phenomenology of mind-第97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！


manner　painlessly　sloughed　merely　a　shrivelled　skin。　

But　this　silent　steady　working　of　the　loom　of　spirit　in　the　inner　region　of　its　substance；（3）　spirit's
own　action　being　hidden　from　itself；　is　merely　one　side　of　the　realizing　of　pure　insight。　Its　expansion
does　not　only　consist　in　like　combining　with　like；　and　its　realization　is　not　merely　an　unresisted
expansion。　The　action　of　the　principle　of　negation　is　just　as　essentially　a　developed　process　of
self…distinction；　which；　being　a　conscious　action；　must　set　forth　its　moments　in　a　definitely
manifested　expression；　and　must　make　its　appearance　in　the　form　of　a　great　noise；　and　a　violent
struggle　with　an　opposite　as　such。　

We　have；　therefore；　to　see　how　pure　insight　and　pure　intention　manifests　its　negative　attitude
towards　that　other　which　it　finds　standing　opposed　to　it。　

Pure　insight　and　intention；　operating　negatively；　can　only　be　—　since　its　very　principle　is　all
essentiality　and　there　is　nothing　outside　it　—　the　negative　of　itself。　As　insight；　therefore；　it　passes
into　the　negative　of　pure　insight；　it　becomes　untruth　and　unreason；　and　as　intention　it　passes　into
the　negative　of　pure　intention；　becomes　a　lie　and　sordid　impurity　of　purpose。　

It　involves　itself　in　this　contradiction　by　the　fact　that　it　engages　in　a　strife　and　thinks　to　do　battle
with　some　alien　external　other。　It　merely　imagines　this；　for　its　nature　as　absolute　negativity　lies　in
having　that　otherness　within　its　own　self。　The　absolute　notion　is　the　category；　it　is　the　principle　that
knowledge　and　the　object　of　knowledge　are　the　same。　In　consequence；　what　pure　insight
expresses　as　its　other；　what　it　pronounces　to　be　an　error　or　a　lie；　can　be　nothing　else　than　its　own
self；　it　can　only　condemn　what　itself　is。　What　is　not　rational　has　no　truth；　or　what　is　not
comprehended　through　a　notion；　conceptually　determined；　is　not。　When　reason　thus　speaks　of
some　other　than　itself　is；　it　in　fact　speaks　merely　of　itself；　it　does　not　therein　go　beyond　itself。　

This　struggle　with　the　opposite；　therefore；　combines　in　its　meaning　the　significance　of　being　insight's
own　actualization。　This　consists　just　in　the　process　of　unfolding　its　moments　and　taking　them　back
into　itself。　One　part　of　this　process　is　the　making　of　the　distinction　in　which　the　insight　of　reason
opposes　itself　as　object　to　itself；　so　long　as　it　remains　in　this　condition；　it　is　at　variance　with　itself。
Qua　pure　insight　it　is　without　any　content；　the　process　of　its　realization　consists　in　itself　becoming
content　to　itself；　for　no　other　can　be　made　its　content；　because　it　is　the　category　become
self…conscious。　But　since　this　insight　in　the　first　instance　thinks　of　the　content　as　in　its　opposite；　and
knows　the　content　merely　as　a　content；　and　does　not　as　yet　think　of　it　as　its　own　self；　pure　insight
misconceives　itself　in　it。　The　complete　attainment　of　insight；　therefore；　has　the　sense　of　a　process　of
coming　to　know　that　content　as　its　own；　which　was　to　begin　with　opposite　to　itself。　Its　result；
however；　will　be　thereby　neither　the　reestablishment　of　the　errors　it　fights　with；　nor　merely　its
original　notion；　but　an　insight　which　knows　the　absolute　negation　of　itself　to　be　its　own　proper
reality　to　be　its　self；　or　an　insight　which　is　its　self…understanding　notion。　

This　feature　of　the　struggle　of　enlightenment　with　errors　—　that　of　fighting　itself　in　them；　and　of
condemning　that　in　them　which　it　asserts　—　this　is　something　for　us　who　observe　the　process；　or　is
what　enlightenment　and　its　struggle　are　in　themselves　implicitly。　The　first　aspect　of　this　struggle；
however　—　the　contamination　and　defilement　of　enlightenment　through　its　pure　self…identity
accepting　the　attitude　and　function　of　destructive　negation　—　this　bow　belief　looks　upon　it；　belief
finds　it　simply　lying　unreason　and　malicious　intent；　just　as　enlightenment　in　the　same　way　regards
belief　as　error　and　prejudice。　

As　regards　its　content；　it　is　in　the　first　instance　empty　insight；　whose　content　appears　an　external
other　to　it。　It　meets　this　content；　consequently；　in　the　shape　of　something　not　yet　its　own；　as
something　that　exists　quite　independent　of　it；　and　is　found　in　belief。　

Enlightenment；　then；　conceives　its　object　in　the　first　instance　and　generally　in　such　a　way　as　to　take
it　as　pure　insight；　and　failing　to　recognize　itself　there；　interprets　it　as　error。　In　insight　as　such
consciousness　apprehends　an　object　in　such　a　manner　that　it　becomes　the　inner　being　of　conscious
life；　or　becomes　an　object　which　consciousness　permeates；　in　which　consciousness　maintains　itself；
keeps　within　itself；　and　is　present　to　itself；　and；　by　its　thus　being　the　process　of　that　object；　brings
the　object　into　being。　It　is　precisely　this　which　enlightenment　rightly　declares　belief　to　be；　when
enlightenment　says　that　the　Absolute　Reality　professed　by　belief　is　a　being　that　comes　from　belief's
own　consciousness；　is　its　own　thought；　something　produced　from　and　by　consciousness。（4）
Enlightenment；　consequently；　explains　and　declares　it　to　be　error；　to　be　a　made…up　invention　about
the　very　same　thing　as　enlightenment　itself　is。　

Enlightenment　that　seeks　to　teach　belief　this　new　wisdom　does　not；　in　doing　so；　tell　it　anything　new。
For　the　object　of　belief　itself　is　just　this　too；　viz。　a　pure　essential　reality　of　its　own　peculiar
consciousness；　so　that　this　consciousness　does　not　put　itself　down　for　lost　and　negated　in　that
object；　but　rather　puts　trust　in　it；　and　this　just　means　that　it　finds　itself　there　as　this　particular
consciousness；　finds　itself　therein　to　be　self…consciousness。　If　I　put　my　trust　in　anyone；　his　certitude
of　himself　is　for　me　the　certitude　of　myself　；　I　know　my　self…existence　in　him；　I　know　that　he
acknowledges　it；　and　that　it　is　for　him　both　his　purpose　and　his　real　nature。　Belief；　however；　is
trust；　because　the　believing　consciousness　has　a　direct　relation　to　its　object；　and　thus　sees　at　once
that　it　is　one　with　the　object；　and　in　the　object。　

Further；　since　what　is　object　for　me　is　something　in　which　I　know　myself；　I　am　at　the　same　time　in
that　object　really　in　the　form　of　another　self…consciousness；　i。e。　one　which　has　become　in　that
object　alienated　from　its　own　particular　individuation；　from　its　natural　and　contingent　existence；　but
which　partly　continues　therein　to　be　self…consciousness；　and　partly　is　there　an　essential
consciousness　just　like　pure　insight。　

In　the　notion　of　insight　there　lies　not　merely　this；　that　consciousness　knows　itself　in　the　object　it
looks　at；　and　finds　itself　directly　there；　without　first　quitting　the　thought　element　and　then　returning
into　itself；　the　notion　implies　as　well　that　consciousness　is　aware　of　itself　as　being　also　the　mediating
process；　aware　of　itself　as　active；　as　the　agency　of　production。　Through　this　it　gets　the　thought　of
this　unity　of　self　as　self　and　object。　

Belief　also　is　this　very　consciousness。　Obedience　and　action　make　a　necessary　moment；　through
which　the　certainty　of　existence　in　Absolute　Being　comes　about。　This　action　of　belief　does　not
indeed　make　it　appear　as　if　Absolute　Being　is　itself　produced　thereby。　But　the　Absolute　Being　for
belief　is　essentially　not　the　abstract　being　that　lies　beyond　the　believing　consciousness；　it　is　the　spirit
of　the　religious　communion；　it　is　the　unity　of　that　abstract　being　and　self…consciousness。　The　action
of　the　communion　is　an　essential　moment　in　bringing　about　that　it　is　this　spirit　of　the　communion。
That　spirit　is　what　it　is　by　the　productive　activity　of　consciousness；　or　rather　it　does　not　exist
without　being　produced　by　consciousness。　For　essential　as　this　process　of　production　is；　it　is　as
truly　not　the　only　basis　of　Absolute　Being；　it　is　merely　a　moment。　The　Absolute　Being　is　at　the
same　time　self…complete　and　self…contained　（an　und　für　sich　selbst）。　

On　the　other　side　the　notion　of　pure　insight　is　seen　to　be　something　else　than　its　own　object；　for
just　this　negative　character　constitutes　the　object。　Thus　from　the　other　side　it　also　expresses　the
ultimate　Being　of　belief　as　something　foreign　to　self…consciousness；　something　that　is　not　a　bone　of
its　bone；　but　is　surreptitiously　foisted　on　it　like　a　changeling　child。　But　here　enlightenment　is　entirely
foolish；　belief　experiences　it　as　a　way　of　speaking　which　does　not　know　what　it　is　saying；　and　does
not　understand　the　facts　of　the　case　when　it　talks　about　priestly　deception；　and　deluding　the
people。　It　speaks　about　this　as　if　by　means　of　some　hocus…pocus　of　conjuring　priestcraft　there
were　foisted　on　consciousness　as　true　Reality　something　that　is　absolutely　foreign；　and　absolutely
alien　to　it；　and　yet　says　all　the　while　that　this　is　an　essential　reality　for　consciousness；　that
consciousness　believes　in　it；　trusts　in　it；　and　seeks　to　make　it　favourably　disposed　towards　itself；
i。e。　that　consciousness　therein　sees　its　pure　ultimate　Being　just　as　much　as　its　own　single　and
universal　individuality；　and　creates　by　its　own　action　this　unity　of　itself　with　its　essential　reality。　In
other　words；　it　directly　declares　that　to　be　the　very　inmost　nature　of　consciousness　which　it
declares　to　be　something　alien　to　consciousness。　

How；　then；　can　it　possibly　speak　about　deception　and　delusion？　By　the　fact　that　it　directly
expresses　about　belief　the　very　opposite　of　what　it　asserts　of　belief；　it　ipso　facto　really　reveals
itself　to　belief　as　the　conscious　lie。　How　are　deception　and　delusion　to　take　place；　where
consciousness　in　its　very　truth　has　directly　and　immediately　the　certitude　of　itself；　where　it
possesses　itself　in　its　object；　since　it　just　as　much　finds　as　produces　itself　there？　The　distinction　no
longer　exists；　even　in　words。　

When　the　general　question　has　been　raised；　whether　it　is　permissible　to　delude　a　people；　the
answer；　as　a　fact；　was　bound　to　be　that　the　question　is　pointless；　because　it　is　impossible　to
deceive　a　people　in　this　matter。　Brass　in　place　of　gold；　counterfeit　instead　of　genuine　coin　may
doubtless　have　swindled　individuals　many　a　time；　lots　of　people　have　stuck　to　it　that　a　battle　lost
was　a　battle　won；　and　lies　of　all　sorts　about　things　of　sense　and　particular　events　have　been
plausible　for　a　time；　but　in　the　knowledge