shorter logic-第41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！
is evolved； not； however； in an accidental； but a necessary way。
Every signification； therefore； in which they afterwards appear； is only a more
precise specification and truer definition of the Absolute。 And when that is done；
the mere abstract Being and Nothing are replaced by a concrete in which both
these elements form an organic part。 The supreme form of Nought as a separate
principle would be Freedom： but Freedom is negativity in that stage； when it sinks
self…absorbed to supreme intensity； and is itself an affirmation； and even absolute
affirmation。
§ 87n
The distinction between Being and Nought is； in the first place； only implicit； and not yet actually
made： they only ought to be distinguished。 A distinction of course implies two things； and that one
of them possesses an attribute which is not found in the other。 Being however is an absolute
absence of attributes； and so is Nought。 Hence the distinction between the two is only meant to
be； it is a quite nominal distinction； which is at the same time no distinction。 In all other cases of
difference there is some common point which comprehends both things。
Suppose e。g。 we speak of two different species： the same genus forms a common ground between
both。 But in the case of mere Being and Nothing； distinction is without a bottom to stand upon：
hence there can be no distinction； both determinations being the same bottomlessness。 If it be
replied that Being and Nothing are both of them thoughts； so that thought may be reckoned
common ground； the objector forgets that Being is not a particular or definite thought； and hence；
being quite indeterminate； is a thought not to be distinguished from Nothing。 It is natural too for us
to represent Being as absolute riches； and nothing as absolute poverty。 But if when we wish to
view the whole world we can only say that everything is； and nothing more； we are neglecting all
speciality and； instead of plenitude； we have absolute emptiness。 The same stricture is applicable
to those who define God to be mere Being； a definition not a whit better than that of the
Buddhists； who make God to be Nought； and who from that principle draw the further conclusion
that self…annihilation is the means by which man becomes God。
Becoming
§ 88
Nothing； if it be thus immediate and equal to itself； is also conversely the same as
Being is。 The truth of Being and of Nothing is accordingly the unity of the two：
and this unity is Becoming。
（1） The proposition that Being and Nothing is the same seems so paradoxical to
the imagination or understanding； that it is perhaps taken for a joke。 And indeed it
is one of the hardest things thought expects itself to do： for Being and Nothing
exhibit the fundamental contrast in all its immediacy … that is； without the one
term being invested with any attribute which would involve its connection with
the other。 This attribute however； as the above paragraph points out； is implicit in
them … the attribute which is just the same in both。 So far the deduction of their
unity is completely analytical： indeed the whole progress of philosophising in
every case； if it be a methodical； that is to say a necessary； progress； merely
renders explicit what is implicit in a notion。 It is as correct however to say that
Being and Nothing are altogether different； as to assert their unity。 The one is not
what the other is。 But since the distinction has not at this point assumed definite
shape （Being and Nothing are still the immediate）； it is； in the way that they have
it； something unutterable； which we merely mean。
（2） No great expenditure of wit is needed to make fun of the maxim that Being
and Nothing are the same； or rather to adduce absurdities which； it is erroneously
asserted； are the consequences and illustrations of that maxim。
If Being and Nought are identical； say these objectors； it follows that it makes no
difference whether my home； my property； the air I breathe； this city； the sun；
the law； God； are or are not。 Now in some of these cases the objectors foist in
private aims； the utility a thing has for me； and then ask； whether it be all the
same to me if the thing exist and if it do not。 For that matter indeed； the teaching
of philosophy is precisely what frees man from the endless crowd of finite aims
and intentions； by making him so insensible to them that their existence or
non…existence is to him a matter of indifference。 But it is never to be forgotten
that； once mention something substantial； and you thereby create a connection
with other existences and other purposes which are ex hypothesi worth having：
and on such hypothesis it comes to depend whether the Being or not…Being of a
determinate subject are the same or not。 A substantial distinction is in these cases
secretly substituted for the empty distinction of Being and Nought。
When a concrete existence is disguised under the name of Being and not…Being；
empty…headedness makes its usual mistake of speaking about； and having in
mind； an image of something else than what is in question： and in this place the
question is about abstract Being and Nothing。 In others of the cases referred to； it
is virtually absolute existences and vital ideas and aims； which are placed under
the mere category of Being and not…Being。 But there is no more to be said of
these concrete objects； than that they merely are or are not。 Barren abstractions；
like Being and Nothing … the initial categories which； for that reason； are the
scantiest anywhere to be found … are utterly inadequate to the nature of these
objects。 Substantial truth is something far above these abstractions and their
oppositions。 And always when a concrete existence is disguised under the name
of Being and not…Being； empty…headedness makes its usual mistake of speaking
about； and having in mind an image of； something else than what is in question：
and in this place the question is about abstract Being and Nothing。
（3） It may perhaps be said that nobody can form a notion of the unity of Being
and Nought。 As for that； the notion of the unity is stated in the section preceding；
and that is all： apprehend that； and you have comprehended this unity。 What the
objector really means by comprehension … by a notion … is more than his language
properly implies： he wants a richer and more complex state of mind； a pictorial
conception which will propound the notion as a concrete case and one more
familiar to the ordinary operations of thought。 And so long as ordinary
incomprehensibility means only the want habituation for the effort needed to
grasp an abstract thought； free from all sensuous admixture； and to seize a
speculative truth； the reply to the criticism is that philosophical knowledge is
undoubtedly distinct in kind from the mode of knowledge best known in common
life； as well as from that which reigns in the other sciences。 But if to have no
notion merely means that we cannot represent in imagination the oneness of
Being and Nought； the statement is far from being true； for everyone has
countless ways of envisaging this unity。 To say that we have no such conception
can only mean that in none of these images do we recognise the notion in
question； and that we are not aware that they exemplify it。 The readiest example
of it is Becoming。 Everyone has a mental idea of Becoming； and will even allow
that it is one idea： he will further allow that； when it is analysed； it involves the
attribute of Being； and also what is the very reverse of Being； viz。； Nothing： and
that these two attributes lie undivided in the one idea： so that Becoming is the
unity of Being and Nothing。 Another tolerably plain example is a Beginning。 In its
beginning； the thing is not yet； but it is more than merely nothing； for its Being is
already in the beginning。 Beginning is itself a case of Becoming； only the former
term is employed with an eye to the further advance。 If we were to adopt logic to
the more usual method of the sciences； we might start with the representation of a
Beginning as abstractly thought； or with Beginning
