shorter logic-第40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！
absolute truth； these and other forms of the kind may be looked on as if they
must be the first。 But each of these forms contains a mediation； and hence cannot
be the real first： for all mediation implies advance made from a first on to a
second； and proceeding from something different。 If I = I； or even the intellectual
intuition； are really taken to mean no more than the first； they are in this mere
immediacy identical with being： while conversely； pure being； if abstract no
longer； but including in it mediation； is pure thought or intuition。
If we enunciate Being as a predicate of the Absolute； we get the first definition of
the latter。 The Absolute is Being。 This is （in thought） the absolutely initial
definition； the most abstract and stinted。 It is the definition given by the Eleatics；
but at the same time is also the well…known definition of God as the sum of all
realities。 It means； in short； that we are to set aside that limitation which is in
every reality； so that God shall be only the real in all reality； the superlatively real。
Or； if we reject reality； as implying a reflection； we get a more immediate or
unreflected statement of the same thing； when Jacobi says that the God of
Spinoza is the principium of being in all existence。
§ 86n1
When thinking is to begin； we have nothing but thought in its merest indeterminate： for we cannot
determine unless there is both one and another： and yet in the beginning there is yet no other。 The
indeterminate； as we have it； is the blank we begin with； not a featurelessness reached by
abstraction； not the elimination of all character； but the original featurelessness which precedes all
definite character and is the very first of all。 And this we call Being。 It is not to be felt； or perceived
by sense； or pictured in imagination： it is only and merely thought； and as such it forms the
beginning。 Essence also is indeterminate； but in another sense： it has traversed the process of
mediation and contains implicit the determination it has absorbed。
§ 86n2
In the history of philosophy the different stages of the logical idea assume the shape of successive
systems； each based on a particular definition of the Absolute。 As the logical Idea is seen to unfold
itself in a process from the abstract to the concrete； so in the history of philosophy the earliest
systems are the most abstract； and thus at the same time the poorest。 The relation too of the earlier
to the later systems of philosophy is much like the relation of the corresponding stages of the
logical Idea： in other words； the earlier are preserved in the later： but subordinated and
submerged。 This is the true meaning of a much misunderstood phenomenon in the history of
philosophy — the refutation of one system by another； of an earlier by a later。 Most commonly the
refutation is taken in a purely negative sense to mean that the system refuted has ceased to count
for anything； has been set aside and done for。 Were it so； the history of philosophy would be； of
all studies； most saddening； displaying； as it does； the refutation of every system which time has
brought forth。 Now although it may be admitted that every philosophy has been refuted； it must be
in an equal degree maintained that no philosophy has been refuted。 And that in two ways。 For first；
every philosophy that deserves the name always embodies the Idea： and secondly； every system
represents one particular factor or particular stage in the evolution of the Idea。 The refutation of a
philosophy； therefore； only means that its barriers are crossed； and its special principle reduced to
a factor in the completer principle that follows。
Thus the history of philosophy； in its true meaning； deals not with a past； but with an eternal and
veritable present： and； in its results； resembles not a museum of the aberrations of the human
intellect； but a Pantheon of godlike figures。 These figures of gods are the various stages of the
Idea； as they come forward one after another in dialectical development。
To the historian of philosophy it belongs to point out more precisely how far the gradual evolution
of his theme coincides with； or swerves from； the dialectical unfolding of the pure logical Idea。 It is
sufficient to mention here； that logic begins where the proper history of philosophy begins。
Philosophy began in the Eleatic school； especially with Parmenides。 Parmenides； who conceives
the absolute as Being； says that 'Being alone is and Nothing is not'。 Such was the true starting point
of philosophy； which is always knowledge by thought： and here for the first time we find pure
thought seized and made an object to itself。
Men indeed thought from the beginning （for thus only were they distinguished from the animals）。
But thousands of years had to elapse before they came to apprehend thought in its purity； and to
see it in the truly objective。 The Eleatics are celebrated as daring thinkers。 But this nominal
admiration is often accompanied by the remark that they went too far； when they made Being
alone true； and denied the truth of every other object of consciousness。 We must go further than
mere Being； it is true： and yet it is absurd to speak of the other contents of our consciousness as
somewhat as it were outside and beside Being； or to say that there are other things； as well as
Being。 The true state of the case is rather as follows。 Being； as Being； is nothing fixed or ultimate： it
yields to dialectic and sinks into its opposite； which； also taken immediately； is Nothing。 After all；
the point is that Being is the pure Thought； whatever else you may begin with （the I = I； the
absolute indifference； or God himself）； you begin with a figure of materialised conception； not a
product of thought； and that； so far as its thought…content is concerned； such beginning is merely
Being。
§ 87
Nothing
But this mere Being； as it is mere abstraction； is therefore the absolutely negative：
which； in a similarly immediate aspect； is just Nothing。
（1） Hence was derived the second definition of the Absolute： the Absolute is the
Nought。 In fact this definition is implied in saying that the thing…in…itself is the
indeterminate； utterly without form and so without content … or in saying that God
is only the supreme Being and nothing more； for this is really declaring him to be
the same negativity as above。 The Nothing which the Buddhists make the
universal principle； as well as the final aim and goal of everything； is the same
abstraction。
（2） If the opposition in thought is stated in this immediacy as Being and Nothing；
the shock of its nullity is too great not to stimulate the attempt to fix Being and
secure it against the transition into Nothing。
With this intent； reflection has recourse to the plan of discovering some fixed
predicate for Being； to mark it off from Nothing。 Thus we find Being identified
with what persists amid all change； with matter； susceptible of innumerable
determinations … or even； unreflectingly； with a single existence； any chance
object of the senses or of the mind。 But every additional and more concrete
characterisation causes Being to lose that integrity and simplicity it had in the
beginning。 Only in； and by virtue of； this mere generality is it Nothing； something
inexpressible； whereof the distinction from Nothing is a mere intention or
meaning。
All that is wanted is to realise that these beginnings are nothing but these empty
abstractions； one as empty as the other。 The instinct that induces us to attach a
settled import to Being； or to both； is the very necessity which leads to the
onward movement of Being and Nothing； and gives them a true or concrete
significance。 This advance is the logical deduction and the movement of thought
exhibited in the sequel。 The reflection which finds a profounder connotation for
Being and Nothing is nothing but logical thought； through which such connotation
is evolved； not； however； in an accidental； but a necessary way。
Every signification； therefore； in which t
