phenomenology of mind-第64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！


opposition；　thus　does　not　afford　the　expression　which　is　sought。

If　now　the　external　shape　and　form　were　able　to　express　the　inner　individuality　only　in　so　far　as
that　shape　is　neither　an　organ　nor　action；　hence　only　in　so　far　as　it　is　an　inert　passive　whole；　it
would　then　play　the　r？le　of　a　subsistent　thing；　which　received　undisturbed　the　inner　as　an　alien
element　into　its　own　passive　being；　and　thereby　became　the　sign　and　symbol　of　it　—　an　external
contingent　expression；　whose　actual　concrete　aspect　has　no　meaning　of　its　own　—　a　language
whose　sounds　and　tone…combinations　are　not　the　real　fact　itself；　but　are　capriciously　connected
with　it　and　a　mere　accident　so　far　as　it　is　concerned。

Such　a　capricious　association　of　factors　that　are　external　for　one　another　does　not　give　a　law。
Physiognomy；　however；　would　claim　distinction　from　other　spurious　arts　and　unwholesome
studies　on　the　ground　that　in　dealing　with　determinate　individuality　it　considers　the　necessary
opposition　of　an　inner　and　an　outer；　of　character　as　a　conscious　nature　and　character　as　a
definitely　embodied　organic　shape；　and　relates　these　moments　to　one　another　in　the　way　they　are
related　to　one　another　by　their　very　conception；　and　hence　must　constitute　the　content　of　a　law。　In
astrology；　on　the　other　hand；　in　palmistry　and　similar　〃sciences〃；　there　appears　merely　external
element　related　to　external　element；　anything　whatsoever　to　an　element　alien　to　it。　A　given
constellation　at　birth；　and；　when　the　external　element　is　brought　closer　to　the　body　itself；　certain
given　lines　on　the　hand；　are　external　factors　making　for　long　or　short　life；　and　the　fate　in　general　of
the　particular　person。　Being　externalities　they　are　indifferent　towards　one　another；　and　have　none
of　the　necessity　for　one　another　which　is　supposed　to　lie　in　the　relation　of　what　is　outer　to　what　is
inner。

The　hand；　to　be　sure；　does　not　seem　to　be　such　a　very　external　thing　for　fate；　it　seems　rather　to
stand　to　it　as　something　inner。　For　fate　again　is　also　merely　the　phenomenal　manifestation　of　what
the　specifically　determinate　individuality　inherently　is　as　having　originally　an　inner　determinate
constitution。　Now　to　find　out　what　this　individuality　is　in　itself；　the　palmist；　as　well　as　the
physiognomist；　takes　a　shorter　cut　than；　e。g。；　Solon；　who　thought　he　could　only　know　this　from
and　after　the　course　of　the　whole　life：　the　latter　looked　at　the　phenomenal　explicit　reality；　while　the
former　considers　the　implicit　nature　（das　Ansich）。　That　the　band；　however；　must　exhibit　and　reveal
the　inherent　nature　of　individuality　as　regards　its　fate；　is　easily　seen　from　the　fact　that　after　the
organ　of　speech　it　is　the　hand　most　of　all　by　which　a　man　actualizes　and　manifests　himself。　It　is　the
animated　artificer　of　his　fortune：　we　may　say　of　the　band　it　is　what　a　man　does；　for　in　it　as　the
effective　organ　of　his　self…fulfilment　he　is　there　present　as　the　animating　soul；　and　since　he　is
ultimately　and　originally　his　own　fate；　the　hand　will　thus　express　this　innate　inherent　nature。

From　this　peculiarity；　that　the　organ　of　activity　is　at　once　a　form　of　being　and　the　operation　going
on　within　it；　or　again　that　the　inner　inherent　being　is　itself　explicitly　present　in　it　and　has　a　being　for
others；　we　come　upon　a　further　aspect　of　it　different　from　the　preceding。　For　if　the　organs　in
general　proved　to　be　incapable　of　being　taken　as　expressions　of　the　inner　for　the　reason　that　in
them　the　action　is　present　as　a　process；　while　the　action　as　a　deed　or　（finished）　act　is　merely
external；　and　inner　and　outer　in　this　way　fall　apart　and　are　or　can　be　alien　to　one　another；　the　organ
must；　in　view　of　the　peculiarity　now　considered；　be　again　taken　as　also　a　middle　term　for　both；
since　this　very　fact；　that　the　operation　takes　place　and　is　present　in　it；　constitutes　eo　ipso　an
external　attribute　of　it；　and　indeed　one　that　is　different　from　the　deed　or　act；　for　the　former　holds
by　the　individual　and　remains　with　him。

This　mediating　term　uniting　inner　and　outer　is　in　the　first　place　itself　external　too。　But　then　this
externality　is　at　the　same　time　taken　up　into　the　inner；　it　stands　in　the　form　of　simple　unbroken
externality　opposed　to　dispersed　externality；　which　either　is　a　single　performance　or　condition
contingent　for　the　individuality　as　a　whole；　or　else；　in　the　form　of　a　total　externality；　is　fate　or
destiny；　split　up　into　a　plurality　of　performances　and　conditions。　The　simple　lines　of　the　hand；　then；
the　ring　and　compass　of　the　voice；　as　also　the　individual　peculiarity　of　the　language　used：　or　again
this　idiosyncracy　of　language；　as　expressed　where　the　hand　gives　it　more　durable　existence　than
the　voice　can　do；　viz。　in　writing；　especially　in　the　particular　style　of　〃handwriting〃　—　all　this　is　an
expression　of　the　inner；　so　that；　as　against　the　multifarious　externality　of　action　and　fate；　this
expression　again　stands　in　the　position　of　simple　externality；　plays　the　part　of　an　inner　in　relation　to
the　externality　of　action　and　fate。　Thus；　then；　if　at　first　the　specific　nature　and　innate　peculiarity　of
the　individual　along　with　what　these　become　as　the　result　of　cultivation　and　development；　are
regarded　as　the　inner　reality；　as　the　essence　of　action　and　of　fate；　this　inner　being　finds　its
appearance　in　external　fashion　to　begin　with　in　his　mouth；　hand；　voice；　handwriting；　and　the　other
organs　and　their　permanent　characteristics。　Thereafter　and　not　till　then　does　it　give　itself　further
outward　expression　in　its　realization　in　the　world。

Now　because　this　middle　term　assumes　the　nature　of　an　outer　expression；　which　is　at　the　same
time　taken　back　into　the　inner；　its　existence　is　not　confined　to　the　immediate　organ　of　action　（the
hand）；　this　middle　term　is　rather　the　movement　and　form　of　countenance　and　figure　in　general
which　perform　no　outward　act。　These　lineaments　and　their　movements　on　this　principle　are　the
checked　and　restrained　action　that　stops　in　the　individual　and；　as　regards　his　relation　to　what　he
actually　does；　constitute　his　own　personal　inspection　and　observation　of　the　action…outer
expression　in　the　sense　of　reflexion　upon　the　actual　outer　expression。

The　individual；　on　the　occasion　of　his　external　action；　is　therefore　not　dumb　and　silent；　because　he
is　thereby　at　once　reflected　into　himself；　and　he　gives　articulate　expression　to　this　self…reflexion。
This　theoretical　action；　the　individual's　conversing　with　himself　on　the　matter；　is　also　perceptible　to
others；　for　his　speaking　is　itself　an　outer　expression。

In　this　inner；　then；　which　in　being　expressed　remains　an　inner；　observation　finds　the　individual
reflected　out　of　his　actual　reality；　and　we　have　to　see　how　the　case　stands　with　regard　to　the
necessity　which　lies　in　the　unity　here。

His　being　thus　reflected　is　to　begin　with　different　from　the　act　itself；　and　therefore　can　be；　and　be
taken　for　something　other　than　the　deed　is。　We　look　at　a　man's　face　and　see　whether　he　is　in
earnest　with　what　he　says　or　does。　Conversely；　however；　what　is　here　intended　to　be　an
expression　of　the　inner　is　at　the　same　time　an　existent　objective　expression；　and　hence　itself　falls　to
the　level　of　mere　existence；　which　is　absolutely　contingent　for　the　self…conscious　individual。　It　is
therefore　no　doubt　an　expression；　but　at　the　same　time　only　in　the　sense　of　a　sign；　so　that　to　the
content　expressed　the　peculiar　nature　of　that　by　which　it　is　expressed　is　completely　indifferent。　The
inner　in　thus　appearing　is　doubtless　an　invisible　made　visible；　but　without　being　itself　united　to　this
appearance。　It　can　just　as　well　make　use　of　some　other　appearance　as　another　inner　can　adopt　the
same　appearance。　Lichtenberg；　（2）　therefore；　is　right　in　saying：　〃Suppose　the　physiognomist　ever
did　have　a　man　in　his　grasp；　it　would　merely　require　a　courageous　resolution　on　the　man's　part　to
make　himself　again　incomprehensible　for　centuries。〃

In　the　previous　case　（3）　the　immediately　given　circumstances　formed　a　sphere　of　existence　from
which　individuality　selected　what　it　could　or　what　it　wanted；　either　submitting　to　or　transmuting　this
given　existence；　for　which　reason　this　did　not　contain　the　necessity　and　inner　nature　of　individuality。
Similarly　here　the　immediate　being　in　which　individuality　clothes　its　appearance　is　one　which　either
expresses　the　fact　of　its　being　reflected　back　out　of　reality　and　existing　within　itself；　or　which　is　for
it　merely　a　sign　indifferent　to　what　is　signified；　and　therefore　signifying　in　reality　nothing；　it　is　as
much　its　countenance　as　its　mask；　which　can　be　put　off　when　it　likes。　Individuality　permeates　its
own　shape；　moves；　speaks　in　the　shape　assumed；　but　this　entire　mode　of　existence　equally　well
passes　over　into　a　state　of　being　indifferent　to　the　will　and　the　act。　Individuality　effaces　from　it　the
significance　it　formerly　had　—　of　being　that　wherein　individuality　is　reflected　into　itself；　or　has　its
true　nature　—　and　instead　puts　its　real　nature　rather　in　the　will　and　the　deed。

Individuality　abandons　that　condition　of　being　reflected　into　self　which　finds　expression　in　lines　and
lineaments；　and　places　its　real　nature　in　the　work　done。　Herein　it　contradicts　the　re