history of philosophy-第24节

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！


Thought　which　has　itself　as　object；　must　have　raised　itself　to　its　own　form；　to　the　form　of　thought。
Plato　is　often　esteemed　on　account　of　his　myths；　he　is　supposed　to　have　evinced　by　their　means
greater　genius　than　other　philosophers　were　capable　of。　It　is　contended　here　that　the　myths　of
Plato　are　superior　to　the　abstract　form　of　expression；　and　Plato's　method　of　representation　is
certainly　a　wonderful　one。　On　closer　examination　we　find　that　it　is　partly　the　impossibility　of
expressing　himself　after　the　manner　of　pure　thought　that　makes　Plato　put　his　meaning　so；　and　also
such　methods　of　expression　are　only　used　by　him　in　introducing　a　subject。　When　he　comes　to　the
matter　in　point；　Plato　expresses　himself　otherwise；　as　we　see　in　the　Parmenides；　where　simple
thought　determinations　are　used　without　imagery。　Externally　these　myths　may　certainly　serve　when
the　heights　of　speculative　thought　are　left　behind；　in　order　to　present　the　matter　in　an　easier　form；
but　the　real　value　of　Plato　does　not　rest　in　his　myths。　If　thought　once　attains　power　sufficient　to
give　existence　to　itself　within　itself　and　in　its　element；　the　myth　becomes　a　superfluous　adornment；
by　which　Philosophy　is　not　advanced。　Men　often　lay　hold　of　nothing　but　these　myths。　Hence
Aristotle　has　been　misunderstood　just　because　he　intersperses　similes　here　and　there；　the　simile
can　never　be　entirely　in　accord　with　thought；　for　it　always　carries　with　it　something　more。　The
difficulty　of　representing　thoughts　as　thoughts　always　attaches　to　the　expedient　of　expression　in
sensuous　form。　Thought；　too；　ought　not　to　be　concealed　by　means　of　the　myth；　for　the　object　of
the　mythical　is　just　to　give　expression　to　and　to　reveal　thought。　The　symbol　is　undoubtedly
insufficient　for　this　expression；　thought　concealed　in　symbols　is　not　yet　possessed；　for　thought　is
self…revealing；　and　hence　the　myth　does　not　form　a　medium　adequate　for　its　conveyance。　Aristotle
（Metaphysics　III。　4）　says；　〃It　is　not　worth　while　to　treat　seriously　of　those　whose　philosophy　takes
a　mythical　form。〃　Such　is　not　the　form　in　which　thought　allows　itself　to　be　stated；　but　only　is　a
subordinate　mode。

Connected　with　this；　there　is　a　similar　method　of　representing　the　universal　content　by　means　of
numbers；　lines　and　geometric　figures。　These　are　figurative；　but　not　concretely　so；　as　in　the　case　of
myths。　Thus　it　may　be　said　that　eternity　is　a　circle；　the　snake　that　bites　its　own　tail。　This　is　only　an
image；　but　Mind　does　not　require　such　a　symbol。　There　are　people　who　value　such　methods　of
representation；　but　these　forms　do　not　go　far。　The　most　abstract　determinations　can　indeed　be　thus
expressed；　but　any　further　progress　brings　about　confusion。　Just　as　the　freemasons　have　symbols
which　are　esteemed　for　their　depth　of　wisdom　…　depth　as　a　brook　is　deep　when　one　cannot　see
the　bottom　…　that　which　is　hidden　very　easily　seems　to　men　deep；　or　as　if　depth　were　concealed
beneath。　But　when　it　is　hidden；　it　may　possibly　prove　to　be　the　case　that　there　is　nothing　behind。
This　is　so　in　freemasonry；　in　which　everything　is　concealed　to　those　outside　and　also　to　many
people　within；　and　where　nothing　remarkable　is　possessed　in　learning　or　in　science；　and　least　of　all
in　Philosophy。　Thought　is；　on　the　contrary；　simply　its　manifestation；　clearness　is　its　nature　and　itself。
The　act　of　manifestation　is　not　a　condition　which　may　be　or　may　not　be　equally；　so　that　thought
may　remain　as　thought　when　it　is　not　manifested；　but　its　manifestation　is　itself；　its　Being。　Numbers；
as　will　be　remarked　in　respect　of　the　Pythagoreans；　are　unsuitable　mediums　for　expressing
thoughts；　thus　monas；　dnas；　trias　are；　with　Pythagoras；　unity；　difference；　and　unity　of　the　unity
and　of　the　difference。　The　two　first　of　the　three　are　certainly　united　by　addition；　this　kind　of　union
is；　however；　the　worst　form　of　unity。　In　Religion　the　three　make　their　appearance　in　a　deeper　sense
as　the　Trinity；　and　in　Philosophy　as　the　Notion；　but　enumeration　forms　a　bad　method　of
expression。　There　is　the　same　objection　to　it　as　would　exist　to　making　the　mensuration　of　space
the　medium　for　expressing　the　absolute。　People　also　quote　the　Philosophy　of　the　Chinese；　of　the
Fo？；　in　which　it　is　said　that　thoughts　are　represented　by　numbers。　Yet　the　Chinese　have　explained
their　symbols　and　hence　have　made　their　meaning　evident。　Universal　simple　abstractions　have　been
present　to　all　people　who　have　arrived　at　any　decree　of　culture。

iii。　We　have　still　to　remark　in　the　third　place；　that　Religion；　as　such；　does　not　merely　form　its
representations　after　the　manner　of　art；　and　also　that　Poetry　likewise　contains　actual　thoughts。　In
the　case　of　the　poets　whose　art　has　speech　as　medium；　we　find　all　through　deep　universal　thought
regarding　reality；　these　are　more　explicitly　expressed　in　the　Indian　Religion；　but　with　the　Indians
everything　is　mixed　up。　Hence　it　is　said　that　such　races　have　also　had　a　Philosophy　proper　to
themselves；　but　the　universal　thoughts　of　interest　in　Indian　books　limit　themselves　to　what　is　most
abstract；　to　the　idea　of　rising　up　and　passing　away；　and　thus　of　making　a　perpetual　round。　The
story　of　the　Phoenix　is　well　known　as　an　example　of　this；　it　is　one　which　took　its　origin　in　the　East。
We　are　able　similarly　to　find　thoughts　about　life　and　death　and　of　the　transition　of　Being　into
passing　away；　from　life　comes　death　and　from　death　comes　life；　even　in　Being；　in　what　is　positive；
the　negation　is　already　present。　The　negative　side　must　indeed　contain　within　it　the　positive；　for　all
change；　all　the　process　of　life　is　founded　on　this。　But　such　reflections　only　occasionally　come　forth；
they　are　not　to　be　taken　as　being　proper　philosophic　utterances。　For　Philosophy　is　only　present
when　thought；　as　such；　is　made　the　absolute　ground　and　root　of　everything　else；　and　in　these
modes　of　representation　this　is　not　so。

Philosophy　does　not　reflect　on　any　particular　thing　or　object　already　existing　as　a　first　substratum；
its　content　is　just　Thought；　universal　thought　which　must　plainly　come　first　of　all；　to　put　it　otherwise；
the　Absolute　must　in　Philosophy　be　in　the　form　of　thought。　In　the　Greek　Religion　we　find　the
thought…determination　〃eternal　necessity；〃　which　means　an　absolute　and　clearly　universal　relation。
But　such　thought　has　other　subjects　besides；　it　only　expresses　a　relation；　the　necessity　to　be　the
true　and　all…embracing　Being。　Thus　neither　must　we　take　this　form　into　our　consideration。　We
might　speak　in　that　way　of　a　philosophy　of　Euripides；　Schiller　or　Goethe。　But　all　such　reflection
respecting；　or　general　modes　of　representing　what　is　true；　the　ends　of　men；　morality　and　so　on；　are
in　part　only　incidentally　set　forth；　and　in　part　they　have　not　reached　the　proper　form　of　thought；
which　implies　that　what　is　so　expressed　must　be　ultimate；　thus　constituting　the　Absolute。

C。　Particular　theories　found　in　Religion。

In　conclusion；　the　philosophy　which　we　find　within　Religion　does　not　concern　us。　We　find　deep；
speculative　thoughts　regarding　the　nature　of　God　not　only　in　the　Indian　Religions；　but　also　in　the
Fathers　and　the　Schoolmen。　In　the　history　of　dogmatism　there　is　a　real　interest　in　becoming
acquainted　with　these　thoughts；　but　they　do　not　belong　to　the　history　of　Philosophy。　Nevertheless
more　notice　must　be　taken　of　the　Schoolmen　than　of　the　Fathers；　for　they　were　certainly　great
philosophers　to　whom　the　culture　of　Christendom　owes　much。　But　their　speculations　belong　in　part
to　other　philosophies　such　as　to　that　of　Plato；　which　must　in　so　far　be　considered　for　themselves；
partly；　too；　they　emanate　from　the　speculative　content　of　Religion　itself　which　already　exists　as
independent　truth　in　the　doctrine　of　the　Church；　and　belong　primarily　to　faith。　Thus　such　modes　of
thought　rest　on　an　hypothesis　and　not　on　Thought　itself；　they　are　not　properly　speaking　themselves
Philosophy　or　thought　which　rests　on　itself；　but　as　ideas　already　firmly　rooted；　they　act　on　its
behalf　either　in　refuting　other　ideas　and　conclusions　or　in　philosophically　vindicating　against　them
their　own　religious　teaching。　Thought　in　this　manner　does　not　represent　and　know　itself　as　the
ultimate　and　absolute　culmination　of　the　content；　or　as　the　inwardly　self…determining　Thought。
Hence；　too；　when　the　Fathers；　seeing　that　the　content　of　the　Christian　Religion　can　only　be
grasped　after　the　speculative　form；　did；　within　the　teaching　of　the　Church；　produce　thoughts　of　a
highly　speculative　nature；　the　ultimate　justification　of　these　was　not　found　in　Thought　as　such；　but　in
the　teaching　of　the　Church。　Philosophic　teaching　here　finds　itself　within　a　strongly　bound　system
and　not　as　thought　which　emanates　freely　from　itself。　Thus　with　the　scholastics；　too；　Thought　does
not　construct　itself　out　of　itself；　but　depends　upon　hypotheses；　and　although　it　ever　rests　more　and
more　upon　itself；　it　never　does　so　in　opposition　to　the　doctrine　of　the　Church。　Both　must　and　do
agree；　since　Thought　has　to　prove　from　itself　what　the　Church　has　already　verified。

c。　Philosophy　proper　distinguished　from　Popular　Philosophy。

Of　the　two　departments　of　knowledge　allied　to　Philosophy　we　found　that　the　one；　that　of　the
special　sciences；　could　not　b