history of philosophy-第51部分

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！


Spinoza　for　thus　annihilating　them。　Those　who　defame　him　in　such　a　way　as　this　are　therefore　not
aiming　at　maintaining　God；　but　at　maintaining　the　finite　and　the　worldly；　they　do　not　fancy　their　own
extinction　and　that　of　the　world。　Spinoza's　system　is　absolute　pantheism　and　monotheism　elevated
into　thought。　Spinozism　is　therefore　very　far　removed　from　being　atheism　in　the　ordinary　sense；　but
in　the　sense　that　God　is　not　conceived　as　spirit；　it　is　atheism。　However；　in　the　same　way　many
theologians　are　also　atheists　who　speak　of　God　only　as　the　Almighty　Supreme　Being；　etc。；　who
refuse　to　acknowledge　God；　and　who　admit　the　validity　and　truth　of　the　finite。　They　are　many
degrees　worse　than　Spinoza。

The　second　point　to　be　considered　is　the　method　adopted　by　Spinoza　for　setting　forth　his
philosophy；　it　is　the　demonstrative　method　of　geometry　as　employed　by　Euclid；　in　which　we　find
definitions；　explanations；　axioms；　and　theorems。　Even　Descartes　made　it　his　starting…point　that
philosophic　propositions　must　be　mathematically　handled　and　proved；　that　they　must　have　the　very
same　evidence　as　mathematics。　The　mathematical　method　is　considered　superior　to　all　others；　on
account　of　the　nature　of　its　evidence；　and　it　is　natural　that　independent　knowledge　in　its
re…awakening　lighted　first　upon　this　form；　of　which　it　saw　so　brilliant　an　example。　The　mathematical
method　is；　however；　ill…adapted　for　speculative　content；　and　finds　its　proper　place　only　in　the　finite
sciences　of　the　understanding。　In　modern　times　Jacobi　has　asserted　（Werke；　Vol。　IV。　Section　I。
pp。　217…223）　that　all　demonstration；　all　scientific　knowledge　leads　back　to　Spinozism；　which　alone
is　a　logical　method　of　thought；　and　because　it　must　lead　thither；　it　is　really　of　no　service　whatever；
but　immediate　knowledge　is　what　we　must　depend　on。　It　may　be　conceded　to　Jacobi　that　the
method　of　demonstration　leads　to　Spinozism；　if　we　understand　thereby　merely　the　method　of
knowledge　belonging　to　the　understanding。　But　the　fact　is　that　Spinoza　is　made　a　testing…point　in
modern　philosophy；　so　that　it　may　really　be　said：　You　are　either　a　Spinozist　or　not　a　philosopher　at
all。　This　being　so；　the　mathematical　and　demonstrative　method　of　Spinoza　would　seem　to　be　only　a
defect　in　the　external　form；　but　it　is　the　fundamental　defect　of　the　whole　position。　In　this　method　the
nature　of　philosophic　knowledge　and　the　object　thereof；　are　entirely　misconceived；　for
mathematical　knowledge　and　method　are　merely　formal　in　character　and　consequently　altogether
unsuited　for　philosophy。　Mathematical　knowledge　exhibits　its　proof　on　the　existent　object　as　such；
not　on　the　object　as　conceived；　the　Notion　is　lacking　throughout；　the　content　of　Philosophy；
however；　is　simply　the　Notion　and　that　which　is　comprehended　by　the　Notion。　Therefore　this
Notion　as　the　knowledge　of　the　essence　is　simply　one　assumed；　which　falls　within　the　philosophic
subject；　and　this　is　what　represents　itself　to　be　the　method　peculiar　to　Spinoza's　philosophy。　Of
this　demonstrative　manner　we　have　already　seen　these　examples：　The　definitions　from　which
Spinoza　takes　his　start　—　as　in　geometry　a　commencement　is　made　with　the　line；　triangle；　&c。　—
concern　universal　determinations；　such　as　cause　of　itself；　the　finite；　substance；　attribute；　mode；　and
so　on；　which　are　solely　and　simply　accepted　and　assumed；　not　deduced；　nor　proved　to　be
necessary；　for　Spinoza　is　not　aware　of　how　he　arrives　at　these　individual　determinations。　He
further　speaks　of　axioms；　for　instance　（Ethic。　P。　I。　Ax。　I。　p。　36）：　“What　is；　is　either　in　itself　or　in
another。”　The　determinations　“in　itself”　and　“in　another”　are　not　shown　forth　in　their　necessity：
neither　is　this　disjunction　proved；　it　is　merely　assumed。　The　propositions　have；　as　such；　a　subject
and　predicate　which　are　not　similar。　When　the　predicate　is　proved　of　the　subject　and　necessarily
combined　with　it；　the　discrepancy　remains　that　the　one　as　universal　is　related　to　the　other　as
particular：　therefore　even　although　the　relation　is　proved；　there　is　present　at　the　same　time　a
secondary　relation。　Mathematical　science；　in　its　true　propositions　respecting　a　whole；　escapes
from　the　difficulty　by　proving　also　the　converse　of　the　propositions；　in　this　way　obtaining　for　them　a
special　definiteness　by　proving　each　proposition　in　both　ways。　True　propositions　may；　therefore；
be　looked　on　as　definitions；　and　the　conversion　is　the　proof　of　the　proposition　in　the　form　in　which
it　is　expressed。　But　this　means　of　escaping　the　difficulty　Philosophy　cannot　well　employ；　since　the
subject　of　which　something　is　proved　is　itself　only　the　Notion　or　the　universal；　and　the　proposition
form　is　therefore　quite　superfluous　and　out　of　place。　What　has　the　form　of　the　subject　is　in　the　form
of　an　existent　thing；　as　contrasted　with　the　universal；　the　content　of　the　proposition。　The　existent
thing　is　taken　as　signifying　existent　in　the　ordinary　sense；　it　is　the　word　which　we　use　in　every…day
life；　and　of　which　we　have　a　conception　that　has　nothing　of　the　Notion　in　it。　The　converse　of　a
proposition　would　simply　read　like　this：　The　Notion　is　that　which　is　thus　popularly　conceived。　This
proof　from　the　usage　of　language　—　that　we　also　understand　this　to　be　the　meaning　in　every…day
life；　or　in　other　words　that　the　name　is　correct　—　has　no　philosophic　significance。　But　if　the
proposition　is　not　one　like　this；　but　an　ordinary　proposition；　and　if　the　predicate　is　not　the　Notion；
but　some　general　term　or　other；　a　predicate　of　the　subject；　such　propositions　are　really　not
philosophic：　we　might　instance　the　statement　that　substance　is　one　and　not　several；　but　only　that　in
which　substance　and　unity　are　the　same。　Or；　in　other　words；　this　unity　of　the　two　moments　is　the
very　thing　which　the　proof　has　to　demonstrate；　it　is　the　Notion　or　the　essence。　In　this　case　it　looks
as　if　the　proposition　were　the　matter　of　chief　importance；　the　truth。　But　if　in　these　really　only
so…called　propositions；　subject　and　predicate　are　in　truth　not　alike；　because　one　is　individual　and
the　other　universal；　their　relation　is　essential；　i。e。；　the　reason　for　which　they　are　one。　The　proof　has
here　a　false　position　indeed；　as　if　that　subject　were　implicit　or　in　itself；　whereas　subject　and
predicate　are；　fundamentally　even；　moments　in　separation；　in　the　judgment　“God　is　One；”　the
subject　itself　is　universal；　since　it　resolves　itself　into　unity。　On　the　other　side　it　is　implied　in　this　false
position　that　the　proof　is　brought　in　from　outside　merely；　as　in　mathematics　from　a　preceding
proposition；　and　that　the　proposition　is　not　therefore　conceived　through　itself；　thus　we　see　the
ordinary　method　of　proof　take　its　middle　term；　the　principle；　from　anywhere　it　can；　in　the　same
way　as　in　classification　it　takes　its　principle　of　classification。　The　proposition　is　then；　as　it　were；　a
secondary　affair；　but　we　must　ask　if　this　proposition　is　true。　The　result　as　proposition　ought　to　be
truth；　but　is　only　knowledge。　The　movement　of　knowledge；　as　proof；　falls　therefore；　in　the　third
place；　outside　of　the　proposition；　which　ought　to　be　the　truth。　The　essential　moments　of　the　system
are　really　already　completely　contained　in　the　pre…suppositions　of　the　definitions；　from　which　all
further　proofs　have　merely　to　be　deduced。　But　whence　have　we　these　categories　which　here
appear　as　definitions？　We　find　them　doubtless　in　ourselves；　in　scientific　culture。　The　existence　of
the　understanding；　the　will；　extension；　is　therefore　not　developed　from　infinite　substance；　but　it　is
directly　expressed　in　these　determinations；　and　that　quite　naturally；　for　of　a　truth　there　exists　the
One　into　which　everything　enters；　in　order　to　be　absorbed　therein；　but　out　of　which　nothing　comes。
For　as　Spinoza　has　set　up　the　great　proposition；　all　determination　implies　negation　（supra；　p。　267）；
and　as　of　everything；　even　of　thought　in　contrast　to　extension；　it　may　be　shown　that　it　is　determined
and　finite；　what　is　essential　in　it　rests　upon　negation。　Therefore　God　alone　is　the　positive；　the
affirmative；　and　consequently　the　one　substance；　all　other　things；　on　the　contrary；　are　only
modifications　of　this　substance；　and　are　nothing　in　and　for　themselves。　Simple　determination　or
negation　belongs　only　to　form；　but　is　quite　another　thing　from　absolute　determinateness　or
negativity；　which　is　absolute　form；　in　this　way　of　looking　at　it　negation　is　the　negation　of　negation；
and　therefore　true　affirmation。　This　negative　self…conscious　moment；　the　movement　of　knowledge；
which　pursues　its　way　in　the　thought　which　is　present　before　us；　is　however　certainly　lacking　to　the
content　of　Spinoza's　philosophy；　or　at　least　it　is　only　externally　associated　with　it；　since　it　falls
within　self…consciousness。　That　is　to　say；　thoughts　form　the　content；　but　they　are　not　self…conscious
thoughts　or　Notions：　the　content　signifies　thought；　as　pure　abstract　self…consciousness；　but　an
unreasoning　knowledge；　into　which　the　individual　does　not　enter：　the　content　has　not　the
signification　of　'I。'　Therefore　the　case　is　as　in　mathematics；　a　proof　is　certainly　given；　conviction
must　follow；　but　yet　the　matter　fails　to　be　understood。　There　is　a　rigid　necessity　in　the　proof；　to
which　the　moment　of　self…consciousness　is　lacking；　the　'I'　disappears；　gives　itself　altogether　up；
merely　withers　away。　Spinoza's　procedure　is　therefore　quite　correct；　yet　the　individual　proposition
is　false；　seeing　that　it　expresses　only　one　side　of　the　negation。　The　understanding　has
determinations　which　do　not　contradict　one　another；　contradiction　the　understanding　cannot　suffer。
The　negation　of　negation　is；　however；　contradiction；　for　in　that　it　negates　negation　as　simple
determination；　it　is　on　the　one　hand　affirmation；　but　on　the　other　hand　also　really　negation；　and　this
contradiction；　which　is　a　matter　pertaining　to　reason；　is　lacking　in　the　case　of　Spinoza。　There　is
lacking　the　infinite　form；　spirituality　and　liberty。　I　have　already　mentioned　before　this　（pp。　93；　94；
129…137）　that　Lullus　and　Bruno　attempted　to　draw　up　a　system　of　form；　which　should　embrace
and　comprehend　the　one　substance　which　organizes　itself　into　the　universe；　this　attempt　Spinoza
did　not　make。

Because　negation　was　thus