|
|
hegel_phenomenology_of_spirit_consciousness_part_7.mp3
146. The inner is still a pure other-worldly beyond for consciousness, for consciousness does not encounter itself within it. The inner is empty, for it is merely the nothingness of appearance and, positively, the simple universal. This way of being the inner meets with immediate agreement among those who say that the inner of things is not to be known; however, the ground for this assertion should be understood in different way. Certainly no acquaintance with the inner is available in the way in which the inner exists here without mediation, but this is not because reason might be too short-sighted, or limited, or whatever else one wants to call it. Why this is so is not something especially well known to us here, for we have not yet gone very deeply into the matter. Rather, it has to do with the simple nature of the item at issue, namely, because in the void, nothing is known, or, to speak about it about in another way, because it is simply defined as the other-worldly beyond of consciousness. - The result is of course the same as if a blind person were to be set amidst the wealth of the supersensible world - if that world has such wealth, whether it be its own distinctive content or whether it be consciousness itself that is this content - or if a person with sight were to be situated in total darkness, or if you please, situated in pure light (if the supersensible world were indeed to be something like that). In that pure light, the person with sight sees as little as he sees in total darkness, and he sees exactly just as much as the blind person sees of the riches lying right in front of him. If it were the case that there would be nothing more to the inner and the connectedness with the inner which is effected by means of appearance, then there would be nothing more left to do except to stop short at appearances, which is to say, to perceive something which we know not to be true. Or, suppose we are nonetheless to take there to be something in the void after all; this is a void which came about as the void of objective things but which must now be taken both as emptiness in itself, or as the void of all spiritual relations, or even as the void of the distinctions of consciousness as consciousness - and if the void is taken as this complete void, which is also called the holy, nonetheless there is supposed to be something with which to fill it out, even if it is only filled out with daydreams, that is, with appearances which consciousness creates. If so, then that void would just have to rest content with being so badly treated, for it would deserve no better, for, after all, daydreams themselves are still better than its emptiness. 147. However, the inner, that is, the supersensible other-worldly beyond, has emerged. It comes forth from out of appearance, and appearance is its mediation. That is, appearance is its essence and in fact its fulfillment. The supersensible is the sensuous and the perceived posited as they are in truth. However, the truth of the sensuous and the perceived is to be appearance. The supersensible is therefore appearance as appearance. - If it is meant that the supersensible is therefore the sensuous world, that is, the world as it is for immediate sense-certainty and perception, then this is a topsy-turvy understanding of the supersensible, since appearance is to an even greater degree not the world of sensuous knowing and perceiving as an existing world. It is rather that world posited as sublated, that is, posited in truth as what is inner. It is commonly said that the supersensible is not appearance; but "appearance" there is not understood to be appearance but rather to be the sensuous world as being itself real actuality. 148. Our object, the understanding, finds itself in this very place. In its eyes, the inner has just come about only as the universal which is still not the in-itself brought to fruition. The negative meaning of the play of forces is precisely that it merely does not exist in itself, and the positive meaning is merely that of what does the mediation, which is, however, external to the understanding. However, the understanding's relation to the inner by means of the mediation is the understanding's own movement by means of which the inner will, in the eyes of the understanding, bring itself to fruition. - What there is immediately for the understanding are the play of forces, but, in its eyes, the true is the simple inner. It is thus only as the "simple" per se that the movement of force is likewise the true. However, what we have seen of this play of forces is that its composition consists in the force solicited by another force likewise soliciting this other force, which itself thereby becomes a soliciting force. What is on hand within this play is just the immediate alternating fluctuation, that is, the absolute exchange of determinateness which constitutes the sole content of what is coming forth: To be either a universal medium or a negative unity. In determinately coming forth, it itself immediately ceases to be what it was as it came forth. Through its determinate coming forth, it solicits the other component, which expresses itself by this means. This is to say that the latter is now immediately what the first was supposed to be. The two sides, the relations of soliciting and the relations of the determinately contrasting content are each on their own absolute topsy-turviness and confusion. However, both of these relationships are once again themselves the same; and the distinction of form, namely, that of being the solicited and the soliciting, is the same as the distinction of content, namely, that of being the solicited as such, namely, the passive medium. In contrast, what is soliciting is the active, negative unity, that is, the "one." All distinctions thereby vanish between the particular, contrasting forces which were supposed to be present in this movement, for they rest solely on those distinctions. Together with both of those vanishing, the distinction of forces likewise collapses in the same way into one. There is therefore neither force, nor soliciting and being solicited, nor the determinateness of an durably existing medium and a unity reflected into itself; there is neither something individual on its own, nor are there various oppositions. Instead, what there is in this absolute alternating fluctuation is just the distinction as the universal distinction, that is, as the kind of distinction into which the many oppositions have been reduced. This distinction as universal distinction is thus the simple in the play of force itself and what is true in that play of forces; it is the law of force. 149. Through its relation to the simplicity of the inner, that is, the understanding, that absolutely fluctuating appearance comes to be the simple distinction. The inner is at first merely the universal in itself. However, this universal, simple in itself, is essentially and likewise absolutely the universal distinction, for it is the result of the alternating fluctuation itself, that is, the alternating fluctuation is its essence. However, alternating fluctuation, posited as existing in the inner as it is in truth, is likewise absorbed into the inner as an absolutely universal distinction at rest, that is, as what persists in parity with itself. That is, negation is an essential moment of the universal, and it, that is, mediation, is therefore the universal distinction within the universal. It is expressed in law as the stable picture of fluctuating appearance. The supersensible world is thus a realm of laws at rest. It is to be sure, beyond the perceived world, for this perceived world exhibits the law only by means of constant alternating fluctuation. However, those laws are likewise present in the perceived world and are its immediately motionless likeness. 150. This realm of laws is, to be sure, the truth of the understanding, which has its content in the distinction that lies within the law. However, it is at the same time merely the understanding's first truth and does not completely bring appearance to its fulfillment. The law is present in appearance, but it is not the entire presence of appearance; under ever different circumstances, the law has an ever different actuality. By virtue of this, there remains for appearance on its own an aspect which does not exist within the inner; that is, appearance is in truth not yet posited as appearance, as sublated being-for-itself. Likewise this defect in the law must in itself be brought into prominence. What seems to be lacking in it is that it admittedly has the distinction in it, but it has it as universal, as an indeterminate distinction. However, insofar as it is not the law per se but merely one law, it has determinateness in it. As a result there are indeterminately many laws on hand. Yet this multiplicity is even more a defect; it contradicts the very principle of the understanding as the consciousness of the simple inner for which the true is the unity that is in itself universal. For that reason, it must to a greater degree let the many collapse together into one law. For example: The law according to which a stone falls and the law according to which the heavenly spheres move have been conceptually grasped as one law. However, in this collapse into each other, the laws lose their determinateness; the law becomes ever more superficial, and as a result, what is found is not really the unity of these determinate laws but rather one law, which omits their determinateness in the way that the one law, which unifies within itself the law of bodies falling to the earth and the law of heavenly movement, does not in fact express either of them. The unification of all laws into universal attraction expresses no further content than precisely that of the mere concept of law itself, which is posited as existing therein. Universal attraction merely says this: Everything has a constant distinction with regard to everything else. In saying that, the understanding supposes that it has found a universal law which expresses universal actuality as such, but it has in fact merely found the concept of law itself. Nonetheless, it has done so in such a way that it says at the same time that all actuality is in itself lawful. For that reason, the expression of universal attraction has to that extent great importance as it is directed against the unthinking representation for which everything presents itself in the shape of contingency and for which determinateness has the form of sensuous self-sufficiency. 151. Universal attraction, that is, the pure concept of law, thereby stands over and against determinate laws. Insofar as this pure concept is regarded as the essence, that is, the true inner, the determinateness itself of determinate laws still belongs to appearance, or, to an even greater degree, it belongs to sensuous being. Yet the pure concept of law does not merely go beyond the law, which, itself being a determinate law, stands over and against other determinate laws. Instead, it goes beyond the law as such. The determinateness that was talked about is itself in fact merely a vanishing moment, which no longer comes into view here as an essentiality, for what is here on hand is only the law as the true. However, the concept of the law is turned against the law itself. That is, in the law, the distinction itself is immediately apprehended and incorporated into the universal, and as a result there is in the law a durable existence of all the moments, whose relation was expressed by the law, as indifferent essentialities existing in themselves. However, these parts of the distinction in the law are at the same time themselves determinate components. The pure concept of the law as universal attraction must be apprehended in its true significance in such a way so that within it, as the absolutely simple, the distinctions, which are present in the law as such, themselves return once again into the inner as simple unity. The simple unity is the inner necessity of the law. 152. The law is thereby available in a doubled manner, at one time as a law in which the distinctions are expressed as self-sufficient moments, and at another time in the form of simple being-that-has-returned-into-itself. This once again can be called force, but not in such a way that it is the force driven back but rather so that it is the force as such, that is, the concept of force, which is itself an abstraction and which itself draws into itself the distinctions between what attracts and what is attracted. For example, simple electricity is in that way force. However, the expression of the distinction belongs in the law, and this distinction is positive and negative electricity. In the motion of falling, force is the "simple," that is, gravity, for which the law is that the magnitudes of the distinct moments of the motion, that is, the time elapsed and the space traversed, relate themselves to each other as root and square. Electricity itself is not the distinction in itself, that is, is not in its essence the doubled-essence of positive and negative electricity; thus, one is accustomed to saying that it obeys the law of existing in that way, or that it has the property of expressing itself in that way. This property is, to be sure, essentially and solely the property of this force, that is, it is necessary to that force. However, necessity is an empty word here. The force must double itself in that way simply because it must. If, of course, positive electricity is posited, then negative electricity in itself is also necessary, for the positive exists merely as a relation to the negative. That is, the positive is in itself the distinction from itself in the same way that the negative is. However, that electricity divides itself as such in that way, is not in itself necessary; as simple force electricity is indifferent vis-à-vis its law, which declares it to be positive and negative. If we call the former its concept and the latter its being, then its concept is indifferent to its being; it merely has this property, which is just to say that its property is not in itself necessary to its being. - This indifference takes on another shape if it is said that it merely belongs to the definition of electricity to be positive and negative, that is, that this is purely and simply its concept and essence. Its being would then mean its existence as such; however, the necessity of its existence does not lie in that definition; one either detects its existence, which is to say, it is not necessary at all; or it has its existence by means of other forces, which is to say that its necessity is external. However, as a result of locating necessity within the determinateness of what it is "to be by means of others," we fall back once again into the multiplicity of determinate laws, which we had just abandoned in order to consider the law as law. It is only with the law as law that its concept as concept is to be compared. However, in all these forms, necessity has still merely shown itself to be an empty word.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
本城市首頁
等級：5
