phenomenology of mind-第36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！


and　its　essence。　Its　being　in　that　case　would　mean　its　existence　in　general。　But　in　that　definition　the
necessity　of　its　existence　is　not　contained；　it　exists　either　because　we　find　it；　i。e。　its　existence　is　not
necessary　at　all；　or　else　it　exists　through　other　forces；　i。e。　the　necessity　of　its　existence　is　an
external　necessity。　But　in　that　the　determinateness　of　being　through　another　is　what　the　necessity
consists　in；　we　are　back　again　to　the　plurality　of　determinate　laws；　which　we　have　just　left　in　order
to　consider　law；　as　law。　It　is　only　with　the　latter　that　we　can　compare　its　notion　as　notion；　or　its
necessity。　This　necessity；　however；　has　in　all　these　forms　shown　itself　to　be　just　an　empty　phrase。

There　is　still　another　way　than　that　just　indicated　in　which　the　indifference　of　law　and　force；　or　of
notion　and　being；　is　found。　In　the　law　of　motion；　e。g。；　it　is　necessary　for　motion　to　be　broken　up
into　the　elements　time　and　space；　or　again；　into　distance　and　velocity。　Since　motion　is　merely　the
relation　of　these　f　actors；　motion；　the　universal；　has　in　this　way　certainly　distinct　parts　in　its　own
self。　But　now　these　parts；　time　and　space；　or　distance　and　velocity；　do　not　express　in　themselves
this　origination　from　a　single　unity。　They　are　indifferent　the　one　to　the　other。　Space　is　thought　of　as
able　to　be　without。　time；　time　without　space；　and　distance　at　least　without　velocity　—　just　as　their
magnitudes　are　indifferent　the　one　to　the　other；　since　they　are　not　related　like　positive　and　negative；
and　consequently　do　not　refer　to　one　another　by　their　very　nature。　The　necessity　of　partition　into
distinct　factors；　then；　we　certainly　do　have　here；　but　not　the　necessity　of　the　parts　as　such　for　one
another。　On　that　account；　however；　that　first　necessity　too　is　itself　a　merely　delusory　false
necessity。　For　motion　is　not　itself　thought　of　as　something　simple　or　as　bare　essence；　but　as；　from
the　first；　divided　into　elements；　time　and　space　are　in　themselves　its　independent　parts　or　its　real
elements：　in　other　words；　distance　and　velocity　are　modes　of　being；　or　ways　of　thinking；　each　of
which　can　very　well　be　without　the　other；　and　motion　is　consequently　no　more　than　their　superficial
relation；　not　their　true　nature。　If　it　is　represented　as　simple　essence　or　as　force；　motion　is　no　doubt
gravity；　but　this　does　not　contain　these　distinctions　at　all。

The　distinction　is；　then；　in　both　cases　no　distinction　of　an　inherent　or　essential　kind。　Either　the
universal；　force；　is　indifferent　to　the　division　into　parts；　which　is　found　in　the　law；　or　else　the
distinctions；　the　parts　of　the　law；　are　indifferent　to　one　another。　Understanding；　however；　does
have　the　notion　of　this　distinction　per　se；　just　by　the　fact　that　law　is　in　part　the　inner　being；　the
inherent　nature；　but　is　at　the　same　time　something　distinguished　within　the　notion。　That　this
distinction　is　thereby　inner　distinction　is　shown　by　the　fact　that　law　is　bare　and　simple　force；　or　is
the　notion　of　that　distinction；　and　thus　is　a　distinction　of　the　notion。　But　still　this　inner　distinction　falls
to　begin　with　only　within　understanding；　and　is　not　yet　established　in　the　fact　itself。　It　is　thus　only　its
own　necessity　to　which　understanding　gives　expression　—　the　distinction；　that　is　to　say；　is　one
which　it　makes　only　so　as　at　the　same　time　to　express　that　the　distinction　is　not　to　be　a　distinction
in　the　nature　of　the　fact　itself。　This　necessity；　which　is　merely　verbal；　is　thus　a　rehearsal　of　the
moments　which　make　up　the　cycle　of　necessity。　They　are　no　doubt　distinct；　but　their　distinction　is
at　the　same　time　explicitly　stated　to　be　not　a　distinction　of　the　fact　itself；　and　consequently　is　itself
again　straightway　cancelled　and　transcended。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（3）　Explanation

This　process　is　called　Explanation。　A　law　is　expressed；　from　this　its　inherently　universal　element
or　ground　is　distinguished　as　force；　but　regarding　this　distinction；　it　is　asserted　that　it　is　no
distinction；　rather　that　the　ground　has　entirely　the　same　constitution　as　the　law。　For　example；　the
particular　occurrence　of　lightning　is　apprehended　as　universal；　and　this　universal　is　expressed　as
the　law　of　electricity；　the　explanation　thereupon　merges　the　law　in　force　as　the　essence　of　the　law。
This　force　is；　then；　so　constituted　that；　when　it　finds　expression；　opposite　electrical　discharges
appear；　and　these　again　disappear　into　one　another。　In　other　words；　force　has　exactly　the　same
constitution　as　law；　both　are　thus　declared　to　be　in　no　way　distinct。　The　distinctions　are　pure
universal　expression　or　law　and　pure　force；　but　both　have　the　same　content；　the　same　constitutive
character；　thus　the　distinction　between　them　qua　distinction　of　content；　i。e。　of　fact；　is　also　again
withdrawn。

In　this　tautological　process　understanding；　as　the　above　shows；　holds　fast　to　the　changeless　unity
of　its　object；　and　the　process　takes　effect　solely　within　understanding　itself；　not　in　the　object。　It　is
an　explanation　that　not　only　explains　nothing；　but　is　so　plain　that；　while　it　makes　as　if　it　would　say
something　different　from　what　is　already　said；　it　really　says　nothing　at　all；　but　merely　repeats　the
same　thing　over　again。　So　far　as　the　fact　itself　goes；　this　process　gives　rise　to　nothing　new；　the
process　is　only　of　account　as　a　process　of　understanding。　In　it；　however；　we　now　get　acquainted
with　just　what　we　missed　in　the　case　of　the　law　—　absolute　change　itself：　for　this　process；　when
looked　at　more　narrowly；　is　directly　the　opposite　of　itself。　It　sets　up；　that　is。　a　distinction　which　is
not　only　for　us　no　distinction；　but　which　it　itself　cancels　as　distinction。　This　is　the　same　process　of
change　which　was　formerly　manifested　as　the　play　of　forces。　In　the　latter　we　found　the　distinction
of　inciting　and　incited　force；　or　force　expressing　itself；　and　force　withdrawn　into　itself；　but　these
were　distinctions　which　in　reality　were　no　distinctions；　and　therefore　were　also　immediately
cancelled　again。　We　have　here　not　merely　the　naked　unity；　so　that　no　distinction　could　be　set　up　at
all；　the　process　we　have　is　rather　this；　that　a　distinction　is　certainly　made；　but　because　it　is　no
distinction；　it　is　again　superseded。

Thus；　then；　with　the　process　of　explaining；　we　see　the　ebb　and　flow　of　change；　which　was　formerly
characteristic　of　the　sphere　of　appearance；　and　lay　outside　the　inner　world；　finding　its　way　into　the
region　of　the　supersensible　itself。　Our　consciousness；　however；　has　passed　from　the　inner　being　as
an　object　over　to　understanding　on　the　other　side；　and　finds　the　changing　process　there。

The　change　is　in　this　way　not　yet　a　process　of　the　fact　itself；　but　rather　presents　itself　before　us　as
pure　change；　just　by　the　content　of　the　moments　of　change　remaining　the　same。　Since；　however；
the　notion　qua　notion　of　understanding　is　the　same　as　the　inner　nature　of　things；　this　change
becomes　for　understanding　the　law　of　the　inner　world。　Understanding　thus　learns　that　it　is　a　law　in
the　sphere　of　appearance　for　distinctions　to　come　about　which　are　no　distinctions。　In　other　words；
it　learns　that　what　is　self…same　is　self…repulsive；　and；　similarly；　that　the　distinctions　are　only　such　as
in　reality　are　none　and　cancel　one　another；　or　that　what　is　not　self…same　is　self…attractive。　Here　we
have　a　second　law；　whose　content　is　the　opposite　of　what　formerly　was　called　law；　viz。　the
invariable　and　unchanging　self…identical　distinction；　for　this　new　law　expresses　rather　the　process　of
like　becoming　unlike；　and　unlike　becoming　like。　The　notion　demands　of　the　unreflective　mind　to
bring　both　laws　together；　and　become　conscious　of　their　opposition。　Of　course　the　second　is　also
a　law；　an　inner　self…identical　being；　but　it　is　rather　a　self…sameness　of　the　unlike；　a　constancy　of
inconstancy。　In　the　play　of　forces　this　law　proved　to　be　just　this　absolute　transition　and　pure
change；　the　selfsame；　force；　split　into　an　opposition；　that　in　the　first　instance　appeared　as　a
substantial　independent　distinction；　which；　however；　in　point　of　fact　proved　to　be　none。　For　it　is
the　selfsame　which　repels　itself　from　itself；　and　this　element　repelled　is　in　consequence　essentially
self…attracted；　for　it　is　the　same；　the　distinction　made；　since　it　is　none；　thus　cancels　itself　again。　The
distinction　is　hence　set　forth　as　a　distinction　on　the　part　of　the　fact　itself；　or　as　an　absolute
（objective）　distinction；　and　this　distinction　on　the　part　of　the　fact　is　thus　nothing　but　the　selfsame；
that　which　has　repelled　itself　from　itself；　and　consequently　only　set　up　an　opposition　which　is　none。

By　means　of　this　principle；　the　first　supersensible　world；　the　changeless　kingdom　of　laws；　the
immediate　ectype　and　copy　of　the　world　of　perception；　has　turned　round　into　its　opposite。　The　law
was　in　general；　like　its　differences；　self…identical；　now；　however；　it　is　established　that　each　side　is；
on　the　contrary；　the　opposite　of　itself。　The　self…identical　repels　itself　from　itself；　and　the
self…discordant　sets　up　to　be　selfsame。　In　truth　only　with　a　determination　of　this　kind　is　distinction
inner　distinction；　or　immanent　distinction；　when　the　like　is　unlike　itself；　and　the　unlike　lik