a confession(忏悔录)-第7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！



science　　forming　the　pole　of　the　sphere　　is　metaphysics　or

philosophy。　　That　science　states　the　question　clearly：　　〃What　am　I；

and　what　is　the　universe？　　And　why　do　I　exist；　and　why　does　the

universe　exist？〃　　And　since　it　has　existed　it　has　always　replied　in

the　same　way。　　Whether　the　philosopher　calls　the　essence　of　life

existing　within　me；　and　in　all　that　exists；　by　the　name　of　〃idea〃；

or　〃substance〃；　or　〃spirit〃；　or　〃will〃；　he　says　one　and　the　same

thing：　　that　this　essence　exists　and　that　I　am　of　that　same

essence；　but　why　it　is　he　does　not　know；　and　does　not　say；　if　he　is

an　exact　thinker。　　I　ask：　　〃Why　should　this　essence　exist？　　What

results　from　the　fact　that　it　is　and　will　be？〃　。。。　And　philosophy

not　merely　does　not　reply；　but　is　itself　only　asking　that　question。　

And　if　it　is　real　philosophy　all　its　labour　lies　merely　in　trying

to　put　that　question　clearly。　　And　if　it　keeps　firmly　to　its　task

it　cannot　reply　to　the　question　otherwise　than　thus：　　〃What　am　I；

and　what　is　the　universe？〃　　〃All　and　nothing〃；　and　to　the　question

〃Why？〃　by　〃I　do　not　know〃。

　　　　　So　that　however　I　may　turn　these　replies　of　philosophy；　I　can

never　obtain　anything　like　an　answer　　and　not　because；　as　in　the

clear　experimental　sphere；　the　reply　does　not　relate　to　my

question；　but　because　here；　though　all　the　mental　work　is　directed

just　to　my　question；　there　is　no　answer；　but　instead　of　an　answer

one　gets　the　same　question；　only　in　a　complex　form。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
VI



　　　　　In　my　search　for　answers　to　life's　questions　I　experienced

just　what　is　felt　by　a　man　lost　in　a　forest。

　　　　　He　reaches　a　glade；　climbs　a　tree；　and　clearly　sees　the

limitless　distance；　but　sees　that　his　home　is　not　and　cannot　be

there；　then　he　goes　into　the　dark　wood　and　sees　the　darkness；　but

there　also　his　home　is　not。

　　　　　So　I　wandered　n　that　wood　of　human　knowledge；　amid　the　gleams

of　mathematical　and　experimental　science　which　showed　me　clear

horizons　but　in　a　direction　where　there　could　be　no　home；　and　also

amid　the　darkness　of　the　abstract　sciences　where　I　was　immersed　in

deeper　gloom　the　further　I　went；　and　where　I　finally　convinced

myself　that　there　was；　and　could　be；　no　exit。

　　　　　Yielding　myself　to　the　bright　side　of　knowledge；　I　understood

that　I　was　only　diverting　my　gaze　from　the　question。　　However

alluringly　clear　those　horizons　which　opened　out　before　me　might

be；　however　alluring　it　might　be　to　immerse　oneself　in　the

limitless　expanse　of　those　sciences；　I　already　understood　that　the

clearer　they　were　the　less　they　met　my　need　and　the　less　they

applied　to　my　question。

　　　　　〃I　know；〃　said　I　to　myself；　〃what　science　so　persistently

tries　to　discover；　and　along　that　road　there　is　no　reply　to　the

question　as　to　the　meaning　of　my　life。〃　　In　the　abstract　sphere　I

understood　that　notwithstanding　the　fact；　or　just　because　of　the

fact；　that　the　direct　aim　of　science　is　to　reply　to　my　question；

there　is　no　reply　but　that　which　I　have　myself　already　given：　

〃What　is　the　meaning　of　my　life？〃　　〃There　is　none。〃　　Or：　　〃What

will　come　of　my　life？〃　〃Nothing。〃　　Or：　　〃Why　does　everything　exist

that　exists；　and　why　do　I　exist？〃　　〃Because　it　exists。〃

　　　　　Inquiring　for　one　region　of　human　knowledge；　I　received　an

innumerable　quantity　of　exact　replies　concerning　matters　about

which　I　had　not　asked：　　about　the　chemical　constituents　of　the

stars；　about　the　movement　of　the　sun　towards　the　constellation

Hercules；　about　the　origin　of　species　and　of　man；　about　the　forms

of　infinitely　minute　imponderable　particles　of　ether；　but　in　this

sphere　of　knowledge　the　only　answer　to　my　question；　〃What　is　the

meaning　of　my　life？〃　was：　〃You　are　what　you　call　your　'life'；　you

are　a　transitory；　casual　cohesion　of　particles。　　The　mutual

interactions　and　changes　of　these　particles　produce　in　you　what　you

call　your　〃life〃。　　That　cohesion　will　last　some　time；　afterwards

the　interaction　of　these　particles　will　cease　and　what　you　call

〃life〃　will　cease；　and　so　will　all　your　questions。　　You　are　an

accidentally　united　little　lump　of　something。　　that　little　lump

ferments。　　The　little　lump　calls　that　fermenting　its　'life'。　　The

lump　will　disintegrate　and　there　will　be　an　end　of　the　fermenting

and　of　all　the　questions。〃　　So　answers　the　clear　side　of　science

and　cannot　answer　otherwise　if　it　strictly　follows　its　principles。

　　　　　From　such　a　reply　one　sees　that　the　reply　does　not　answer　the

question。　　I　want　to　know　the　meaning　of　my　life；　but　that　it　is　a

fragment　of　the　infinite；　far　from　giving　it　a　meaning　destroys　its

every　possible　meaning。　　The　obscure　compromises　which　that　side　of

experimental　exact　science　makes　with　abstract　science　when　it　says

that　the　meaning　of　life　consists　in　development　and　in　cooperation

with　development；　owing　to　their　inexactness　and　obscurity　cannot

be　considered　as　replies。

　　　　　The　other　side　of　science　　the　abstract　side　　when　it

holds　strictly　to　its　principles；　replying　directly　to　the

question；　always　replies；　and　in　all　ages　has　replied；　in　one　and

the　same　way：　　〃The　world　is　something　infinite　and

incomprehensible　part　of　that　incomprehensible　'all'。〃　　Again　I

exclude　all　those　compromises　between　abstract　and　experimental

sciences　which　supply　the　whole　ballast　of　the　semi…sciences　called

juridical；　political；　and　historical。　In　those　semi…sciences　the

conception　of　development　and　progress　is　again　wrongly　introduced；

only　with　this　difference；　that　there　it　was　the　development　of

everything　while　here　it　is　the　development　of　the　life　of　mankind。　

The　error　is　there　as　before：　development　and　progress　in　infinity

can　have　no　aim　or　direction；　and；　as　far　as　my　question　is

concerned；　no　answer　is　given。

　　　　　In　truly　abstract　science；　namely　in　genuine　philosophy　　not

in　that　which　Schopenhauer　calls　〃professorial　philosophy〃　which

serves　only　to　classify　all　existing　phenomena　in　new　philosophic

categories　and　to　call　them　by　new　names　　where　the　philosopher

does　not　lose　sight　of　the　essential　question；　the　reply　is　always

one　and　the　same　　the　reply　given　by　Socrates；　Schopenhauer；

Solomon；　and　buddha。

　　　　　〃We　approach　truth　only　inasmuch　as　we　depart　from　life〃；　said

Socrates　when　preparing　for　death。　　〃For　what　do　we；　who　love

truth；　strive　after　in　life？　　To　free　ourselves　from　the　body；　and

from　all　the　evil　that　is　caused　by　the　life　of　the　body！　　If　so；

then　how　can　we　fail　to　be　glad　when　death　comes　to　us？

　　　　　〃The　wise　man　seeks　death　all　his　life　and　therefore　death　is

not　terrible　to　him。〃

　　　　　And　Schopenhauer　says：

　　　　　〃Having　recognized　the　inmost　essence　of　the　world　as　*will*；

and　all　its　phenomena　　from　the　unconscious　working　of　the

obscure　forces　of　Nature　up　to　the　completely　conscious　action　of

man　　as　only　the　objectivity　of　that　will；　we　shall　in　no　way

avoid　the　conclusion　that　together　with　the　voluntary　renunciation

and　self…destruction　of　the　will　all　those　phenomena　also

disappear；　that　constant　striving　and　effort　without　aim　or　rest　on

all　the　stages　of　objectivity　in　which　and　through　which　the　world

exists；　the　diversity　of　successive　forms　will　disappear；　and

together　with　the　form　all　the　manifestations　of　will；　with　its

most　universal　forms；　space　and　time；　and　finally　its　most

fundamental　form　　subject　and　object。　　Without　will　there　is　no

concept　and　no　world。　　Before　us；　certainly；　nothing　remains。　　But

what　resists　this　transition　into　annihilation；　our　nature；　is　only

that　same　wish　to　live　　*Wille　zum　Leben*　　which　forms

ourselves　as　well　as　our　world。　　That　we　are　so　afraid　of

annihilation　or；　what　is　the　same　thing；　that　we　so　wish　to　live；

merely　means　that　we　are　ourselves　nothing　else　but　this　desire　to

live；　and　know　nothing　but　it。　　And　so　what　remains　after　the

complete　annihilation　of　the　will；　for　us　who　are　so　full　of　the

will；　is；　of　course；　nothing；　but　on　the　other　hand；　for　those　in

whom　the　will　has　turned