shorter logic-第58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！
yet this assertion that force in its own self is unknowable betrays a well…grounded presentiment
that this relation is finite。 The several manifestations of a force at first meet us in indefinite
multiplicity； and in their isolation seem accidental： but； reducing this multiplicity to its inner unity；
which we term force； we see that the apparently contingent is necessary； by recognising the law
that rules it。 But the different forces themselves are a multiplicity again； and in their mere
juxtaposition seem to be contingent。 Hence in empirical physics； we speak of the forces of gravity；
magnetism； electricity； etc。； and in psychology of the forces of memory； imagination； will； and all
the other faculties。 All this multiplicity again excites a craving to know these different forces as a
single whole； nor would this craving be appeased even if the several forces were traced back to
one common primary force。 Such a primary force would be really no more than an empty
abstraction； with as little content as the abstract thing…in…itself。 And besides this； the correlation of
force and manifestation is essentially a mediated correlation （of reciprocal dependence）； and it
must therefore contradict the notion of force to view it as primary or resting on itself。
Such being the case with the nature of force； though we may consent to let the world be called a
manifestation of divine forces； we should object to have God himself viewed as a mere force。 For
force is after all a subordinate and finite category。 At the so…called renaissance of the sciences；
when steps were taken to trace the single phenomena of nature back to underlying forces； the
Church branded the enterprise as impious。 The argument of the Church was as follows。 If it be the
forces of gravitation； of vegetation； etc。； which occasion the movements of the heavenly bodies；
the growth of plants； etc。； there is nothing left for divine providence； and God sinks to the level of
a leisurely onlooker； surveying this play of forces。 The students of nature； it is true； and Newton
more than others； when they employed the reflective category of force to explain natural
phenomena； have expressly pleaded that the honour of God； as the Creator and Governor of the
world； would not thereby be impaired。 Still the logical issue of this explanation by means of forces
is that the inferential understanding proceeds to fix each of these forces； and to maintain them in
their finitude as ultimate。 And contrasted with this de…infinitised world of independent forces and
matters； the only terms in which it is possible still to describe God will present him in the abstract
infinity of an unknowable supreme Being in some other world far away。 This Is precisely the
position of materialism； and of modern 'freethinking'； whose theology ignores what God is and
restricts itself to the mere fact that he is。 In this dispute therefore the Church and the religious mind
have to a certain extent the right on their side。 The finite forms of understanding certainly fail to
fulfil the conditions for a knowledge either of Nature or of the formations in the world of Mind as
they truly are。 Yet on the other side it is impossible to overlook the formal right which； in the first
place； entitles the empirical sciences to vindicate the right of thought to know the existent world in
all the speciality of its content； and to seek something further than the bare statement of mere
abstract faith that God created and governs the world。 When our religious consciousness； resting
on the authority of the Church； teaches us that God created the world by his almighty will； that he
guides the stars in their courses； and vouchsafes to all his creatures their existence and their
well…being； the question Why？ is still left to answer。 Now it is the answer to this ；question which
forms the common task of empirical science and of philosophy。 When religion refuses to recognise
this problem； or the right to put it； and appeals to the unsearchableness of the decrees of God； it is
taking up the same agnostic… ground as is taken by the me…re Enlightenment of understanding。
Such an appeal is no better than an arbitrary dogmatism； which contravenes the express command
of Christianity； to know God in spirit and in truth； and is prompted by a humility which is not
Christian； but born of ostentatious bigotry。
§137
Force is a whole； which is in its own self negative self…relation； and as such a
whole it continually pushes itself off from itself and puts itself forth。 But since this
reflection…into…another （corresponding to the distinction between the Parts of the
Whole） is equally a reflection…into…self； this out…putting is the way and means by
which Force that returns back into itself is as a Force。 The very act of out…putting
accordingly sets in abeyance the diversity of the two sides which is found in this
correlation； and expressly states the identity which virtually constitutes their
content。 The truth of Force and utterance therefore is that relation； in which the
two sides are distinguished only as Outward and Inward。
§138
＇c＇ The Inward （Interior） is the ground； when it stands as the mere form of the
one side of the Appearance and the Correlation … the empty form of
reflection…into…self。 As a counterpart to it stands the Outward （Exterior） …
Existence … also as form of the other side of the correlation； with the empty
characteristic of reflection…into…something…else。 But Inward and Outward are
identified： and their identity is identity brought to fullness in the content； that unity
of reflection…into…self and reflection…into…other which was forced to appear in the
movement of force。 Both are the same one identity； and this unity makes them
the content。
§139
In the first place then； Exterior is the same content as Interior。 What is inwardly is
also found outwardly； and vice versa。 The appearance shows nothing that is not
in the essence； and in the essence there is nothing but what is manifested。
§140
In the second place； Inward and Outward； as formal terms； are also reciprocally
opposed； and that thoroughly。 The one is the abstraction of identity with self； the
other mere multiplicity or reality。 But as stages of the one form； they are
essentially identical so that whatever is at first explicitly put only in the one
abstraction； is also plainly and at one step in the other。 Therefore what is only
internal is also only external： and what is only external； is so far only at first
internal。
It is the customary mistake of reflection to take essence to be merely the interior。
If it be so taken； even this way of looking at it is purely external； and that sort of
essence is the empty external abstraction。
Ins Innere der Natur
Dringt kein erschaffner Geist；
Zu glücklich wenn er nur
De ？ussere Schaale weisst。
It ought rather to have been said that； if the essence of nature is ever described as
the inner part； the person who so describes it only knows its outer shell。 In Being
as a whole； or even in mere sense…perception； the notion is at first only an inward；
and for that very reason is something external to Being； a subjective thinking and
being； devoid of truth。 In Nature as well as in Mind； so long as the notion； design；
or law are at first the inner capacity； mere possibilities； they are first only an
external； inorganic nature； the knowledge of a third person； alien force； and the
like。 As a man is outwardly； that is to say in his actions （not of course in his
merely bodily outwardness）； so he is inwardly： and if his virtue； morality； etc。 are
only inwardly his … that is if they exist only in his intentions and sentiments； and
his outward acts are not identical with them … the one half of him is as hollow and
empty as the other。
§140n
The relation of Outward and Inward unites the two relations that precede； and at the same time
sets in abeyance mere relativity and phenomenality in general。 Yet so long as understanding
