history of philosophy-第25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！


for　ever　keeps　reason　on　its　lips；　but　which　is　dry　understanding　only；　no　reason　is　recognizable　in
it　as　the　moment　of　independent　thought　which　really　is　abstract　thought　and　that　alone。　When　the
understanding　which　does　not　comprehend　the　truths　of　Religion；　calls　itself　the　illuminating　reason
and　plays　the　lord　and　master；　it　goes　astray。　Rationalism　is　opposed　to　Philosophy　in　content　and
form；　for　it　has　made　the　content　empty　as　it　has　made　the　heavens；　and　has　reduced　all　that　is；　to
finite　relations　…　in　its　form　it　is　a　reasoning　process　which　is　not　free　and　which　has　no　conceiving
power。　The　supernatural　in　Religion　is　opposed　to　rationalism；　and　if　indeed　the　latter　is　related　in
respect　of　the　real　content　to　Philosophy；　yet　it　differs　from　it　in　form；　for　it　has　become　unspiritual
and　wooden；　looking　for　its　justification　to　mere　external　authority。　The　scholastics　were　not
supernaturalists　in　this　sense；　they　knew　the　dogmas　of　the　Church　in　thought　and　in　conception。　If
Religion　in　the　inflexibility　of　its　abstract　authority　as　opposed　to　thought；　declares　of　it　that　〃the
gates　of　Hell　shall　not　triumph　over　it；〃　the　gates　of　reason　are　stronger　than　the　gates　of　Hell；　not
to　overcome　the　Church　but　to　reconcile　itself　to　the　Church。　Philosophy；　as　the　conceiving
thought　of　this　content；　has　as　regards　the　idea　of　Religion；　the　advantage　of　comprehending　both
sides　…　it　comprehends　Religion　and　also　comprehends　both　rationalism　and　supernaturalism　and
itself　likewise。　But　this　is　not　the　case　on　the　other　side。　Religion　from　the　standpoint　of　idea；
comprehends　only　what　stands　on　the　same　platform　as　itself；　and　not　Philosophy；　the　Notion；　the
universal　thought　determinations。　Often　no　injustice　is　done　to　a　Philosophy　when　its　opposition　to
Religion　has　been　made　matter　of　reproach；　but　often；　too；　a　wrong　has　been　inflicted　where　this　is
done　from　the　religious　point　of　view。

The　form　of　Religion　is　necessary　to　Mind　as　it　is　in　and　for　itself；　it　is　the　form　of　truth　as　it　is　for
all　men；　and　for　every　mode　of　consciousness。　This　universal　mode　is　first　of　all　for　men　in　the　form
of　sensuous　consciousness；　and　then；　secondly；　in　the　intermingling　of　the　form　of　the　universal　with
sensuous　manifestation　or　reflection　…　the　representing　consciousness；　the　mythical；　positive　and
historical　form；　is　that　pertaining　to　the　understanding。　What　is　received　in　evidence　of　Mind　only
becomes　object　to　consciousness　when　it　appears　in　the　form　of　the　understanding；　that　is　to　say；
consciousness　must　first　be　already　acquainted　with　these　forms　from　life　and　from　experience。
Now；　because　thinking　consciousness　is　not　the　outward　universal　form　for　all　mankind；　the
consciousness　of　the　true；　the　spiritual　and　the　rational；　must　have　the　form　of　Religion；　and　this　is
the　universal　justification　of　this　form。

We　have　here　laid　down　the　distinction　between　Philosophy　and　Religion；　but　taking　into　account
what　it　is　we　wish　to　deal　with　in　the　history　of　Philosophy；　there　is　something　still　which　must　be
remarked　upon；　and　which　partly　follows　from　what　has　been　already　said。　There　is　the　question
still　confronting　us　as　to　what　attitude　we　must　take　in　reference　to　this　matter　in　the　history　of
Philosophy。

B。　The　religious　element　to　be　excluded　from　the　content　of　the　History　of
Philosophy。

i。　　Mythology　first　meets　us；　and　it　seems　as　if　it　might　be　drawn　within　the　history　of　Philosophy。
It　is　indeed　a　product　of　the　imagination；　but　not　of　caprice；　although　that　also　has　its　place　here。
But　the　main　part　of　mythology　is　the　work　of　the　imaginative　reason；　which　makes　reality　its
object；　but　yet　has　no　other　means　of　so　doing；　than　that　of　sensuous　representation；　so　that　the
gods　make　their　appearance　in　human　guise。　Mythology　can　now　be　studied　for　art；　&c。　But　the
thinking　mind　must　seek　out　the　substantial　content；　the　thought　and　the　theory　implicitly　contained
therein；　as　reason　is　sought　in　Nature。　This　mode　of　treating　mythology　was　that　of　the
Neo…platonists　；　in　recent　times　it　has　for　the　most　part　become　the　work　of　my　friend　Creuzer　in
symbolism。　This　method　of　treatment　is　combated　and　condemned　by　others。　Man；　it　is　said；　must
set　to　work　historically　alone；　and　it　is　not　historic　when　a　theory　unthought　of　by　the　ancients；　is
read　into　a　myth；　or　brought　out　of　it。　In　one　light；　this　is　quite　correct；　for　it　points　to　a　method
adopted　by　Creuzer；　and　also　by　the　Alexandrians　who　acted　in　a　similar　way。　In　conscious
thought　the　ancients　had　not　such　theories　before　them；　nor　did　anyone　maintain　them；　yet　to　say
that　such　content　was　not　implicitly　present；　is　an　absurd　contention。　As　the　products　of　reason；
though　not　of　thinking　reason；　the　religions　of　the　people；　as　also　the　mythologies；　however　simple
and　even　foolish　they　may　appear；　indubitably　contain　as　genuine　works　of　art；　thoughts；　universal
determinations　and　truth　for　the　instinct　of　reason　is　at　their　basis。　Bound　up　with　this　is　the　fact
that　since　mythology　in　its　expression　takes　sensuous　forms；　much　that　is　contingent　and　external
becomes　intermingled；　for　the　representation　of　the　Notion　in　sensuous　forms　always　possesses　a
certain　incongruity；　seeing　that　what　is　founded　on　imagination　cannot　express　the　Idea　in　its　real
aspect。　This　sensuous　form　produced　as　it　is　by　an　historic　or　natural　method；　must　be　determined
on　many　sides；　and　this　external　determination　must；　more　or　less；　be　of　such　a　nature　as　not　to
express　the　Idea。　It　may　also　be　that　many　errors　are　contained　in　that　explanation；　particularly
when　a　single　one　is　brought　within　our　notice；　all　the　customs；　actions；　furnishings；　vestments；　and
offerings　taken　together；　may　undoubtedly　contain　something　of　the　Idea　in　analogy；　but　the
connection　is　far　removed；　and　many　contingent　circumstances　must　find　their　entrance。　But　that
there　is　a　Reason　there；　must　certainly　be　recognized；　and　it　is　essential　so　to　comprehend　and
grasp　mythology。

But　Mythology　must　remain　excluded　from　our　history　of　Philosophy。　The　reason　of　this　is　found　in
the　fact　that　in　Philosophy　we　have　to　do　not　with　theorems　generally；　or　with　thoughts　which　only
are　implicite　contained　some　particular　form　or　other；　but　with　thoughts　which　are　explicit；　and
only　in　so　far　as　they　are　explicit　and　in　so　far　as　a　content　such　as　that　belonging　to　Religion；　has
come　to　consciousness　in　the　form　of　Thought。　And　this　is　just　what　forms　the　immense　distinction
which　we　saw　above；　between　capacity　and　actuality。　The　theorems　which　are　implicite
contained　within　Religion　do　not　concern　us；　they　must　be　in　the　form　of　thoughts；　since　Thought
alone　is　the　absolute　form　of　the　Idea。

In　many　mythologies；　images　are　certainly　used　along　with　their　significance；　or　else　the　images　are
closely　attended　by　their　interpretation。　The　ancient　Persians　worshipped　the　sun；　or　fire；　as　being
the　highest　existence；　the　first　cause　in　the　Persian　Religion　is　Zervane　Akerene　…　unlimited　time；
eternity。　This　simple　eternal　existence　possesses　according　to　Diogenes　L？rtius　（I。　8）；　〃the　two
principles　Ormuzd　and　Ahriman；　the　rulers　over　good　and　evil。〃　Plutarch　in　writing　on　Isis　and
Osiris　（T。　II。　p。　369；　ed。　Xyl。）　says；　〃It　is　not　one　existence　which　holds　and　rules　the　whole；　but
good　is　mingled　with　evil；　nature　as　a　rule　brings　forth　nothing　pure　and　simple；　it　is　not　one
dispenser；　who；　like　a　host；　gives　out　and　mixes　up　the　drink　from　two　different　barrels。　But
through　two　opposed　and　inimical　principles　of　which　the　one　impels　towards　what　is　right；　and　the
other　in　the　opposite　direction；　if　not　the　whole　world；　at　least　this　earth　is　influenced　in　different
ways。　Zoroaster　has　thus　emphatically　set　up　the　one　principle　（Ormuzd）　as　being　the　Light；　and
the　other　（Ahriman）　as　the　Darkness。　Between　the　two　is　Mithra；　hence　called　by　the　Persians　the
Mediator。〃　Mithra　is　then　likewise　substance；　the　universal　existence；　the　sun　raised　to　a　totality。　It
is　not　the　mediator　between　Ormuzd　and　Abriman　by　establishing　peace　and　leaving　each　to
remain　as　it　was；　it　does　not　partake　of　good　and　evil　both；　like　an　unblest　middle　thing；　b