history of philosophy-第15节

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！


the　Epicureans；　Lipsius　wished　to　be　a　Stoic；　and　so　on。　The　sense　of　opposition　was　so　great；
ancient　philosophy　and　Christianity　…　from　or　in　which　no　special　philosophy　had　developed　…　were
so　diverse；　that　no　philosophy　peculiar　to　itself　could　develop　in　Christianity。　What　was　or　could
be　had　as　philosophy；　either　in　conformity　with　or　in　opposition　to　Christianity；　was　a　certain
ancient　philosophy　which　was　thus　taken　up　anew。　But　mummies　when　brought　amongst　living
beings　cannot　there　remain。　Mind　had　for　long　possessed　a　more　substantial　life；　a　more　profound
Notion　of　itself；　and　hence　its　thought　had　higher　needs　than　such　as　could　be　satisfied　by　these
philosophies。　A　revival　such　as　this　is　then　to　be　regarded　only　as　the　transitory　period　in　which　we
learn　to　know　the　forms　which　are　implied　and　which　have　gone　before；　and　as　the　renewal　of
former　struggles　through　the　steps　necessary　in　development。　Such　reconstructions　and　repetitions
in　a　distant　time　of　principles　which　have　become　foreign　to　Mind；　are　in　history　transitory　only；
and　formed　in　a　language　which　is　dead。　Such　things　are　translations　only　and　not　originals；　and
Mind　does　not　find　satisfaction　excepting　in　knowledge　of　its　own　origination。　

When　modern　times　are　in　the　same　way　called　upon　to　revert　to　the　standpoint　of　an　ancient
philosophy　（as　is　recommended　specially　in　regard　to　the　philosophy　of　Plato）　in　order　to　make
this　a　means　of　escaping　from　the　complications　and　difficulties　of　succeeding　times；　this　reversion
does　not　come　naturally　as　in　the　first　case。　This　discreet　counsel　has　the　same　origin　as　the
request　to　cultivated　members　of　society　to　turn　back　to　the　customs　and　ideas　of　the　savages　of
the　North　American　forests；　or　as　the　recommendation　to　adopt　the　religion　of　Melchisedec　which
Fichte　（6）　has　maintained　to　be　the　purest　and　simplest　possible；　and　therefore　the　one　at　which
we　must　eventually　arrive。　On　the　one　hand；　in　this　retrogression　the　desire　for　an　origin　and　for　a
fixed　point　of　departure　is　unmistakable；　but　such　must　be　sought　for　in　thought　and　Idea　alone　and
not　in　an　authoritatively　given　form。　On　the　other　hand；　the　return　of　the　developed；　enriched　Mind
to　a　simplicity　such　as　this…which　means　to　an　abstraction；　an　abstract　condition　or　thought　is　to　be
regarded　only　as　the　escape　of　an　incapacity　which　cannot　enjoy　the　rich　material　of　development
which　it　sees　before　it；　and　which　demands　to　be　controlled　and　comprehended　in　its　very　depths
by　thought；　but　seeks　a　refuge　in　fleeing　from　the　difficulty　and　in　mere　sterility。　

From　what　has　been　said　it　is　quite　comprehensible　how　so　many　of　those　who；　whether　induced
by　some　special　attraction　such　as　this；　or　simply　by　the　fame　of　a　Plato　or　ancient　philosophy　in
general；　direct　their　way　thereto　in　order　to　draw　their　own　philosophy　from　these　sources；　do　not
find　themselves　satisfied　by　the　study；　and　unjustifiably　quit　such　altogether。　Satisfaction　is　found　in
them　to　a　certain　extent　only。　We　must　know　in　ancient　philosophy　or　in　the　philosophy　of　any
given　period；　what　we　are　going　to　look　for。　Or　at　least　we　must　know　that　in　such　a　philosophy
there　is　before　us　a　definite　stage　in　the　development　of　thought；　and　in　it　those　forms　and
necessities　of　Mind　which　lie　within　the　limits　of　that　stage　alone　are　brought　into　existence。　There
slumber　in　the　Mind　of　modern　times　ideas　more　profound　which　require　for　their　awakening　other
surroundings　and　another　present　than　the　abstract；　dim；　grey　thought　of　olden　times。　In　Plato；　for
instance；　questions　regarding　the　nature　of　freedom；　the　origin　of　evil　and　of　sin；　providence；　&c。；
do　not　find　their　philosophic　answer。　On　such　subjects　we　certainly　may　in　part　take　the　ordinary
serious　views　of　the　present　time；　and　in　part　philosophically　set　their　consideration　altogether
aside；　or　else　consider　sin　and　freedom　as　something　negative　only。　But　neither　the　one　plan　nor
the　other　gives　freedom　to　Mind　if　such　subjects　have　once　been　explicitly　for　it；　and　if　the
opposition　in　self…consciousness　has　given　it　the　power　of　sinking　its　interests　therein。　The　case　is
similar　with　regard　to　questions　regarding　the　limits　of　knowledge；　the　opposition　between
subjectivity　and　objectivity　which　had　not　yet　come　up　in　Plato's　age。　The　independence　of　the
within　itself　and　its　explicit　existence　was　foreign　to　him；　man　had　not　yet　gone　back　within　himself；
had　not　yet　set　himself　forth　as　explicit。　The　subject　was　indeed　the　individual　as　free；　but　as　yet　he
knew　himself　only　as　in　unity　with　his　Being。　The　Athenian　knew　himself　to　be　free；　as　such；　just　as
the　Roman　citizen　would；　as　ingenuus。　But　the　fact　that　man　is　in　and　for　himself　free；　in　his
essence　and　as　man；　free　born；　was　known　neither　by　Plato；　Aristotle；　Cicero；　nor　the　Roman
legislators；　even　though　it　is　this　conception　alone　which　forms　the　source　of　law。　In　Christianity　the
individual；　personal　mind　for　the　first　time　becomes　of　real；　infinite　and　absolute　value；　God　wills
that　all　men　shall　be　saved。　It　was　in　the　Christian　religion　that　the　doctrine　was　advanced　that　all
men　are　equal　before　God；　because　Christ　has　set　them　free　with　the　freedom　of　Christianity。
These　principles　make　freedom　independent　of　any　such　things　as　birth；　standing　or　culture。　The
progress　made　through　them　is　enormous；　but　they　still　come　short　of　this；　that　to　be　free
constitutes　the　very　idea　of　man。　The　sense　of　this　existent　principle　has　been　an　active　force　for
centuries　and　centuries；　and　an　impelling　power　which　has　brought　about　the　most　tremendous
revolutions；　but　the　conception　and　the　knowledge　of　the　natural　freedom　of　man　is　a　knowledge
of　himself　which　is　not　old。　




Introduction
　　　　　　　　B。　　Relation　of　Philosophy　to　Other
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Departments　of　Knowledge。

The　History　of　Philosophy　has　to　represent　this　science　in　that　form　of　time　and　individualities　from
which　its　outward　form　has　resulted。　Such　a　representation　has；　however；　to　shut　out　from　itself
the　external　history　of　the　time；　and　to　take　into　account　only　the　general　character　of　the　people
and　time；　and　likewise　their　circumstances　as　a　whole。　But　as　a　matter　of　fact；　the　history　of
Philosophy　does　present　this　character；　and　that　indeed　in　the　highest　possible　degree；　its
connection　with　it　is　of　the　closest　kind；　and　the　particular　appearance　presented　by　a　philosophy
belonging　to　one　special　period；　is　only　a　particular　aspect　or　element　in　the　character。　Because　of
this　inward　correspondence　we　have　partly　to　consider　more　closely　the　particular　relation　borne
by　a　philosophy　to　its　historical　surroundings；　and　partly；　but　pre…eminently；　what　is　proper　to
itself；　from　which　alone；　after　separating　everything　related　however　closely；　we　can　fix　our
standpoint。　This　connection；　which　is　not　merely　external　but　essential；　has　thus　two　sides；　which
we　must　consider。　The　first　is　the　distinctly　historical　side；　the　second　is　the　connection　with　other
matters　…　the　connection　of　Philosophy　with　Religion；　for　instance；　by　which　we　at　once　obtain　a
deeper　conception　of　Philosophy　itself。

1。　The　Historical　Side　of　This　Connection。

It　is　usually　said　that　political　affairs　and　such　matters　as　Religion　are　to　be　taken　into　consideration
because　they　have　exercised　a　great　influence　on　the　Philosophy　of　the　time；　and　similarly　it　exerts
an　influence　upon　them。　But　when　people　are　content　with　such　a　category　as　〃great　influence〃
they　place　the　two　in　an　external　relationship；　and　start　from　the　point　of　view　that　both　sides　are
for　themselves　independent。　Here；　however；　we　must　think　of　this　relationship　in　another　category；
and　not　according　to　the　influence　or　effect　of　one　upon　the　other。　The　true　category　is　the　unity　of
all　these　different　forms；　so　that　it　is　one　Mind　which　manifests　itself　in；　and　impresses　itself　upon
these　different　elements。

a。　Outward　and　historical　conditions　imposed　upon　Philosophy。

It　must　be　remarked　in　the　first　place；　that　a　certain　stage　is　requisite　in　the　intellectual　culture　of　a
people　in　order　that　it　may　have　a　Philosophy　at　all。　Aristotle　says；　〃Man　first　begins　to
philosophize　when　the　necessities　of　life　are　supplied〃　（Metaphysics；　I。　2）；　because　since
Philosophy　is　a　free　and　not　self…seeking　activity；　cravings　of　want　must　have　disappeared；　a
strength；　elevation　and　inward　fortitude　of　mind　must　have　appeared；　passions　must　be　subdued
and　consciousness　set　far　advanced；　before　what　is　universal　can　be　thought　of。　Philosophy　may
thus　be　called　a　kind　of　luxury；　in　so　far　as　luxury　signifies　those　enjoyments　and　pursuits　which　do
not　belong　to　external　necessity　as　such。　Philosophy　in　this　respect　seems　more　capable　of　being
dispensed　with　than　anything　else；　but　that　depends　on　what　is　called　indispensable。　From　the
point　of　view　of　mind；　Philosophy　may　even　be　said　to　be　that　which　is　most　essential。

b。　The　commencement　in　History　of　an　intellectual　necessity　for
Philosophy。

However　much　Philosophy；　as　the　thought　and　conception　of　the　Mind　of　a　particular　time；　is　a
priori；　it　is　at　the　same　time　just　as　really　a　result；　since　the　thought