phenomenology of mind-第83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！


reality　over　against　it；　and　for　it；　therefore；　negative。　By　the　act　it　thus　becomes　Guilt。　For　the
deed　is　its　doing；　and　doing　is　its　inmost　nature。　And　the　guilt　acquires　also　the　meaning　of　Crime；
for　as　simple　ethical　consciousness　it　has　turned　to　and　conformed　itself　to　the　one　law；　but　turned
away　from　the　other　and　thus　violates　the　latter　by　its　deed。

Guilt　is　not　an　external　indifferent　entity　（Wesen）　with　the　double　meaning；　that　the　deed；　as
actualiv　manifested　to　the　light　of　day；　may　be　an　action　of　the　guilty　self；　or　may　not　be　so；　as　if
with　the　doing　of；　it　there　could　be　connected　something　external　and　accidental　that　did　not
belong　to　it；　from　which　point　of　view；　therefore；　the　action　would　be　innocent。　Rather　the　act　is
itself　this　diremption；　this　affirming　itself　for　itself；　and　establishing　over　against　this　an。　alien
external　reality。　That　such　a　reality　exists　is　due　to　the　deed　itself；　and　is　the　outcome　of　it。　Hence；
innocence　is　an　attribute　merely　of　the　want　of　action　（Nicht…thun）；　a　state　like　the　mere　being　of　a
stone；　and　one　which　is　not　even　true　of　a　child。

Looking　at　the　content；　however；　the　ethical　act　contains　the　element　of　wrongdoing；　because　it
does　not　cancel　and　transcend　the　natural　allotment　of　the　two　laws　to　the　two　sexes；　but　rather；
being　an　undivided　attitude　towards　the　law；　keeps　within　the　sphere　of　natural　immediacy；　and；
qua　acting；　turns　this　one…sidedness　into　guilt；　by　merely　laying　hold　of　one　side　of　the　essential
reality　and　taking　up　a　negative　relation　towards　the　other；　i。e。　violating　it。　Where；　in　the　general
ethical　life；　guilt　and　crime；　deeds　and　actions；　come　in；　will　be　more　definitely　brought　out　later。
Meantime；　so　much　is　at　once　clear；　that　it　is　not　this　particular　individual　who　acts　and　becomes
guilty。　For　he；　qua　this　particular　self；　is　merely　a　shadowy　unreality；　he　is　merely　qua　universal
self；　and　individuality　is　purely　the　formal　aspect　of　doing　anything　at　all；　while　its　content　is　the
laws　and　customs；　which；　for　the　individual；　are；　specifically；　the　laws　and　customs　of　his　class　or
station。　He　is　the　substance　qua　genus；　which　by　its　determinateness　becomes；　no　doubt；　a
species；　but　the　specific　form　remains　at　the　same　time　the　generic　universal。　Self…consciousness
within　the　life　of　a　nation　descends　from　the　universal　only　down　as　far　as　specific　particularity；　but
not　as　far　as　the　single　individuality；　which　sets　up　an　exclusive　self；　establishes　in　its　action　a　reality
negative　to　itself。　On　the　contrary；　the　action　of　that　self…consciousness　rests　on　secure　confidence
in　the　whole；　into　which　there　enters　nothing　alien　or　foreign；　neither　fear　nor　hostility。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2。　Opposite　Characteristics　of　Ethical　Action

Ethical　self…consciousness　now　comes　to　find　in　its　deed　the　full　explicit　meaning　of　concrete　real
action　as　much　when　it　followed　divine　law　as　when　it　followed　human。　The　law　manifest　to　it　is；　in
the　essential　reality；　bound　up　with　its　opposite；　the　essential　reality　is　the　unity　of　both；　but　the
deed　has　merely　carried　out　one　as　against　the　other。　But　being　bound　up　with　this　other　in　the
inner　reality；　the　fulfilment　of　the　one　calls　forth　the　other；　in　the　shape　of　something　which；　having
been　violated　and　now　become　hostile；　demands　revenge　—　an　attitude　which　the　deed　has　made
it　take　up。　In　the　case　of　action；　only　one　phase　of　the　decision　is　in　general　in　evidence。　The
decision；　however；　is　inherently　something　negative；　which　plants　an　〃other〃　in　opposition　to　it；
something　foreign　to　the　decision；　which　is　clear　knowledge。　Actual　reality；　therefore；　keeps
concealed　within　itself　this　other　aspect　alien　to　clear　knowledge；　and　does　not　show　itself　to
consciousness　as　it　fully　and　truly　is　（an　und　für　sich）。　In　the　story　of　？dipus　the　son　does　not　see
his　own　father　in　the　person　of　the　man　who　has　insulted　him　and　whom　be　strikes　to　death；　nor　his
mother　in　the　queen　whom　he　makes　his　wife。　In　this　way　a　hidden　power　shunning　the　light　of
day；　waylays　the　ethical　self…consciousness；　a　power　which　bursts　forth　only　after　the　deed　is
done；　and　seizes　the　doer　in　the　act。　For　the　completed　deed　is　the　removal　of　the　opposition
between　the　knowing　self　and　the　reality　over　against　it。　The　ethical　consciousness　cannot　disclaim
the　crime　and　its　guilt。　The　deed　consists　in　setting　in　motion　what　was　unmoved；　and　in　bringing
out　what　in　the　first　instance　lay　shut　up　as　a　mere　possibility；　and　thereby　linking　on　the
unconscious　to　the　conscious；　the　non…existent　to　the　existent。　In　this　truth；　therefore；　the　deed
comes　to　the　light；　—　it　is　something　in　which　a　conscious　element　is　bound　up　with　what　is
unconscious；　what　is　peculiarly　one's　own　with　what　is　alien　and　external：　—　it　is　an　essential　reality
divided　in　sunder；　whose　other　aspect　consciousness　experiences　and　also　finds　to　be　its　own
aspect；　but　as　a　power　violated　by　its　doing；　and　roused　to　hostility　against　it。

It　may　well　be　that　the　right；　which　kept　itself　in　reserve；　is　not　in　its　peculiar　form　present　to　the
consciousness　of　the　doer；　but　is　merely　implicit；　present　in　the　subjective　inward　guilt　of　the
decision　and　the　action。　But　the　ethical　consciousness　is　more　complete；　its　guilt　purer；　if　it　knows
beforehand　the　law　and　the　ower　which　it　opposes；　if　it　takes　them　to　be　sheer　violence　and
wrong；　to　be　a　contingency　in　the　ethical　life；　and　wittingly；　like　Antigone；　con　mits　the　crime。　The
deed　when　accomplished　transforms　its　point　of　view；　the　very　performance　of　it　eo　ipso
expresses　that　what　is　ethical　has　to　be　actual；　for　the　realization　of　the　purpose　is　the　very
purpose　of　acting。　Acting　expresses　precisely　the　unity　of　reality　and　the　substance；　it　expresses
the　fact　that　actuality　is　not　an　accident　for　the　essential　element；　but　that；　in　union　with　that
element；　it　is　given　to　no　right　which　is　not　true　right。　On　account　of　this　actuality　and　on　account　of
its　deed　ethical　consciousness　must　acknowledge　its　opposite　as　its　own　actuality；　it　must
acknowledge　its　guilt。

　　　　　Because　of　our　sufferings　we　acknowledge　we　have　erred。（2）　

To　acknowledge　this　is　expressly　to　indicate　that　the　severance　between　ethical　purpose　and
actuality　has　been　clone　away；　it　means　the　return　to　the　ethical　frame　of　mind；　which　knows　that
nothing　counts　but　right。　Thereby；　however；　the　agent　surrenders　his　character　and　the　reality　of　his
self；　and　has　utterly　collapsed。　His　being　lies　in　belonging　to　his　ethical　law；　as　his　substance；　in
acknowledging　the　opposite　law；　however；　he　has　ceased　to　find　his　substance　in　this　law；　and
instead　of　reality　this　has　become　an　unreality；　a　mere　scntiment；　a　frame　of　mind。　The　substance
no　doubt　appears　as　the　〃pathic〃　element（3）　in　the　individuality；　and　the　individuality　appears　as　the
factor　which　animates　the　substance；　and　hence　stands　above　it。

But　the　substance　is　a　〃pathic〃　element　which　is　at　the　same　time　his　character；　the　ethical
individuality　is　directly　and　inherently　one　with　this　its　universal；　exists　in　it　alone；　and　is　incapable
of　surviving　the　destruction　which　this　ethical　power　suffers　at　the　hands　of　its　opposite。

This　individuality；　however；　has　all　the　same　the　certainty　that　that　individuality；　whose　〃pathic〃
element　is　this　opposite　power　＇the　opposed　law＇；　suffers　no　more　harm　than　it　has　inflicted。　The
opposition　of　the　ethical　powers　to　one　another；　and　the　process　of　the　individualities　setting　up
these　powers　in　life　and　action；　have　reached　their　true　end　only　in　so　far　as　both　sides　undergo　the
same　destruction。　For　neither　of　the　powers　has　any　advantage　over　the　other　that　it　should　be　a
more　essential　moment　of　the　substance　common　to　both。　The　fact　of　their　being　equally　and　to　the
same　degree　essential；　and　subsisting　independently　beside　each　other；　means　their　having　no
separate　self；　in　the　act　they　have　a　self…nature；　but　a　different　self；　—　which　contradicts　the　unity　of
the　self　and　cancels　their　claim　to　independent　right；　and　thus　brings　about　their　necessary
destruction。　Character　too；　in　part；　looking　at　its　〃pathic〃　element；　the　substance；　belongs　to　one
alone；　in　part；　when　we　look　at　the　aspect　of　knowledge；　the　one　character　like　the　other　is
divided　into　a　conscious　element　and　an　unconscious：　and　since　each　itself　calls　forth　this
opposition；　and　the　want　of　knowledge　is　by　the　act　also　its　doing；　each　falls　into　the　guilt　which
consumes　it。　The　victory　of　one　power　and　its　character；　and　the　defeat　of　the　other　side；　would
thus　be　merely　the　part　and　the　incomplete　work；　which　steadily　advances　till　the　equilibrium
between　the　two　is　attained。　It　is　in　the　equal　subjection　of　both　sides　that　absolute　right　is　first
accomplished；　and　the　ethical　substance；　as　the　negative　force　devouring　both　sides；　in　other
words　omnipotent　and　righteous　Destiny；　makes　its　appearance。

If　both　powers　are　taken　according　to　their　specific　content　and　its　individualization；　we　have　the
scene　presented　of　a　contest　between　them　as　individuated。　On　its　formal　side；　this　is　the　struggle
of　the　ethical　order　and　of　self…consciousness　with　unconscious　nature　and　a　contingency　due　to
this　nature。　The　latter　has　a　right　as　against　the　former；　because　this　is　only　objective　spirit；　merely
in　immediate　unity　with　its　substance。　On　the　side　of　content；　the　struggle　is　the　rupture　of　divine
and　human　law。　The　youth　goes　forth　from　the　unconscious　life　of　the　family　and　becomes　the
individuality　of　the　community　＇i。e。　Ruler＇。　But　that　he　still　shares　the　natural　life　from　which　he　has
torn　himself　away　is　seen　in　the　fact　that　he　emerges　there　—　from　only　to　find　his　claim　affected　by
the　contingency　that　there　are　two　brothers（4）　who　with　equal　right　take　possession　of　the
community；（5）　the　inequality　due　to　the　one　having　been　born　earlier　and　the　other　later；　an
inequality　which　is　a　natural　difference；　has　no　importance　for　them　when　they　enter　the　ethical　life
of　society。　But　government；　as　the　single　soul；　the　self　of　the　national　spirit；　does　not　admit　of　a
duality　of　individuality；　and　in　contrast　to　the　ethical　necessity　of　this　unity；　nature　appears　a