a confession-第6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！



each　man：　　〃What　am　I？〃　or　〃Why　do　I　live？〃　or　〃What　must　I　do？〃

one　has　first　to　decide　the　question：　〃What　is　the　life　of　the

whole？〃　（which　is　to　him　unknown　and　of　which　he　is　acquainted　with

one　tiny　part　in　one　minute　period　of　time。　　To　understand　what　he

is；　one　man　must　first　understand　all　this　mysterious　humanity；

consisting　of　people　such　as　himself　who　do　not　understand　one

another。

　　　　　I　have　to　confess　that　there　was　a　time　when　I　believed　this。　

It　was　the　time　when　I　had　my　own　favourite　ideals　justifying　my

own　caprices；　and　I　was　trying　to　devise　a　theory　which　would　allow

one　to　consider　my　caprices　as　the　law　of　humanity。　　But　as　soon　as

the　question　of　life　arose　in　my　soul　in　full　clearness　that　reply

at　once　few　to　dust。　　And　I　understood　that　as　in　the　experimental

sciences　there　are　real　sciences；　and　semi…sciences　which　try　to

give　answers　to　questions　beyond　their　competence；　so　in　this

sphere　there　is　a　whole　series　of　most　diffused　sciences　which　try

to　reply　to　irrelevant　questions。　　Semi…sciences　of　that　kind；　the

juridical　and　the　social…historical；　endeavour　to　solve　the

questions　of　a　man's　life　by　pretending　to　decide　each　in　its　own

way；　the　question　of　the　life　of　all　humanity。

　　　　　But　as　in　the　sphere　of　man's　experimental　knowledge　one　who

sincerely　inquires　how　he　is　to　live　cannot　be　satisfied　with　the

reply　　〃Study　in　endless　space　the　mutations；　infinite　in　time

and　in　complexity；　of　innumerable　atoms；　and　then　you　will

understand　your　life〃　　so　also　a　sincere　man　cannot　be　satisfied

with　the　reply：　〃Study　the　whole　life　of　humanity　of　which　we

cannot　know　either　the　beginning　or　the　end；　of　which　we　do　not

even　know　a　small　part；　and　then　you　will　understand　your　own

life。〃　And　like　the　experimental　semi…sciences；　so　these　other

semi…sciences　are　the　more　filled　with　obscurities；　inexactitudes；

stupidities；　and　contradictions；　the　further　they　diverge　from　the

real　problems。　　The　problem　of　experimental　science　is　the　sequence

of　cause　and　effect　in　material　phenomena。　　It　is　only　necessary

for　experimental　science　to　introduce　the　question　of　a　final　cause

for　it　to　become　nonsensical。　　The　problem　of　abstract　science　is

the　recognition　of　the　primordial　essence　of　life。　　It　is　only

necessary　to　introduce　the　investigation　of　consequential　phenomena

（such　as　social　and　historical　phenomena）　and　it　also　becomes

nonsensical。

　　　　　Experimental　science　only　then　gives　positive　knowledge　and

displays　the　greatness　of　the　human　mind　when　it　does　not　introduce

into　its　investigations　the　question　of　an　ultimate　cause。　　And；　on

the　contrary；　abstract　science　is　only　then　science　and　displays

the　greatness　of　the　human　mind　when　it　puts　quite　aside　questions

relating　to　the　consequential　causes　of　phenomena　and　regards　man

solely　in　relation　to　an　ultimate　cause。　　Such　in　this　realm　of

science　　forming　the　pole　of　the　sphere　　is　metaphysics　or

philosophy。　　That　science　states　the　question　clearly：　　〃What　am　I；

and　what　is　the　universe？　　And　why　do　I　exist；　and　why　does　the

universe　exist？〃　　And　since　it　has　existed　it　has　always　replied　in

the　same　way。　　Whether　the　philosopher　calls　the　essence　of　life

existing　within　me；　and　in　all　that　exists；　by　the　name　of　〃idea〃；

or　〃substance〃；　or　〃spirit〃；　or　〃will〃；　he　says　one　and　the　same

thing：　　that　this　essence　exists　and　that　I　am　of　that　same

essence；　but　why　it　is　he　does　not　know；　and　does　not　say；　if　he　is

an　exact　thinker。　　I　ask：　　〃Why　should　this　essence　exist？　　What

results　from　the　fact　that　it　is　and　will　be？〃　。。。　And　philosophy

not　merely　does　not　reply；　but　is　itself　only　asking　that　question。　

And　if　it　is　real　philosophy　all　its　labour　lies　merely　in　trying

to　put　that　question　clearly。　　And　if　it　keeps　firmly　to　its　task

it　cannot　reply　to　the　question　otherwise　than　thus：　　〃What　am　I；

and　what　is　the　universe？〃　　〃All　and　nothing〃；　and　to　the　question

〃Why？〃　by　〃I　do　not　know〃。

　　　　　So　that　however　I　may　turn　these　replies　of　philosophy；　I　can

never　obtain　anything　like　an　answer　　and　not　because；　as　in　the

clear　experimental　sphere；　the　reply　does　not　relate　to　my

question；　but　because　here；　though　all　the　mental　work　is　directed

just　to　my　question；　there　is　no　answer；　but　instead　of　an　answer

one　gets　the　same　question；　only　in　a　complex　form。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　VI



　　　　　In　my　search　for　answers　to　life's　questions　I　experienced

just　what　is　felt　by　a　man　lost　in　a　forest。

　　　　　He　reaches　a　glade；　climbs　a　tree；　and　clearly　sees　the

limitless　distance；　but　sees　that　his　home　is　not　and　cannot　be

there；　then　he　goes　into　the　dark　wood　and　sees　the　darkness；　but

there　also　his　home　is　not。

　　　　　So　I　wandered　n　that　wood　of　human　knowledge；　amid　the　gleams

of　mathematical　and　experimental　science　which　showed　me　clear

horizons　but　in　a　direction　where　there　could　be　no　home；　and　also

amid　the　darkness　of　the　abstract　sciences　where　I　was　immersed　in

deeper　gloom　the　further　I　went；　and　where　I　finally　convinced

myself　that　there　was；　and　could　be；　no　exit。

　　　　　Yielding　myself　to　the　bright　side　of　knowledge；　I　understood

that　I　was　only　diverting　my　gaze　from　the　question。　　However

alluringly　clear　those　horizons　which　opened　out　before　me　might

be；　however　alluring　it　might　be　to　immerse　oneself　in　the

limitless　expanse　of　those　sciences；　I　already　understood　that　the

clearer　they　were　the　less　they　met　my　need　and　the　less　they

applied　to　my　question。

　　　　　〃I　know；〃　said　I　to　myself；　〃what　science　so　persistently

tries　to　discover；　and　along　that　road　there　is　no　reply　to　the

question　as　to　the　meaning　of　my　life。〃　　In　the　abstract　sphere　I

understood　that　notwithstanding　the　fact；　or　just　because　of　the

fact；　that　the　direct　aim　of　science　is　to　reply　to　my　question；

there　is　no　reply　but　that　which　I　have　myself　already　given：　

〃What　is　the　meaning　of　my　life？〃　　〃There　is　none。〃　　Or：　　〃What

will　come　of　my　life？〃　〃Nothing。〃　　Or：　　〃Why　does　everything　exist

that　exists；　and　why　do　I　exist？〃　　〃Because　it　exists。〃

　　　　　Inquiring　for　one　region　of　human　knowledge；　I　received　an

innumerable　quantity　of　exact　replies　concerning　matters　about

which　I　had　not　asked：　　about　the　chemical　constituents　of　the

stars；　about　the　movement　of　the　sun　towards　the　constellation

Hercules；　about　the　origin　of　species　and　of　man；　about　the　forms

of　infinitely　minute　imponderable　particles　of　ether；　but　in　this

sphere　of　knowledge　the　only　answer　to　my　question；　〃What　is　the

meaning　of　my　life？〃　was：　〃You　are　what　you　call　your　'life'；　you

are　a　transitory；　casual　cohesion　of　particles。　　The　mutual

interactions　and　changes　of　these　particles　produce　in　you　what　you

call　your　〃life〃。　　That　cohesion　will　last　some　time；　afterwards

the　interaction　of　these　particles　will　cease　and　what　you　call

〃life〃　will　cease；　and　so　will　all　your　questions。　　You　are　an

accidentally　united　little　lump　of　something。　　that　little　lump

ferments。　　The　little　lump　calls　that　fermenting　its　'life'。　　The

lump　will　disintegrate　and　there　will　be　an　end　of　the　fermenting

and　of　all　the　questions。〃　　So　answers　the　clear　side　of　science

and　cannot　answer　otherwise　if　it　strictly　follows　its　principles。

　　　　　From　such　a　reply　one　sees　that　the　reply　does　not　answer　the

question。　　I　want　to　know　the　meaning　of　my　life；　but　that　it　is　a

fragment　of　the　infinite；　far　from　giving　it　a　meaning　destroys　its

every　possible　meaning。　　The　obscure　compromises　which　that　side　of

experimental　exact　science　makes　with　abstract　science　when　it　says

that　the　meaning　of　life　consists　in　development　and　in　cooperation

with　development；　owing　to　their　inexactness　and　obscurity　cannot

be　considered　as　replies。

　　　　　The　other　side　of　science　　the　abstract　side　　when　it

holds　strictly　to　its　principles；　replying　directly　to　the

question；　always　replies；　and　in　all　ages　has　replied；　in　one　and

the　same　way：　　〃The　world　is　something　infinite　and

incomprehensible　part　of　that　incomprehensible　'all'。〃　　Again　I

exclude　all　those　compromises　between　abstract　and　experimental

sciences　which　supply　the　whole　ballast　of　the　semi…sciences　called

juridical；　political；　and　historical。　In　those　semi…sciences　the

conception　of　development　and　progress　is　again　wrongly　introduced；

only　with　this　difference；　that　there　it　was　the　development　of

everything　while　here　it　is　the　development　of　the　life　of　mankind。　

The　error　is　there　as　before：　development　and　progress　in　infinity

can　have　no　aim　or　direction；　and；　as　far　as　my　question　is

concerned；　no　answer　is　given。

　　　　　In　truly　abstract　science；　namely　in　genuine　philosophy　　not

in　that　which　Schopenhauer　calls　〃professorial　philosophy〃　which

serves　only　to　classify　all　existing　phenomena　in　new　philosophic

categories　and　to　call　them　by　new　names　　where　the　philosopher

does　not　lose　sight　of　the　essential　question；　the　repl