whole　of　the　history　of　Philosophy　becomes　a
battlefield　covered　with　the　bones　of　the　dead；　it　is　a　kingdom　not　merely　formed　of　dead　and
lifeless　individuals；　but　of　refuted　and　spiritually　dead　systems；　since　each　has　killed　and　buried　the
other。　Instead　of　〃Follow　thou　Me；〃　here　then　it　must　indeed　be　said；　〃Follow　thine　own　self　〃…that
is；　hold　by　thine　own　convictions；　remain　steadfast　to　thine　own　opinion；　why　adopt　another？　

It　certainly　happens　that　a　new　philosophy　makes　its　appearance；　which　maintains　the　others　to　be
valueless；　and　indeed　each　one　in　turn　comes　forth　at　first　with　the　pretext　that　by　its　means　all
previous　philosophies　not　only　are　refuted；　but　what　in　them　is　wanting　is　supplied；　and　now　at
length　the　right　one　is　discovered。　But　following　upon　what　has　gone　before；　it　would　rather　seem
that　other　words　of　Scripture　are　just　as　applicable　to　such　a　philosophy…the　words　which　the
Apostle　Peter　spoke　to　Ananias；　〃Behold　the　feet　of　them　that　shall　carry　thee　out　are　at　the　door。〃
Behold　the　philosophy　by　which　thine　own　will　be　refuted　and　displaced　shall　not　tarry　long　as　it
has　not　tarried　before。　

c。　Explanatory　remarks　on　the　diversity　in　Philosophies。

Certainly　the　fact　is　sufficiently　well　established　that　there　are　and　have　been　different　philosophies。
The　Truth　is；　however；　one；　and　the　instinct　of　reason　maintains　this　irradicable　intuition　or　belief。　It
is　said　that　only　one　Philosophy　can　be　true；　and；　because　philosophies　are　different；　it　is
concluded　that　all　others　must　be　erroneous。　But；　in　fact；　each　one　in　turn　gives　every　assurance；
evidence　and　proof　of　being　the　one　and　true　Philosophy。　This　is　a　common　mode　of　reasoning
and　is　what　seems　in　truth　to　be　the　view　of　sober　thought。　As　regards　the　sober　nature　of　the
word　at　issue…thought…we　can　tell　from　everyday　experience　that　if　we　fast　we　feel　hunger　either　at
once　or　very　soon。　But　sober　thought　always　has　the　fortunate　power　of　not　resulting　in　hunger
and　desire；　but　of　being　and　remaining　as　it　is；　content。　Hence　the　thought　expressed　in　such　an
utterance　reveals　the　fact　that　it　is　dead　understanding；　for　it　is　only　death　which　fasts　and　yet　rests
satisfied。　But　neither　physical　life　nor　intellectual　remains　content　with　mere　abstention；　as　desire　it
presses　on　through　hunger　and　through　thirst　towards　Truth；　towards　knowledge　itself。　It　presses
on　to　satisfy　this　desire　and　does　not　allow　itself　to　feast　and　find　sufficiency　in　a　reflection　such　as
this。　

As　to　this　reflection；　the　next　thing　to　be　said　of　it　is　that　however　different　the　philosophies　have
been；　they　had　a　common　bond　in　that　they　were　Philosophy。　Thus　whoever　may　have　studied　or
become　acquainted　with　a　philosophy；　of　whatever　kind；　provided　only　that　it　is　such；　has　thereby
become　acquainted　with　Philosophy。　That　delusive　mode　of　reasoning　which　regards　diversity
alone；　and　from　doubt　of　or　aversion　to　the　particular　form　in　which　a　Universal　finds　its　actuality；
will　not　grasp　or　even　allow　this　universal　nature；　I　have　elsewhere　（4）　likened　to　an　invalid
recommended　by　the　doctor　to　eat　fruit；　and　who　has　cherries；　plums　or　grapes；　before　him；　but
who　pedantically　refuses　to　take　anything　because　no　part　of　what　is　offered　him　is　fruit；　some　of　it
being　cherries；　and　the　rest　plums　or　grapes。　

But　it　is　really　important　to　have　a　deeper　insight　into　the　bearings　of　this　diversity　in　the　systems　of
Philosophy。　Truth　and　Philosophy　known　philosophically；　make　such　diversity　appear　in　another
light　from　that　of　abstract　opposition　between　Truth　and　Error。　The　explanation　of　how　this　comes
about　will　reveal　to　us　the　significance　of　the　whole　history　of　Philosophy。　We　must　make　the　fact
conceivable；　that　the　diversity　and　number　of　philosophies　not　only　does　not　prejudice　Philosophy
itself；　that　is　to　say　the　possibility　of　a　philosophy；　but　that　such　diversity　is；　and　has　been；
absolutely　necessary　to　the　existence　of　a　science　of　Philosophy　and　that　it　is　essential　to　it。　

This　makes　it　easy　to　us　to　comprehend　the　aim　of　Philosophy；　which　is　in　thought　and　in
conception　to　grasp　the　Truth；　and　not　merely　to　discover　that　nothing　can　be　known；　or　that　at
least　temporal；　finite　truth；　which　also　is　an　untruth；　can　alone　be　known　and　not　the　Truth　indeed。
Further　we　find　that　in　the　history　of　Philosophy　we　have　to　deal　with　Philosophy　itself。　The　facts
within　that　history　are　not　adventures　and　contain　no　more　romance　than　does　the　history　of　the
world。　They　are　not　a　mere　collection　of　chance　events；　of　expeditions　of　wandering　knights；　each
going　about　fighting；　struggling　purposelessly；　leaving　no　results　to　show　for　all　his　efforts。　Nor　is　it
so　that　one　thing　has　been　thought　out　here；　another　there；　at　will；　in　the　activity　of　thinking　mind
there　is　real　connection；　and　what　there　takes　place　is　rational。　It　is　with　this　belief　in　the　spirit　of
the　world　that　we　must　proceed　to　history；　and　in　particular　to　the　history　of　Philosophy。　

2。　EXPLANATORY　REMARKS　UPON　THE　DEFINITION　OF　THE　HISTORY
OF　PHILOSOPHY。

The　above　statement；　that　the　Truth　is　only　one；　is　still　abstract　and　formal。　In　the　deeper　sense　it　is
our　starting　point。　But　the　aim　of　Philosophy　is　to　know　this　one　Truth　as　the　immediate　source
from　which　all　else　proceeds；　both　all　the　laws　of　nature　and　all　the　manifestations　of　life　and
consciousness　of　which　they　are　mere　rejections　or　to　lead　these　laws　and　manifestations　in　ways
apparently　contrary；　back　to　that　single　source；　and　from　that　source　to　comprehend　them；　which
is　to　understand　their　derivation。　Thus　what　is　most　essential　is　to　know　that　the　single　truth　is　not
merely　a　solitary；　empty　thought；　but　one　determined　within　itself。　To　obtain　this　knowledge　we
must　enter　into　some　abstract　Notions　which；　as　such；　are　quite　general　and　dry；　and　which　are　the
two　principles　of　Development　and　of　the　Concrete。　We　could；　indeed；　embrace　the　whole　in　the
single　principle　of　development；　if　this　were　clear；　all　else　would　result　and　follow　of　its　own
accord。　The　product　of　thinking　is　the　thought；　thought　is；　however；　still　formal；　somewhat　more
defined　it　becomes　Notion；　and　finally　Idea　is　Thought　in　its　totality；　implicitly　and　explicitly
determined。　Thus　the　Idea；　and　it　alone　is　Truth。　Now　it　is　essentially　in　the　nature　of　the　Idea　to
develop；　and　only　through　development　to　arrive　at　comprehension　of　itself；　or　to　become　what　it
is。　That　the　Idea　should　have　to　make　itself　what　it　is；　seems　like　a　contradiction；　it　may　be　said
that　it　is　what　it　is。　

a。　The　Notion　of　Development。

The　idea　of　development　is　well　known；　but　it　is　the　special　characteristic　of　Philosophy　to
investigate　such　matters　as　were　formerly　held　as　known。　What　is　dealt　with　or　made　use　of
without　consideration　as　an　aid　to　daily　life；　is　certainly　the　unknown　to　man　unless　he　be　informed
in　Philosophy。　The　further　discussion　of　this　idea　belongs　to　the　science　of　Logic。　

In　order　to　comprehend　what　development　is；…what　may　be　called　two　different　states　must　be
distinguished。　The　first　is　what　is　known　as　capacity；　power；　what　I　call　being…in…itself　（potentia）；
the　second　principle　is　that　of　being…for…itself；　actuality　（actus）。　If　we　say；　for　example；　that　man　is
by　nature　rational；　we　would　mean　that　he　has　reason　only　inherently　or　in　embryo：　in　this　sense；
reason；　understanding；　imagination；　will；　are　possessed　from　birth　or　even　from　the　mother's
womb。　But　while　the　child　only　has　capacities　or　the　actual　possibility　of　reason；　it　is　just　the　same
as　if　he　had　no　reason；　reason　does　not　yet　exist　in　him　since　he　cannot　yet　do　anything　rational；
and　has　no　rational　consciousness。　Thus　what　man　is　at　first　implicitly　becomes　explicit；　and　it　is
the　same　with　reason。　If；　then；　man　has　actuality　on　whatever　side；　he　is　actually　rational；　and　now
we　come　to　reason。　

What　is　the　real　meaning　of　this　word？　That　which　is　in　itself　must　become　an　object；　to　mankind；
must　arrive　at　consciousness；　thus　becoming　for　man。　What　has　become　an　object　to　him　is　the
same　as　what　he　is　in　himself　through　the　becoming　objective　of　this　implicit　being；　man　first
becomes　for　himself；　he　is　made　double；　is　retained　and　not　changed　into　another。　For　example；
man　is　thinking；　and　thus　he　thinks　out　thoughts。　In　this　way　it　is　in　thought　alone　that　thought　is
object；　reason　produces　what　is　rational：　reason　is　its　own　object。　The　fact　that　thought　may　also
descend　to　what　is　destitute　of　reason　is　a　consideration　involving　wider　issues；　which　do　not
concern　us　here。　But　even　though　man；　who　in　himself　is　rational；　does　not　at　first　seem　to　have　got
further　on　since　he　became　rational　for　himself…what　is　implicit　having　merely　retained　itself…the
difference　is　quite　enormous：　no　new　content　has　been　produced；　and　yet　this　form　of　being　for
self　makes　all　the　difference。　The　whole　variation　in　the　development　of　the　world　in　history　is
founded　on　this　difference。　This　alone　explains　how　since　all　mankind　is　naturally　rational；　and
freedom　is　the　hypothesis　on　which　this　reason　rests；　slavery　yet　has　been；　and　in　part　still　is；
maintained　by　many　peoples；　and　men　have　remained　contented　under　it。　The　only　distinction
between　the　Africans　and　the　Asiatics　on　the　one　hand；　and　the　Greeks；　Romans；　and　moderns　on
the　other；　is　that　the　latter　know　and　it　is　explicit　for　them；　that　they　are　free；　but　the　others　are　so
without　knowing　that　they　are；　and　thus　without　existing　as　being　free。　This　constitutes　the
enormous　difference　in　their　condition。　All　knowledge；　and　learning；　science；　and　even　commerce
have　no　other　object　than　to　draw　out　what　is　inward　or　implicit　and　thus　to　become　objective。　

Because　that　which　is　implicit　comes　into　existence；　it　certainly　passes　into　change；　yet　it　remains
one　and　the　same；　for　the　whole　process　is　dominated　by　it。　The　plant；　for　example；　does　not　lose
itself　in　mere　indefinite　change。　From　the　germ　much　is　produced　when　at　first　nothing　was　to　be
seen　but　the　whole　of　what　is　brought　forth；　if　not　developed；　is　yet　h