history of philosophy-第16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！


we　must　regard　the　view　of　nature　which　we　find　in　Thales　as　dynamic　in　principle。　He　regarded
the　world　as　the　all…embracing；　living　animal　which　has　developed　from　a　germ　like　every　other
animal；　and　this　germ；　like　that　of　all　other　animals；　is　either　damp　or　water。　Thus　the　fundamental
idea　of　Thales　is　that　the　world　is　a　living　whole　which　has　developed　from　a　germ　and　carries　on
its　life　as　does　an　animal；　by　means　of　nourishment　suitable　to　its　nature〃　（cf。　p。　16）。　This　is　quite　a
different　account　from　that　of　Aristotle；　and　none　of　it　is　communicated　by　the　ancients　regarding
Thales。　The　sequence　of　thought　is　evident；　but　historically　it　is　not　justified。　We　ought　not　by　such
deductions　to　make　an　ancient　philosophy　into　something　quite　different　from　what　it　originally
was。　

We　are　too　apt　to　mould　the　ancient　philosophers　into　our　own　forms　of　thought；　but　this　is　just　to
constitute　the　progress　of　development；　the　difference　in　times；　in　culture　and　in　philosophies；
depends　on　whether　certain　reflections；　certain　thought　determinations；　and　certain　stages　in　the
Notion　have　come　to　consciousness；　whether　a　consciousness　has　been　developed　to　a　particular
point　or　not。　The　history　of　Philosophy　has　simply　to　deal　with　this　development　and　bringing　forth
of　thought。　The　determinations　involved　certainly　follow　from　a　proposition；　but　whether　they　are
put　forth　as　yet　or　not　is　quite　another　thing；　and　the　bringing　forth　of　the　inner　content　is　the　only
matter　of　importance。　We　must　therefore　only　make　use　of　the　words　which　are　actually　literal；　for
to　use　further　thought　determinations　which　do　not　yet　belong　to　the　consciousness　of　the
philosopher　in　question；　is　to　carry　on　development。　Thus　Aristotle　states　that　Thales　has　defined
the　principle　（archi）　of　every　thing　to　be　water。　But　Anaximander　first　made　use　of　archi；　and
Thales　thus　did　not　possess　this　determination　of　thought　at　all；　he　recognized　arch　i　as
commencement　in　time；　but　not　as　the　fundamental　principle。　Thales　did　not　once　introduce　the
determination　of　cause　into　his　philosophy；　and　first　cause　is　a　further　determination　still。　There　are
whole　nations　which　have　not　this　conception　at　all；　indeed　it　involves　a　great　step　forward　in
development。　And　seeing　that　difference　in　culture　on　the　whole　depends　on　difference　in　the
thought　determinations　which　are　manifested；　this　must　be　so　still　more　with　respect　to
philosophies。　

Now；　as　in　the　logical　system　of　thought　each　of　its　forms　has　its　own　place　in　which　alone　it
suffices；　and　this　form　becomes；　by　means　of　ever…progressing　development；　reduced　to　a
subordinate　element；　each　philosophy　is；　in　the　third　place；　a　particular　stage　in　the　development　of
the　whole　process　and　has　its　definite　place　where　it　finds　its　true　value　and　significance。　Its　special
character　is　really　to　be　conceived　of　in　accordance　with　this　determination；　and　it　is　to　be
considered　with　respect　to　this　position　in　order　that　full　justice　may　be　done　to　it。　On　this　account
nothing　more　must　be　demanded　or　expected　from　it　than　what　it　actually　gives；　and　the
satisfaction　is　not　to　be　sought　for　in　it；　which　can　only　be　found　in　a　fuller　development　of
knowledge。　　We　must　not　expect　to　find　the　questions　of　our　consciousness　and　the　interest　of　the
present　world　responded　to　by　the　ancients；　such　questions　presuppose　a　certain　development　in
thought。　Therefore　every　philosophy　belongs　to　its　own　time　and　is　restricted　by　its　own
limitations；　just　because　it　is　the　manifestation　of　a　particular　stage　in　development。　The　individual　is
the　offspring　of　his　people；　of　his　world；　whose　constitution　and　attributes　are　alone　manifested　in
his　form；　he　may　spread　himself　out　as　he　will；　he　cannot　escape　out　of　his　time　any　more　than　out
of　his　skin；　for　he　belongs　to　the　one　universal　Mind　which　is　his　substance　and　his　own　existence。
How　should　he　escape　from　this？　It　is　the　same　universal　Mind　that　is　embraced　by　thinking
Philosophy；　that　Philosophy　is　Mind's　thought　of　itself　and　therefore　its　determinate　and　substantial
content。　Every　philosophy　is　the　philosophy　of　its　own　day；　a　link　in　the　whole　chain　of　spiritual
development；　and　thus　it　can　only　find　satisfaction　for　the　interests　belonging　to　its　own　particular
time。　

On　this　account　an　earlier　philosophy　does　not　give　satisfaction　to　the　mind　in　which　a　deeper
conception　reigns。　What　Mind　seeks　for　in　Philosophy　is　this　conception　which　already　constitutes
its　inward　determination　and　the　root　of　its　existence　conceived　of　as　object　to　thought；　Mind
demands　a　knowledge　of　itself。　But　in　the　earlier　philosophy　the　Idea　is　not　yet　present　in　this
determinate　character。　Hence　the　philosophy　of　Plato　and　Aristotle；　and　indeed　all　philosophies；
ever　live　and　are　present　in　their　principles；　but　Philosophy　no　longer　has　the　particular　form　and
aspect　possessed　by　that　of　Plato　and　of　Aristotle。　We　cannot　rest　content　with　them；　and　they
cannot　be　revived；　hence　there　can　be　no　Platonists；　Aristotelians；　Stoics；　or　Epicureans　today。　To
re…awaken　them　would　be　to　try　to　bring　back　to　an　earlier　stage　the　Mind　of　a　deeper　culture　and
self…penetration。　But　this　cannot　be　the　case；　it　would　be　an　impossibility　and　as　great　a　folly　as
were　a　man　to　wish　to　expend　his　energies　in　attaining　the　standpoint　of　the　youth；　the　youth　in
endeavouring　to　be　the　boy　or　child　again；　whereas　the　man；　the　youth；　and　the　child；　are　all　one
and　the　same　individual。　The　period　of　revival　in　the　sciences；　the　new　epoch　in　learning　which
took　place　in　the　fifteenth　and　sixteenth　centuries；　began　not　only　with　the　revived　study　of；　but
also　with　the　re…animation　of　the　old　philosophies。　Marsilius　Ficinus　was　a　Platonist；　an　Academy
of　Platonic　philosophy　was　established　and　installed　with　professors　by　Cosmos　de　Medici；　and
Ficinus　was　placed　at　the　head　of　it。　There　were　pure　Aristotelians　like　Pomponius：　Gassendi　later
on　maintained　the　Epicurean　philosophy；　for　his　philosophy　dealt　with　Physics　after　the　manner　of
the　Epicureans；　Lipsius　wished　to　be　a　Stoic；　and　so　on。　The　sense　of　opposition　was　so　great；
ancient　philosophy　and　Christianity　…　from　or　in　which　no　special　philosophy　had　developed　…　were
so　diverse；　that　no　philosophy　peculiar　to　itself　could　develop　in　Christianity。　What　was　or　could
be　had　as　philosophy；　either　in　conformity　with　or　in　opposition　to　Christianity；　was　a　certain
ancient　philosophy　which　was　thus　taken　up　anew。　But　mummies　when　brought　amongst　living
beings　cannot　there　remain。　Mind　had　for　long　possessed　a　more　substantial　life；　a　more　profound
Notion　of　itself；　and　hence　its　thought　had　higher　needs　than　such　as　could　be　satisfied　by　these
philosophies。　A　revival　such　as　this　is　then　to　be　regarded　only　as　the　transitory　period　in　which　we
learn　to　know　the　forms　which　are　implied　and　which　have　gone　before；　and　as　the　renewal　of
former　struggles　through　the　steps　necessary　in　development。　Such　reconstructions　and　repetitions
in　a　distant　time　of　principles　which　have　become　foreign　to　Mind；　are　in　history　transitory　only；
and　formed　in　a　language　which　is　dead。　Such　things　are　translations　only　and　not　originals；　and
Mind　does　not　find　satisfaction　excepting　in　knowledge　of　its　own　origination。　

When　modern　times　are　in　the　same　way　called　upon　to　revert　to　the　standpoint　of　an　ancient
philosophy　（as　is　recommended　specially　in　regard　to　the　philosophy　of　Plato）　in　order　to　make
this　a　means　of　escaping　from　the　complications　and　difficulties　of　succeeding　times；　this　reversion
does　not　come　naturally　as　in　the　first　case。　This　discreet　counsel　has　the　same　origin　as　the
request　to　cultivated　members　of　society　to　turn　back　to　the　customs　and　ideas　of　the　savages　of
the　North　American　forests；　or　as　the　recommendation　to　adopt　the　religion　of　Melchisedec　which
Fichte　（6）　has　maintained　to　be　the　purest　and　simplest　possible；　and　therefore　the　one　at　which
we　must　eventually　arrive。　On　the　one　hand；　in　this　retrogression　the　desire　for　an　origin　and　for　a
fixed　point　of　departure　is　unmistakable；　but　such　must　be　sought　for　in　thought　and　Idea　alone　and
not　in　an　authorita