history of philosophy-第32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！


has　first　of　all　to　develop　itself；　and　that　knowledge　which　has　already　developed　itself　inwardly；
arouses　a　peculiar　interest。　In　both　cases　the　unity　of　thought　or　subjectivity　and　of　Truth　or
objectivity　is　manifested；　only　in　the　first　form　it　is　said　that　the　natural　man　knows　the　Truth　since
he　intuitively　believes　it；　while　in　the　second　form　the　unity　of　knowledge　and　Truth　is　shown；　but　in
such　a　way　that　the　subject　raises　itself　above　the　immediate　form　of　sensuous　consciousness　and
reaches　the　Truth　first　of　all　through　Thought。

The　final　end　is　to　think　the　Absolute　as　Mind；　as　the　Universal；　that　which；　when　the　infinite
bounty　of　the　Notion　in　its　reality　freely　emits　its　determinations　from　itself；　wholly　impresses　itself
upon　and　imparts　itself　to　them；　so　that　they　may　be　indifferently　outside　of　or　in　conflict　with　one
another；　but　so　that　these　totalities　are　one　only；　not　alone　implicitly；　（which　would　simply　be　our
reflection）　but　explicitly　identical；　the　determinations　of　their　difference　being　thus　explicitly　merely
ideal。　Hence　if　the　starting…point　of　the　history　of　Philosophy　can　be　expressed　by　saying　that　God
is　comprehended　as　the　immediate　and　not　yet　developed　universality；　and　that　its　end…the
grasping　of　the　Absolute　as　Mind　through　the　two　and　a　half　thousand　years'　work　of　the　thus　far
inert　world…spirit…is　the　end　of　our　time；　it　makes　it　easy　for　us　from　one　determination　to　go　on
through　the　manifestation　of　its　needs；　to　others。　Yet　in　the　course　of　history　this　is　difficult。

We　thus　have　altogether　two　philosophies…the　Greek　and　the　Teutonic。　As　regards　the　latter　we
must　distinguish　the　time　when　Philosophy　made　its　formal　appearance　as　Philosophy　and　the
period　of　formation　and　of　preparation　for　modern　times。　We　may　first　begin　Teutonic　philosophy
where　it　appears　in　proper　form　as　Philosophy。　Between　the　first　period　and　those　more　recent；
comes；　as　an　intermediate　period；　that　fermentation　of　a　new　Philosophy　which　on　the　one　side
keeps　within　the　substantial　and　real　existence　and　does　not　arrive　at　form；　while　on　the　other　side；
it　perfects　Thought；　as　the　bare　form　of　a　pre…supposed　truth；　until　it　again　knows　itself　as　the　free
ground　and　source　of　Truth。　Hence　the　history　of　Philosophy　falls　into　three　periods…that　of　the
Greek　Philosophy；　the　Philosophy　of　the　Middle　Ages　and　the　modern　Philosophy。　Of　these　the
first　is　speaking　generally；　regulated　by　Thought；　the　second　falls　into　the　opposition　between
existence　and　formal　reflection；　but　the　third　has　the　Notion　as　its　ground。　This　must　not　be　taken
to　mean　that　the　first　contains　Thought　alone；　it　also　has　conceptions　and　ideas；　just　as　the　latter
begins　from　abstract　thoughts　which　yet　constitute　a　duality。

First　Period。　—　This　commences　at　the　time　of　Thales；　about　600　B。C。；　and　goes　on　to　the
coming　to　maturity　of　the　Neo…platonic　philosophy　with　Plotinus　in　the　third　century；　from　thence
to　its　further　progress　and　development　with　Proclus　in　the　fifth　century　until　the　time　when　all
philosophy　was　extinguished。　The　Neo…platonic　philosophy　then　made　its　entrance　into　Christianity
later　on；　and　many　philosophies　within　Christianity　have　this　philosophy　as　their　only　groundwork。
This　is　a　space　of　time　extending　to　about　1000　years；　the　end　of　which　coincides　with　the
migration　of　the　nations　and　the　decline　of　the　Roman　Empire。

Second　Period。　—　The　second　period　is　that　of　the　Middle　Ages。　The　Scholastics　are　included
in　it；　and　Arabians　and　Jews　are　also　historically　to　be　noticed；　but　this　philosophy　mainly　falls
within　the　Christian　Church。　This　period　is　of　something　over　1000　years'　duration。

Third　Period。　—　Philosophy　of　modern　times　made　its　first　independent　appearance　after　the
Thirty　Years'　War；　with　Bacon；　Jacob　B？hm　and　Descartes；　it　begins　with　the　distinction
contained　in：　cogito　ergo　sum。　This　period　is　one　of　a　couple　of　centuries　and　the　philosophy　is
consequently　still　somewhat　modern。

2。　Sources　of　the　History　of　Philosophy。

We　have　to　seek　for　sources　of　another　kind　in　this　than　in　political　history。　There　historians　are
the　fountainheads；　which　again　have　as　sources　the　deeds　and　sayings　of　individuals；　and　the
historians　who　are　not　original　have　over　and　above　performed　their　work　at　secondhand。　But
historians　always　have　the　deeds　already　present　in　history；　that　is　to　say；　here　brought　into　the
form　of　ordinary　conception；　for　the　name　of　history　has　two　meanings：　it　signifies　on　the　one　hand
the　deeds　and　events　themselves；　and　on　the　other；　it　denotes　them　in　so　far　as　they　are　formed
through　conception　for　conception。　In　the　history　of　Philosophy　there　are；　on　the　contrary；　not　any
sources　which　can　be　derived　from　historians；　but　the　deeds　themselves　lie　before　us；　and
these…the　philosophic　operations　themselves…are　the　true　sources。　If　we　wish　to　study　the　history
of　Philosophy　in　earnest；　we　must　go　to　such　springs　as　these。　Yet　these　operations　form　too　wide
a　field　to　permit　of　our　keeping　to　it　alone　in　this　history。　In　the　case　of　many　philosophers　it　is
absolutely　necessary　to　confine　oneself　to　the　original　authors；　but　in　many　periods；　in　which　we
cannot　obtain　original　sources；　seeing　that　they　have　not　been　preserved　to　us；　（as；　for　instance；　in
that　of　the　older　Greek　philosophy）　we　must　certainly　confine　our　attention　simply　to　historians　and
other　writers。　There　are　other　periods；　too；　where　it　is　desirable　that　others　should　have　read　the
works　of　the　philosophers　and　that　we　should　receive　abstracts　therefrom。　Several　schoolmen
have　left　behind　them　works　of　sixteen；　twenty…four　and　twenty…six　folios；　and　hence　we　must　in
their　case　confine　ourselves　to　the　researches　of　others。　Many　philosophic　works　are　also　rare　and
hence　difficult　to　obtain。　Many　philosophers　are　for　the　most　part　important　from　an　historic　or
literary　point　of　view　only；　and　hence　we　may　limit　ourselves　to　the　compilations　in　which　they　are
dealt　with。　The　most　noteworthy　works　on　the　history　of　Philosophy　are；　however；　the　following；
regarding　which　I　refer　for　particulars　to　the　summary　of　Tennemann's　History　of　Philosophy；　by
A。　Wendt；　since　I　do　not　wish　to　give　any　complete　list。

1。　One　of　the　first　Histories　of　Philosophy；　which　is　only　interesting　as　an　attempt；　is　the　〃History
of　Philosophy；〃　by　Thomas　Stanley　（London；　1655；　folio　ed。　III。；　1701。　4。　translated　into　Latin　by
Godofr。　Olearius；　Lipsiae；　1711；　4）。　This　history　is　no　longer　much　used；　and　only　contains　the　old
philosophic　schools　in　the　form　of　sects　and　as　if　no　new　ones　had　existed。　That　is　to　say；　it　keeps
to　the　old　belief　commonly　held　at　that　time；　that　there　only　were　ancient　philosophies　and　that　the
period　of　philosophy　came　to　an　end　with　Christianity；　as　if　Philosophy　were　something　belonging
to　heathendom　and　the　truth　only　could　be　found　in　Christianity。　In　it　a　distinction　was　drawn
between　Truth　as　it　is　created　from　the　natural　reason　in　the　ancient　philosophies；　and　the　revealed
truth　of　the　Christian　religion；　in　which　there　was　consequently　no　longer　any　Philosophy。　In　the
time　of　the　Revival　of　Learning　there　certainly　were　no　proper　philosophies；　and　above　all　in
Stanley's　time　systems　of　Philosophy　proper　were　too　young　for　the　older　generations　to　have　the
amount　of　respect　for　them　necessary　to　allow　of　their　being　esteemed　as　realities。

2。　Jo。　Jac。　Bruckeri　Historia　critica　philosoph？　Lipsi？；　1742…1744；　four　parts；　or　five
volumes　in　four；　for　the　fourth　part　has　two　volumes。　The　second　edition；　unaltered；　but　with　the
addition　of　a　supplement；　1766…1767；　four　parts　in　six　quartos　the　last　of　which　forms　the
supplement。　This　is　an　immense　compilation　which　is　not　formed　straight　from　the　original　sources；
but　is　mixed　with　reflections　after　the　manner　of　the　times。　As　we　have　seen　from　an　example
above　＇§　A。　3。　c。＇　the　accounts　given　are　in　the　highest　degree　inaccurate。　Brucker's　manner　of
procedure　is　entirely　unhistoric；　and　yet　nowhere　ought　we　to　proceed　in　a　more　historic　manner
than　in　the　history　of　Philosophy。　This　work　is　thus　simply　so　much　useless　ballast。　An　epitome　of
the　same　is　Jo。　Jac。　Bru