text:
Page:An Australian Parsonage.djvu/28

Rh Sound—Garden Island—Plans for colonization—No convicts to be admitted—Large grants of land—Deplorable condition of first immigrants—Scurvy—Early cutting of cabbages—Governor Stirling's activity—Unsuitability of goods and furniture—Travelling carriages turned to good account—Deal packing-cases found useful—Harp re-shipped—Tents blow loose in windy weather—Boys fasten ropes—Vessel on sand-bank—Boat capsized—Merits of twins not recognized by Colonial Government—Australind projected—Repetition of disappointment—Western Australia acquires a bad name—Discovery of mineral districts. …

CHAPTER XIV.

CHAPTER XV.

Schools on the Irish system—Roman Catholic schools—Schoolmasters—Scholastic squabbles—Convict tutors—Difficulties to educated convicts in earning livelihood—Festival of the Barladong Fair—Want of recreation—Silver mugs—Popular entertainment—"Paddle

title: Page:An Australian Parsonage.djvu/28


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/139

 to be the infinite, does not yet exist. This inherently existing substantiality is accordingly Brahma, and the independently existing finite is represented by the many gods. The third position is that in which the finite is posited as identical with substantiality, so that its sphere is of similar extent to that of the latter, and is pure universal form, as substantiality itself is. This is God conceived of as The Good.

Spiritual subjectivity, the conception at which we have now arrived, is the absolutely free power of self-determination, so that this is nothing else than the Notion, and has no content but the Notion; and in this self-determination there is nothing beyond the fact that it contains itself. This self-determination, this content, is accordingly as universal, as infinite, as the Power itself. This universal Power, which now shows itself active in the form of self-determination, we may call Wisdom. In so far as we have to do with spiritual subjectivity we have to do with self-determination, with an end, and these are as universal as the Power, and are thus wise ends. Determination in accordance with an end is directly involved in the conception of free subjectivity. Action which is in accordance with an end is inner self-determination, i.e., it is determination by means of freedom, by means of the subject, for there is nothing within but just the subject itself.

This self-determination maintains itself in external existence, natural being has no longer any worth in its immediacy, it belongs to the Power, is a transparent medium for it, and has no value for itself. In so far as it takes on an external form—and it must externalise itself, subjectivity must give itself reality—it is simply free self-determination which maintains itself in realising itself, in external existence, in the natural sphere. In the case of action which is in conformity with an end, nothing comes out of it unless what is already there. Immediate existence, on the other hand, is bereft of power,

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/140

 as it were, is form only, is the mode only in which the end is present in it, and it is the end which is the inner element.

We find ourselves here accordingly in the sphere of the End, and action which is in conformity with an end is wise action, since wisdom consists in acting according to ends which hold good universally; and no other content is actually present in it, for it is free subjectivity which determines itself.

The general conception here is that of subjectivity, of power which works in accordance with ends, which is active in fact. Subjectivity, speaking generally, consists in being active, and the end must be a wise one, it must be identical with what determines it, with the unlimited Power.

1. What we have first to consider here is the relation of the subject to Nature, to natural things, and more particularly to what we previously called Substantiality, the Power which has only potential being. This remains something inward, but subjectivity is Power which has independent actual being, and is different from Power which has potential being and from its reality, namely, Nature. This Power which has potential being, Nature, is now degraded to the condition of something powerless, something dependent relatively to the underived Power, or, to put it more definitely, it is made a means. Natural things are deprived of their own independent existence. Hitherto they had a direct share in Substance, while now they are in the subjective Power separated from substantiality, distinguished from it, and are regarded as only negative. The unity of the subjective Power is outside of them, is distinguished from them. They are only means or modes which have no more value beyond serving for manifestation; they are the material of manifestation and are subject to what manifests itself in them; they may no longer show themselves directly, but must reveal a something higher in them, namely, free subjectivity.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/141

 2. But what is the more definite determination connected with the idea of wisdom? It is, to begin with, undetermined so far as the end is concerned. We do not as yet know of what it consists, what the ends of this Power are, and do not go beyond the undefined phrase, the wisdom of God. God is wise, but what are His ways, His ends? In order that we may be able to say what they are, the ends must be already before us in all their determinateness and definiteness, i.e., in their development as a distinction of moments. So far we have here only determination in accordance with ends in general.

3. Since God is above all things real, we cannot, in considering Him, stop short at this indeterminateness in wisdom. The ends must be determined. God as subject manifests Himself, acts, which means that He comes forward into actual existence, into reality. At an earlier stage the unity of infinitude and finitude was regarded as simply immediate, and was thus the first and best of finite things, sun, hill, river, &c., and the reality was of an immediate kind. Here it is also necessary that God be in a definite place, i.e., that His end be definite and determined.

In reference to the reality of the end there are two points which call for notice. The first is contained in the question, What is the sphere in which this end can be present? The end, as being something inward, is merely subjective, is only thought or idea. God, however, as subjective Power, is not simply will, intention, &c., but rather immediate Cause. This sphere of the realisation of the actual existence of the end is self-consciousness or the finite spirit. End is determination in general, and here we have determinations which are merely abstract and not as yet developed. The finite spirit is accordingly the sphere in which the divine end shows itself. Since it is only now that we first reach the thought of the determination of wisdom in general,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/142

 we have not any content, anything definite, whereby to express what is wise. The end is potential, is yet undetermined in the notion of God, and so we have to take a second and further step, and show that the end must become actual, must be realised. There must, therefore, be determination in it, but the determination is not as yet developed. The determination as such, the development, has not as yet taken an actual form within the Divine Essence, and for this reason the determination is finite, external, an accidental or particular end. In so far as it exists, it exists in an undefined form in the divine notion, but so far as it is determined it is an accidental and entirely limited end; or, to put it otherwise, what constitutes it is something outside of the divine notion, an end which can be distinguished from it, not the divine end in all its completeness in and for itself, i.e., not an end which would be developed from its own inner nature, and would in its particular forms express the determinateness of the divine notion.

In studying the Religion of Nature, we saw that in it goodness was as universal as power; but speaking generally, it does not go beyond expressing the idea of substantial immediate identity with the Divine Essence, and all things accordingly are good and full of light. Here, in the determination of subjectivity, of Power which has independent existence, the end is distinguished from the notion, and the definite form given to the end is just for this reason merely accidental, because the difference has not yet been taken back into the divine notion, is not yet considered as equivalent to it. Here, therefore, we have only ends which, so far as their contents are concerned, are finite, and are not as yet adequate to express the divine notion. Finite self-consciousness is thus, to begin with, the region in which they are realised. This is the fundamental characteristic of the standpoint we have got to.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/143

 B.

THE METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTION OR NOTION OF THIS SPHERE.

It is the pure abstract thought-determination which forms the basis here. We abstract as yet from idea or mental representation, as also from the necessity of the realisation of the Notion, a necessity which does not exactly belong to idea, but is rather one which the Notion itself renders necessary. Here we have the metaphysical notion in its relation to the form taken by the Proofs of the Existence of God. The special characteristic of the metaphysical notion, as contrasted with the foregoing, lies in this, that in the case of the latter we started from the unity of the Infinite and the finite. The Infinite was absolute negativity, undeveloped Power, and the thought involved in the first sphere and its essence were limited to this definition of infinitude. In that sphere the notion, so far as we are concerned, was undoubtedly that of the unity of the finite and the Infinite; but in reference to this stage itself, the Essence was defined simply as the Infinite. This latter forms the basis, and the finite was merely added to it; and just for this reason the determination assumed a natural aspect, and was accordingly the Religion of Nature, because the form required natural existence in order to show itself in a definite actual shape. The Religion of Nature already proved also the inadequacy of what is immediately external to express what is internal. In the conception of the Immeasurable it passed beyond the immediate identity of the natural and the Absolute, and also beyond that of immediate Being and Essence. But the external form when stretched out to the Immeasurable snaps, as it were, natural Being vanishes, and begins to exist for itself as the Universal. Infinitude is not yet, however, immanent determination, and, in order to represent it, use is


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/144

 still made of natural forms which are external and inadequate. In proportion as the Natural is posited as existing negatively in the Immeasurable, is it also positive looked at in its finite existence, as opposed to the Infinite. Or, to put it otherwise, the Immeasurable, which, in proportion as everything disappears within it, is in like proportion also powerless, is the contradiction of Power and powerlessness. In contrast to this, we have now the Essence itself defined as the unity of the Infinite and the finite, as true Power, as infinitude which is concrete in itself, i.e., as the unity of the finite and the Infinite. It is this, accordingly, that we have in the determination of wisdom which is the Power which determines itself within itself, and this determination is the finite aspect, and thus the Divine is known as what is concrete in itself, inherently infinite form. This form is the aspect of the finite as potential, but posited here under the aspect of the Infinite. In the concrete ideality of the Essence the contradiction referred to as existing in the Immeasurable is done away with, since the Essence is a manifestation of itself for itself, and not an abstract beingfor-self. Posited as Power, it is the absolute negativity which differentiates itself, but in such a way that the differences are done away with, and are only a semblance. That is powerful which has the soul, the Idea of the “Other,” which the Other is in its immediacy only. Whatever thinks that which the “Others” only are, constitutes their Power. The Essence (not a particular Essence or one higher Essence)—i.e., the Universe as absolute Power—is satisfied in itself and is Totality, since all other determinations are taken up into and absorbed in it. In order to be, it does not have recourse to natural objects, but has a determinate character of its own within itself, and is the totality of its appearance or semblance.

Since thus the determination of pure thought belongs to the determining or characterisation of the Essence itself, it follows that further advance in characterisation


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/145

 is not connected with the natural mode or aspect of things, but takes place within the Essence itself. If, accordingly, we are to find three stages here, then they constitute an advance within the metaphysical notion itself. They are moments in the Essence, different forms of the notion for the religious self-consciousness which occupies this standpoint. At an earlier stage the advance was merely in the external form, here the advance is within the notion itself. Now, the Divine Essence is actual Essence, Essence for itself, and the differences are its own reflection of itself into itself. We thus get three conceptions. The first is that of Unity, the second that of Necessity, the third that of Conformability to an End, though of conformability which is finite and external.

We have (a.) Unity, absolute Power, negativity, which is posited as reflected into itself, as existing absolutely for self, or as absolute subjectivity, so that here, in this particular form of essential being, the sense element is directly abolished. It is Power which is actual, for itself, and has within it nothing belonging to sense, for this latter is the finite, which has not yet been taken up into, is not yet absorbed by, the Infinite. Here, however, it is in process of being absorbed. This subjectivity, which is actual, which exists for itself, is accordingly the One.

We have (5.) Necessity. The One is this absolute Power, and everything is posited in it as merely negative. This constitutes the conception or notion of the One. But when we express it thus, development is not as yet postulated. The One is nothing more than the form of simplicity, and necessity then comes to be the process of unity itself. It is the unity as inner movement, and is no longer the One, the unit, but the unity. The movement which constitutes the Notion is the unity, the absolute necessity.

We have (c.) Conformability to an End. In absolute necessity is posited or made explicit the movement which


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/146

 the One is only implicitly. It is the process, and it is the process of contingent things, for it is contingent things which are thus posited and negated. In necessity, however, it is only the transition, the coming and going of things, which is posited. But now it must be further posited that these things exist and appear as distinguished from this unity of theirs, from this process of necessity which belongs to them. They must appear, at all events, momentarily as existing, and at the same time as belonging to the power out of which they do not pass. They are thus means in general, and the unity consists in this, that it maintains itself within this process which belongs to it, and produces itself in these means. This is the unity of necessity itself, but thought of as distinguished from what moves itself, and within which it maintains itself, so that it has the element of Being only as something negative. Unity is thus End in general.

These three points stand in the following relation to each other. Since the Essence is absolute negativity, it is pure identity with itself, the One; it is at the same time the negativity of the unity, which, however, is in a relation to the unity, and owing to this interpenetration of both shows itself as necessity. In the third place, the One returns into itself out of the isolation of its difference, a unity, nevertheless, which, as being this self-absorption of the Form into itself, has a finite content, and in this way, by developing into the difference of the Form as totality, gives us the conception of conformability to an end, a conformability which is, however, finite.

When it is said that in this are contained the three metaphysical notions or conceptions of the three religions, it is not to be supposed that each of these conceptions belongs to one religion only. On the contrary, each of these three determinations or characteristics belongs to all three. Where One is the Essence, there too is necessity though only implicit, not in its determinate quality; and so, too, if the One determines Himself in


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/147

 accordance with ends, then He is wise. Necessity is One also, and conformability to an end is present here also, only it lies outside of necessity. If conformability to an end is the fundamental characteristic, we have along with this the presence of the Power to carry out the ends, and the end itself is Fate. The point of difference simply is as to which of these determinations of the object is to be regarded as the Essence, and whether this latter is the One, or Necessity, or Power with its ends. The point of difference is simply as to which of them is to pass as the fundamental determination of the Essence for each religion.

What we have now to consider more definitely is the form in which these determinations appear as they have been connected with the proofs of the existence of God.

(a.) The Conception of the One.

Here we have not got to do with the proposition, God is only one; for it is implied in these words that the One is only a predicate of God; we have the subject, God, and a predicate outside of which He may have others in addition to this. That God is only One is a proposition which it is not difficult to prove. Being passes over into Essence, and this reflected into itself is what has been frequently called an Ens, or Individuum. When we say, God is the One, we mean something different from what was expressed formerly in the words, The Absolute Being is One, τὸ ἕν. Parmenides expressed it thus: Being alone is, or the One only is. This One, however, is only the abstract Infinite, not the Infinite as reflected into itself, and is thus rather the Immeasurable and Powerless, for it is the Infinite only as compared with actual existence in its infinitely manifold forms, and its existence is necessarily dependent on this relation. Power at first conceived of as the One is in reality the Universal posited as Power. The abstract One is the one side, and over against it is the manifoldness of the essence of the world. The concrete One, on


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/148

 the other hand, is individuality, the Universal, what is reflected into itself, the other side of which itself comprises all being in itself, so that it has returned into its own unity.

Reflection accordingly conceives of the unity of God as a characteristic quality, and seeks to demonstrate it. This, however, does not supply the form in which to express a proof of the existence of God. The One is distinguished from the substratum, and the point is simply to exhibit the characteristic of Being as One. Reflection lights upon this idea because One is just reflection into self.

Accordingly this characteristic or determination that God is only One has reference, to begin with, only to the Many with which it is contrasted, and so far also to the other Form, which will be dealt with as the second Form belonging to this stage. The disproof of the determination which comes later is thus given here in advance. This second form in itself and in the determination of its notion is undoubtedly more concrete; but as definite or determined Being in and for itself when it appears as Necessity is only something that ought to be, an ideal, and because it is only what ought to be is thus multiplicity, it has not as yet absolute reflection-into-self, and it is wanting in the characteristic of being One. Doubtless the characteristic of the One is also as yet one-sided, since it is only the abstract form in an actual state, for itself, and is not the developed form in the shape of content.

The development of the necessity of this characteristic of the One, the rising up to this one Subject as the One, is carried out thus. Being as One is conceived of as predicate, while God is presupposed as subject, and it is then shown that the characteristic of multiplicity is opposed to the presupposition of this subject. The relation belonging to the Many can thus be considered as consisting in their reference to each other; they are then thought


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/149

 of as coming into contact with each other, and getting into conflict with themselves. This conflict is, however, the appearance of the contradiction itself in an immediate way, for the different gods have to maintain themselves in accordance with their own nature or quality, and it is here that their finitude comes to light. In so far as God is presupposed as being the Universal or the Essence, that finitude which is involved in the multiplicity is inadequate to express what is contained in that presupposition.

In the case of finite things we are accustomed to think that substances may be in conflict without losing their independence. It would seem, then, that it is only their superficial elements which they send out to engage in the conflict, while they keep their real selves in the background. In accordance with this a distinction is made between the inner nature of the subject and its relations, between the substance considered in reference to others and the substance as passive, without prejudice to its aforesaid activity. This distinction is as yet unproved. What the many are so far as content and power are concerned, they are only in contrast with something else; their Being, as reflected into self, is simply something devoid of content. If they are thus, so far as form also is concerned, independent, they are, nevertheless, finite so far as the content is concerned, and this succumbs to the same process of dialectic as that to which finite Being has to yield. In face of the presupposition of absolute Power, of the universal negativity of all that has Being, the multiplicity of such formal finite things accordingly directly disappears. It is directly involved in the presupposition of the Universal, that form and content cannot be so separated that a quality can attach to the one which is wanting to the other. Thus the gods by means of their qualities directly cancel each other.

Multiplicity is, however, in this case taken also in the sense of pure difference which does not come in contact with itself. Thus we speak of a multiplicity of worlds


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/150

 which do not come into conflict and are not in contradiction with each other. Ordinary thought obstinately clings to this idea by maintaining that the truth of such a presupposition cannot be controverted because no contradiction is involved in it. It is, however, really one of the ordinary bad forms of Reflection to say that it is possible to form an idea of anything. It is certainly possible to form to oneself an idea of everything, and to conceive of it as possible; but that does not mean anything at all. If it be asked wherein the difference consists, and if the answer is that the one is as powerful as the other, and that no one of them is to have qualities which the other also has not, then the difference is an empty phrase. The difference must necessarily directly advance till it becomes a definite or determined difference, and in that case, so far as our reflection is concerned, there is wanting to the one what is peculiar to the other, but only in so far as our reflection is concerned. Thus the stone, in so far as we reflect upon it, is not so perfect as the plant, yet there is no defect in the stone considered in itself; it neither feels nor knows anything of its defect. Thus the difference spoken of is only an idea in our mind, in our reflection.

It is in this way, therefore, that Reflection reasons, and its reasoning is correct, but all the same it is likewise inadequate. The Universal, the Essence, is presupposed under the form of Power, and it is asked if the predicate of the One attaches to it. The determination of the One is nevertheless already in harmony with the presupposition, for absolute Power is directly contained in the determination of individuality, of oneness, or the One. The proof is thus quite correct but superfluous, and what is overlooked is that the absolute Power itself is already contained in the definition or determination of the One. To prove predicates of God is really not the business of the Notion, nor is God in this way to be known philosophically.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/151

 But as a matter of fact, the true meaning of this notion is not contained in the proposition that God is One, but rather in the statement that the One is God, so that the One exhausts the meaning of this Divine Essence, and is not a predicate. Nor is it a characteristic along with other characteristics, but, on the contrary, it is one which fully expresses the Essence in the sense of absolute Power as subjectivity, as reflected into itself. God is thus just this movement of the subject from itself and back to itself, the self-determination of itself as the One in such a way that subject and predicate are the same, are this movement within each other, so that there is nothing left which comes between them. This notion is not adapted to be expressed in the form of a mediation in which the notion will appear as a proof of the existence of God, for it is the Infinite, the absolute negativity from which we start in order to reach the determination of the One. The One is merely the determination which is attached to it, and which expresses the thought that this is subjectivity reflected into itself. The movement proceeds, so to speak, only within the potential Being of the Infinite. It is, therefore, not in the form of mediation that we have to consider it here. We certainly might say there is an advance from the Infinite to subjectivity determined within itself, but the beginning is the Infinite, and this Infinite, moreover, as the absolute negativity, is the Subject reflected into itself, in which all that is manifold is done away with and absorbed. If we wished to look at the mediation more closely, we would start from one thought and conceive of the Notion in and for itself as Thought, and from this we would go on to the Other, to Being. But here we cannot start from the Notion, for a beginning in this form gives a different proof of the existence of God, and one which belongs to the Christian religion, and not to the religion under consideration. The One is not yet thought of as Notion, not yet thought of as Notion for us; what is


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/152

 true, posited concretely in itself, such as we have in the Christian religion, is not as yet present here.

Since the Absolute is thus defined as the One and as Power, self-consciousness is merely a semblance of the Absolute. It is certainly something for which the Absolute manifests itself, and to which it stands in a positive relation, for the reflection of Power into itself directly gives repulsion, and this is self-consciousness, and thus personality. Self-consciousness begins here to have a certain value, but still it has only an abstract determination, so that self-consciousness in its concrete form knows itself merely as a semblance of existence. It is in bondage, has no extended sphere in itself, no room in which to act; heart and mind are hemmed in; what feeling it has consists only in feeling the Lord; it has its existence and finds its happiness only within this narrow enclosure. Even if, as is the case here, the element of difference comes to light, still it is held fast; it does not really break away, and is not set free. Self-consciousness concentrates itself only in this one point, and though it knows itself as essentially existing—for it is not killed as in Brahma—it is at the same time the non-essential element in the Essence.

(b.) Necessity is something which is self-posited as mediation, and is here accordingly a mediation for self-consciousness. Necessity is movement, implicit process, implying that the accidental element in things and in the world is definitely characterised as accidental, and thus raises itself to and disappears in necessity. When in any religion the absolute Essence is conceived of, or known, or revered as Necessity, then this process is present. It might seem as if we had seen this transition already in the advance of the finite to the Infinite in the fact that the truth of the finite was the Infinite, the absorption of the finite in itself into the Infinite, and that in the same way the accidental also returns into necessity. Whether we regard the determination of the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/153

 advance of the finite to the Infinite or of the accidental to Necessity, the distinction, so far as the advance is concerned, does not seem at all to be an essential one. As a matter of fact, both have the same fundamental determination, so that, from one point of view, this is correct; but if we regard the matter from another point of view, the difference or distinction is more concrete than that of the earlier form of the process. That is to say, if we begin from the finite, then the matter stands thus; but the first beginning is that it has real worth, that it exists as Being, or, in other words, we take it to begin with in an affirmative, positive form. Its end is indeed involved in it, but at the same time it still possesses immediate Being. “Accidental” already suggests something more concrete, for what is accidental can either be or not be. The Real is accidental, for it may quite as well be possibility, the Being of which has the value of Not-Being. Thus there is posited in the accidental the negation of itself, and it is accordingly a transition from Being into Nothing. Like the finite, it is inherently negative; but since it is also Not-Being, so too is it the transition from Not-Being to Being. The characteristic or determination of contingency is thus much richer and more concrete than that of the finite. The truth of contingency is necessity, and this is determinate existence, which has arisen by mediation with itself through its NotBeing. Reality is a definite form of existence of this sort, in the case of which the process is shut in within itself, and which by means of itself comes into harmony with itself.

In connection with Necessity we have, however, to make the following distinctions:—

1. External necessity is in a peculiar sense contingent necessity. When an effect is dependent on causes, then it is necessary; when one or another set of circumstances concurs, then one or another result must follow. Only circumstances which occasion this are immediate; and since, regarded from this standpoint, immediate Being has


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/154

 merely the value of possibility, the circumstances are such as may or may not be, and so the necessity is relative, and is related thus to the circumstances which constitute the beginning, and which are accordingly immediate and contingent. This is external necessity, which has no higher value than that possessed by contingency. It is possible to demonstrate external necessity in such a way as to show that this or the other thing is necessary, but the circumstances always remain contingent; they can exist, but they can also not exist. A tile may fall from the roof and kill a man, but the falling down of the tile, the concurrence, may be or may not be; it is contingent. In this external necessity it is the result only which is necessary; the circumstances are contingent. These two, the conditioning causes and the results, are for this reason different. The one is determined as contingent, the other as necessary; this is the difference considered abstractly, but there is also a concrete difference. Something results quite different from what was posited; and since the forms are different, so too the content of the two sides is different. The tile falls accidentally; the person who is killed, the particular concrete subject, his death, and that act of falling down, are entirely heterogeneous, have a perfectly different content; something appears as result which is entirely different from what was posited. When life is considered according to the conditions of external necessity as a result of soil, heat, light, air, moisture, &c., as a product of these conditions, what is implied is that the matter is being looked at from the point of view of external necessity. This latter has to be carefully distinguished from the true inner necessity.

2. The inner necessity consists just in this, that everything of the nature of cause, occasion, occasioning circumstance, is presupposed and definitely distinguished, and the result belongs to One. The necessity puts together the two elements into one unity. All that takes place in this necessity takes place in such a way that


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/155

 nothing results from the presupposed condition, which is different from these, but rather the process is of such a kind that whatever is presupposed appears also in the result, coincides with itself, finds itself; or, to put it otherwise, the two moments of immediate existence, and of its being posited, are posited as one moment. In external necessity contingency is substantial or immediate existence. What is, is not as being something posited, the conditions do not belong to the unity, they are immediate, and the result is only something posited, is not Being. The effect is what is posited, the cause is what is underived. In the true necessity these are a unity; the circumstances exist, but they not only are, they are also posited by means of the unity, are, as a matter of fact, contingent, but are this in themselves; in that they cancel themselves the negation of their Being is the unity of necessity, so that their Being is one which is implicitly negated. The result is, accordingly, not only result, or only something posited, but it is just because of what thus takes place that the result comes to have Being. Necessity is thus the positing of the conditions, they are themselves posited by means of the unity; the result is also something posited, and is this indeed by means of reflection, by means of the process, by means of the reflection of the unity into itself; this unity is therefore the Being of the result. Thus whatever takes place within necessity simply comes into harmony with itself. The unity projects itself outward, disperses itself in circumstances which appear as if they were contingent; the unity of itself projects its conditions as if they were innocent of any connection with it—as if they were, so to speak, ordinary stones which appear in an immediate way, and rouse no suspicion of their being anything else. In the second stage they are posited, they do not belong to themselves, but to an “Other,” to their result. They are thus broken up in themselves, and the manifestation of their nature as


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/156

 posited is their self-abrogation, the production of an “Other,” the result, namely, which, however, appears as an “Other” only as opposed to their existence in a scattered form. The content, however, is one; the result is what they implicitly are, only the mode and manner of their appearance are altered. The result is the sum of what is contained in the circumstances, and the manifestation of this in a definite form. It is Life which thus projects its own conditions, means of stimulus, impulses, though in that form they do not look as if they were Life, for the inner element, what is implicit, appears first in the result. Necessity is thus the Process which implies that the result and the preliminary condition are different only as regards their form.

If we now consider this form and how necessity has come to get the definite shape of a Proof of the existence of God, we see that the content is the true Notion. Necessity is the truth of the contingent world. The more detailed development of this thought belongs to Logic. The notion of God is the absolute necessity; this is a necessary and essential standpoint, not indeed the highest or the really true one, but one from which the higher proceeds, and which is a condition of the higher notion which itself presupposes it. Thus the Absolute is necessity. The notion of absolute necessity does not yet correspond to the Idea which we must have of God, but which, however, is to be presupposed in the form of a pictorial or general idea. The higher notion or grasp has to grasp, to comprehend itself. There is here a defect in this Proof of the existence of God. So far as the form of the Proof is concerned in reference to absolute necessity, we find it to be the well-known Cosmological Proof, which is expressed simply thus: contingent things presuppose an absolutely necessary Cause, but contingent things exist, I and the World are such, therefore there is an absolutely necessary Cause.

The defective element in this Proof is easily seen.


text:
Page:An Australian Parsonage.djvu/29

xvi your own canoe"—Natives attracted to fair—Different costumes—Glass spears—Fights occasioned by betrothal and polygamy—Native laws respecting marriages—Sheep-shearers interrupted at dinner—Pitched battle in barley-field—Holding beard between teeth—Æsop's donkey—Khourabene in position of Mr. Swiveller—Khourabene brings home wife—Legacy of brother's widow—Khourabene's past history as married man—His escape from policeman—Finaly acquitted—Reasons for contracting additional marriage—First wife deputes making of dampers to second wife—Ladies' quarrels—Khourabene and his wives—Khourabene an outlaw—His aunt's lamentations. …

CHAPTER XVI.

…

title: Page:An Australian Parsonage.djvu/29


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/157

 The major proposition runs thus: Contingent things presuppose an absolutely necessary Cause; this proposition, taken in a general sense, is quite correct, and expresses the connection between what is contingent and what is necessary, and, in order to obviate captious criticisms which would otherwise be made, one does not require to say they presuppose an absolutely necessary Cause, for this expresses a relation between finite things; but we can say they presuppose the absolutely necessary in such a way that this is conceived of as Subject. The proposition, accordingly, further contains a contradiction in reference to external necessity. Contingent things have causes; they are necessary, that by means of which they exist in this form may itself be contingent only, and so we are referred back from the cause to contingent things in endless progression. The proposition cuts short this style of reasoning, and is perfectly justified in doing so. What is only contingently necessary would be no necessity at all, and the real necessity stands in contrast to that implied in this proposition. The connection is in a general way correctly expressed too, contingent things presuppose absolute necessity; but the mode of the connection is incomplete, the union being defined as something presupposed or demanded. This is a connection belonging to untutored reflection, and implies that contingent things are placed on one side and necessity on the other, and thus while a transition is made from the one to the other, both sides are firmly opposed to each other. Owing to the fixity of Being in this form, contingent things become the conditions of the Being of necessity. This is still more plainly expressed in the minor proposition: There are contingent things, consequently there is an absolutely necessary Cause. Since the connection is thus constituted in such a way that one form of Being conditions the other, it would seem to be implied in this that contingent things condition absolute necessity; the one conditions the other, and


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/158

 thus necessity appears as if it were something whose existence is presupposed as dependent on or conditioned by contingent things. Absolute necessity is in this way put in a position of dependence, so that contingent things remain outside of it.

The true connection is as follows. Contingent things exist, but their Being has the value merely of possibility; they are and pass away; they are themselves simply preposited, or have hypothetical existence through the process of unity. Their first moment consists in their becoming posited with the semblance of immediate existence; their second moment consists in their being negated, in their being therefore conceived of essentially as appearance. In the Process they are essential moments, and so it may be said that they are the essential condition of absolute necessity. In the finite world it is true we start from some such immediate form of Being, but in the true world external necessity is simply the appearance referred to, and what is immediate is merely something posited, dependent on something else. It is this which constitutes the defect in mediations of this kind which pass for proofs of the existence of God. The really true content consists in this, that the Absolute must come to be recognised as absolute necessity.

3. Finally, absolute necessity actually is and contains in itself Freedom; for it consists just in this, that it comes together with, comes into harmony with itself; it is absolutely for itself, is not dependent on another; its action is free, is simply the act of meeting with or coinciding with itself, its process consists simply in its finding itself; but this is just freedom. Implicitly, necessity is free; it is only by an illusion that the distinction is made between it and what results from it. We see this in the case of punishment. Punishment comes upon a man as an evil, as force, as the exercise of power which is foreign to him, and in which he does not find himself. It appears as external necessity, as something external


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/159

 which falls upon him, and something different from what he has done results from it; punishment follows on his action, but it is something different from, other than, what he willed himself. If, however, a man comes to recognise punishment as just, then it is the consequence and the law of his own act of will which is bound up with his act itself. It is the rationality of his act which comes to him under the semblance of an “other;” he has not to submit to any kind of force; he bears his own deed, feels himself to be free in it, it is his own which comes to him, justice, the rational element in what he has done. It is only, however, implicitly that necessity contains freedom, and this is an essential circumstance. It is only formal freedom, subjective freedom, and this means that necessity has not as yet any content in itself.

Just because necessity is the simple act of coming together with itself, is it freedom. We require in connection with it movement, circumstances, &c. This belongs to mediation, but when we say, This is necessary, then this is a unity; whatever is necessary, is; this is the simple expression, the result, in which the process has come together or coincided with itself. It expresses simple relation to itself, the act of finding itself; necessity is what is freest; it is not determined or limited by anything; all mediations are once more taken up into it and done away with. Necessity is the mediation which freely yields itself up; it is implicitly freedom. The feeling which finds expression in submitting to necessity, as it existed among the Greeks, and as it still exists amongst the Mohammedans, certainly contains freedom in it, but it is only potential or formal freedom: in presence of the necessity here, no content, no purpose, nothing definite has any value, and it is in this that its defect lies.

Necessity, according to the higher conception and notion of it, real necessity, is thus just freedom as such, it is the Notion as such; or, more definitely characterised, it is the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/160

 End. Necessity, in short, is without content, or, to put it otherwise, the difference contained in it is not yet posited; it is the process which we have seen, simple Becoming, which only is to contain differences, and therefore what is contained in it, though it is certainly difference, is difference which is not as yet posited. It is something which coincides with itself though only through mediation, and in this way difference in general is posited. It is, to begin with, only abstract self-determination; the determinateness or specialisation is merely something which is to be. In order that the determinateness be real, it is necessary that the specialisation and the difference should, in the act of coinciding with self, be posited as being able to hold out against the transition which goes on in the process, as maintaining themselves in the necessity. To posit is to give determinateness, and this determinateness, accordingly, is what coincides with itself; it is the content which maintains itself. This act of coinciding, thus characterised as content which maintains itself, is End.

In this specialisation or determinateness which takes place in the process of coinciding or coming together, there are two forms of determinateness to be noticed. The determinateness appears as content which maintains itself going through the process without undergoing alteration, and in the act of transition remaining equal to itself. Accordingly, so far as the determinateness is that of Form, it appears here in the shape of subject and object. The content is, to begin with, subjectivity, and the process means that it realises itself in the form of objectivity. This realised end is end, the content remains what it was; it is subjective, but at the same time objective as well.

(c.) We have thus arrived at the idea of conformity to an end; it is in the end that the definite existence of the notion in general begins, the Free existing as free Being which is at home with itself, what maintains itself,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/161

 or, to put it more definitely, the Subject. The Subject determines itself within itself; this determination, regarded from one point of view, is content, and the Subject is free in it, is at home with itself, is free from the content, it is its own content, and the content has value only in so far as the Subject permits. This is the Notion taken generally.

The Subject, however, also gives realisation to the Notion. The particularity thus acquired is at first simple, it is held within the Notion in the form of Being which is at home with itself, and which has returned back into itself. This subjectivity, although it is totality, is still at the same time one-sided—subjective merely, only one moment of the entire form. The characteristic here is that the content is posited only in the form of the equality of what coincides with itself. This form thus defined as that which coincides with itself is the simple form of identity with self, and the Subject is the totality of Being as thus at home with itself. But so far as the Subject is concerned, that specialisation whereby it has an end is opposed to totality, and the Subject accordingly seeks to do away with this form and to realise the end. The realised end, however, remains attached to the Subject; the latter possesses its own self in it, has objectified itself, set itself free from its singleness or simplicity, while at the same time maintaining itself in its manifoldness. This is the conception or notion of conformity to an end.

The world has now to be regarded as being in conformity to an end. We had previously the characterisation that things are contingent, but the higher characterisation is the teleological view of the world, the thought of its conformity to an end. It is possible to accept the first of these characterisations and yet to be in doubt as to whether we ought to consider things as being in conformity to an end, whether some of them are to be regarded as ends to which other things are


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/162

 related as means, and it may be maintained that what appears as an end may have been merely produced mechanically under external conditions.

It is here, in fact, that characterisation of a permanent sort begins. The end maintains itself in the process; it begins and ends, it is something permanent, something exempted from the process, and which has its basis in the subject. The contrasted points of view may, accordingly, be put thus. Are we to keep to the point of view from which things are regarded as determined by other things, i.e., by the element of contingency in them, by external necessity, or to that from which they are regarded as determined by the end? It has been already remarked that external necessity stands in contrast to the end, is something which is posited by, whose existence depends on, an “Other;” the concurrence of circumstances is the producing factor, something different is the result; the end, on the other hand, is what remains, what gives the impulse, what is active, what realises itself. The conceptions of external necessity and conformity to an end are mutually opposed.

We saw that external necessity returns back into the absolute necessity which is its Truth, that this is implicitly freedom, and that whatever is implicit must be posited. This characteristic appears as subjectivity and objectivity, and thus we get the idea of End. We must therefore say, that in so far as things exist for us in immediate consciousness, in reflected consciousness, they are to be characterised as in conformity to an end, as having an end in themselves. The teleological view of things is an essential one; but this way of regarding things is at once seen to have in it a distinction, that between inner and outer necessity, and the inner again can itself, in accordance with its content, be a finite conformity to an end, and thus it comes to be once more included within the relation of external conformity to an end.

1. External Conformity to an End.—Suppose an end has


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/163

 been posited in any kind of way and has to be realised, then in so far as the subject together with its ends is something finite, is an immediate definite form of existence, the further characteristic of realisation lies outside of it. It is, looked at from one point of view, immediate, and in that case the subject, together with its ends, is immediate, and the aspect under which realisation presents itself is an external one, i.e., the realisation appears as material, as something which has been got outside, and serves simply to realise the end. It is, in fact, merely a means in reference to the end, and it is the latter which firmly maintains itself and is permanent. Being as an “Other,” Being in the aspect of reality, the material, is, as compared with the fixed end, something which has no independence of its own, has no actual Being, but is simply a means with no soul in it. The end is outside of it and is first impressed upon it by the activity of the subject, which realises itself in the material. External conformity to an end has thus an objectivity outside of it which has no independence, and in contrast to which the subject, together with its ends, is what is permanent. The material has no power to offer resistance, but is simply a means for the end which realises itself in it, and in the same way the realised end is itself merely an external form in the material, for this latter is something which has been immediately got, and is therefore dependent, though it is independent as well. In their union, therefore, both of them, means and end, remain external to one another. Wood and stones are means, but the realised end is equally wood and stones which have received a certain form; but all the same the material is still something external to the end.

2. Inner Conformity to an End.—This is the conformity which has its means in itself. Thus what has life is an end for itself, it makes itself into an end, and here the end is also the means. What has life is marked by this simple inwardness, which realises itself in its parts or


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/164

 members; it is an articulated organism, an organism with differentiated members. Since the subject produces itself within itself, it has as its aim to have its means within itself. Each is a part or member and maintains itself, and is the means whereby the others are produced and maintained; it is consumed and consumes; it is this form, and not the material particles, which remains and maintains itself in this process. Life is thus an end in itself.

But it now further appears that the end, which is end for itself, stands at the same time in relation to external conformity to an end. Organic life has relations to inorganic Nature, and finds in it the means through which it maintains itself, and these means exist independently so far as this organic life is concerned. Thus inner conformity to an end has also relations to a conformity which is outside. Life can assimilate the means, but they have already been found for it, they have not come into existence through Life itself. Its own organs can produce the life but not the means.

We are here in the region of finite conformity to an end; absolute conformity we shall get to later on.

The teleological way of looking at the world thus contains the different forms of the end in general. There are fixed ends and means, and even the end which has the end in itself is merely finite, dependent, standing in need of help in respect to the means. This conformity to an end is so far finite, and finitude in these relations to externality is, to begin with, the means, the material; the end cannot continue to exist apart from these means, nor, on the other hand, can it exist unless these means are powerless in reference to the end.

3. The next element of truth in this relation of means and end is to be found in that universal Power or Force through which the means potentially exist for the end. From the standpoint of conformity to an end, things which are ends have the power of realising themselves, but they


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/165

 have not the power of positing the means. Both the end and the material appear as indifferent to each other, both appear as having an immediate definite existence, the means being something found for the end. Their potentiality, accordingly, is necessarily the power which posits the end, and brings the end, which has its end in itself, into a unity with the means; and in order that the finitude of the relation may be done away with—the finitude being what we have so far been dealing with—we must proceed to the point at which the Totality or whole of the process in its inner conformity to an end, comes into view. What is living has ends in itself; it has means and material within its own existence; it exists as the power or force of the means and its material. This we find present at first only in the living individual existence. It has in its organs the means, and is therefore its own material too. These means are pervaded and penetrated by the end, they do not exist independently for themselves, they cannot exist apart from the soul, apart from the living unity of the body to which they belong. This fact must now take on the form of what is universal, i.e., the means and materials which appear as accidental forms of existence as contrasted with what the end implicitly is, have actually to be brought under the sway of the Power in them, and to have their soul only in the end, spite of their apparently indifferent independent existence. The universal idea here is Power, which exerts its power in accordance with ends, universal Power. In so far as the end, which is an end in itself, exists, and inorganic Nature is outside of it, this latter as a matter of fact belongs to the Power which shows its power in accordance with ends, so that those forms of existence which appear immediately exist only for the end. There are, it may be said, things which are implicitly ends, and things which appear as means, but this characterisation cannot be maintained, for the first mentioned may in their turn be relatively means, while the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/166

 last mentioned may, on the contrary, exist in a permanent form. This second class, that of those things which appear as existing independently, is implicitly posited, not by means of the Power of the end, but by means of a higher essentially existing Power which conforms them to the end.

This is the general conception or notion of Power which acts in accordance with ends. The truth of the world consists in this Power; it is the Power of Wisdom, the absolutely universal Power, and since it is the world which is its manifestation, the truth of the world is the completely realised essential existence of the manifestation of a wise Power.

We have now more particularly to consider the proof of the existence of God which is based on this thought. Two points call for notice. The wise Power, namely, is the absolute Process in itself; it is the power of producing effects, of being active. This wise Power has by its very nature to posit a world which has ends in itself; its nature is to manifest itself, to pass into actual definite existence. This actual existence is, speaking generally, the positing of the difference, of the manifoldness which attaches to external existence. We thus get the element of difference in a more important and more essential specialised form. Power produces what it does produce in its character as wisdom, what is produced is the difference; this means that the one is implicitly an end and the other a means for the first; it is merely something in conformity with an end, contingent, and not an end in itself. This differentiation, namely, that the one is the means of the other, is the one side. The other side in this mediation consists in this, that the mutual relation between these two sides is Power, or, to express it differently, it is just this which characterises those on the one side as ends and the others as means, and is thus the maintenance or preservation of the ends. This aspect of the differentiation is Creation; it proceeds from the Notion; the wise


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/167

 Power produces effects, makes distinctions, and thus is Creation.

It is to be noticed that this part of the mediation does not belong to the proof of the existence of God, for this part of the mediation begins with the conception or notion of wise Power. We have not here as yet reached the point at which the proof starts from the Notion, but that at which it starts from definite existence.

I. It is at this point that we first get the conception of Creation strictly so called; it is not to be found in any of the discussions which have gone before. We had first infinitude, then Power as the Essence of God. In the Infinite we have simply the negative of the finite; and in the same way in necessity finite existence is something which merely goes back whence it came; things disappear in it as accidental. What is is only in so far as it is a result. In so far as it is, all that can be asserted of it is only the fact that it is; nothing can be said of how it is; it can be in the particular way in which it is, but it might be otherwise as well, right or wrong, happy or unhappy. In necessity we get no further than formal affirmation; we do not get to the content; here there is nothing which is abiding, there is nothing which would be an absolute end. It is in Creation that we first come upon the positing and the being posited of affirmative forms of existence, not only as abstract, as things which only are, but as having content as well. It is just for this reason that Creation is only rightly in its place here. It is not the action of Power as Power, but of Power as Power that is wise, for Power first determines itself as wisdom; what appears as finite is thus already contained in it, and the determinations here get affirmation, i.e., the finite existences, the things created get true affirmation. There are ends which are valid, and necessity is reduced to the condition of a moment in reference to the ends. The end is what persists in the Power, as


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/168

 opposed to it and through it. Necessity is there on behalf of the end, its process is the maintenance and the realisation of the end; the end stands above it, and necessity is thus posited as one side only of the process, so that one part only of what is created is subjected to this Power, and appears accordingly as contingent. It is from the notion or conception of a wise Power that the act of positing, along with the difference referred to, proceeds.

2. By means of the conception alluded to we get two aspects of this truth; on the one hand we have ends, and on the other what is contingent. The second step accordingly is the mediation between the ends and what is contingent. They are, as a matter of fact, different; life and what has not life, each exists immediately for itself, they have an equal right to be—they are; the Being of the one has no more justification than that of the other. The ends are living; they are thus individuals existing as so many immediate single points which stand off from each other, and in reference to which the other exists for itself and to which it can offer resistance. The mediation or reconciliation between these two consists in this, that the two do not exist for themselves in a similar way. The one class consists of ends, the other of what has merely material independent Being, and has no higher signification even when it is living.

It is this second characteristic or mediation which has been put into the special form of the Proof of the existence of God known as the Physico-Theological.

What has life is in fact Power, though at first it is this only implicitly; in its organs it is the living Soul which is the Power, though this power does not yet hold sway over the inorganic, which also exists and is infinitely manifold. We thus have, on the one hand, what is as yet Quality, what is, to begin with, immediate Being, and the living things in a condition of indifference to each other. They use the material which also exists in this definite particular form which they themselves come to


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/169

 have, and the other side is first given when the living things exist as power exercised over the material. It is by regarding the matter from this point of view that Understanding has constructed that Proof which is called the Physico-Theological.

In definite existence there are, in short, elements of two kinds which are indifferent to each other, and a third element is required through which the end can realise itself. Immediate existence is composed of elements which are indifferent to each other. Here it is the Good which is the ruling principle, and this means that each determination is so related to itself as to be indifferent towards what is other than it—that they are, in fact, different, though this does not mean that they are opposed to each other, for such opposition is not present in immediate existence. It is this inwardness, this potentiality, which forms the notion or conception of wise Power, and it is thus to this quality that the Proof after its fashion attaches itself. The Teleological Proof consists of the following moments as set forth by Kant, moments which he has specially taken up and criticised, and which he regarded as discredited. In the world are to be found clear traces or indications of a wise arrangement in accordance with ends. The world is full of life, spiritual life and natural life. These living things are implicitly organised, and so far as these organs are concerned it is possible to regard the parts as unrelated. It is true that the life in them is their harmony, but the fact of their existing in harmony does not seem to be based on their actual existence. Then, again, living things are related to what is external to them, and each form of life is related to its own part of inorganic nature. Plants require a particular climate or a particular soil, animals are of particular species—things, in fact, have their particular natures. Life is merely productive, and does not pass over into the Other along with which it forms part of a process. On the contrary, it continues to be


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/170

 itself while constantly altering and reconstructing the process. Thus what strikes any one who begins to reflect, is the element of harmonious relation in the world existing between the organic and the inorganic, and how existing things seem to be arranged with special reference to Man. For, at first, Man has before him things which have an independent existence, things which exist solely for themselves, but which, all the same, are in harmonious relation with his existence. What is really wonderful is that those very things which at first seem totally unrelated are just the things which really exist for one another, and therefore what produces wonder is the opposite of that indifference or absence of relation, namely, conformity to an end. We are thus in presence of a principle which is entirely different from that involved in unrelated existence.

This first principle is, so far as existing things are concerned, merely accidental. Nature, things, could not of themselves work harmoniously through so many forms of existence towards a contemplated end, and for this reason a rational arranging principle has to be forthcoming, and this the things themselves are not.

That things exist in conformity to an end is not a truth which is involved in or posited by the things themselves. Life certainly is so active that it makes use of inorganic nature, maintains itself by means of its act of assimilation, negates it, identifies itself with the inorganic and yet preserves itself in it. Its activity is certainly that particular activity of the subject which constitutes itself the centre point and uses the Other as a means, but the second characteristic is external to the things. Men, it is true, make use of things, they assimilate them, but the fact that there are such things which they can use is not involved in man’s existence, is not posited by men. The fact of their being externally unrelated or indifferent to each other so far as their existence is concerned, as well as the fact of their existence, are not involved in or


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/171

 posited by the end. This indifference of things to each other does not express their true relation, but is merely an illusion. The true character of the relation is the teleological characterisation of conformity to an end, and it is in this, accordingly, that we have the absence of indifference in the relation between existing things. This expresses the essential relation, the relation which is valid and true. The Proof points to the necessity of having one supreme principle of order or regulating essence, for we infer from the unity of the world that the cause is one.

Kant, in opposition to this, says that this argument shows us God merely as an architect and not as a creator, and that it is concerned merely with the contingent elements of forms and not with the substance. It is, in fact, only the suitability of means to end which is demanded, the quality of objects in relation to each other in so far as it is posited by or depends for its existence on some Power. This quality, says Kant, is merely form, and the Power which posits would be a Cause producing forms merely, and not a Power creating matter. The distinction upon which this criticism rests has no meaning. There can be no positing of the form by the Power without the positing of the matter. If we have once got into the region of the Notion, we have got far past the distinction of form and matter, and must know that absolute form is something real, that therefore form is something, and that apart from matter it is nothing. When the word form is used in this connection it expresses a particular quality. The essential form, however, is the end, the Notion itself which realises itself; the form in the sense in which it is the Notion is the substantial element itself, the Soul; what can be distinguished from it as matter is something which is formal and entirely secondary, or it is merely a formal characterisation in the Notion.

Kant says further that the syllogism starts from the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/172

 world and from an arrangement and conformity to an end which have been reached merely by observation, and which express a merely contingent existence—what is said about existence is undoubtedly correct, the contingent is reached by observation—and goes on to infer the existence of a Cause proportionate to these, which works in accordance with an end. This remark is quite correct. We say that the arrangement in accordance with an end which we observe cannot have sprung up of itself; it demands the existence of a Power acting in accordance with ends; it is the content of this Cause, though we cannot know anything more of this wisdom than what we learn of it from observation. All observation gives nothing more than a relation; but no one can reason from Power to Almighty Power, from wisdom and unity, to an all-wise and absolute Unity, and so the physicotheological Proof gives us only a great Power, a great Unity. The content desired, however, is God, absolute Power, Wisdom; but this is not involved in what is contained in observation, a leap is made from what is great to what is absolute. This is a point thoroughly well established; the content from which the start is made is not that of God.

It is from conformity to an end that we start, and this category is got at empirically; these are finite contingent things, and they are also ordered in conformity to an end. What, then, is the character of this conformity? It is, of course, finite. The ends are finite, particular, and are accordingly contingent also; and it is here that the element of inadequacy which attaches to this physicotheological Proof comes in, a defect which is felt at once, and which raises a suspicion against this style of argument. Man uses plants, animals, light, air, water; and so too do animals and plants. The end is thus an entirely limited one; animals and plants are at one time ends and at another means—they eat and are eaten. This physico-theological way of looking at things is apt


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/173

 to lead to trivialities and to direct attention to small details. It may satisfy those who wish for edification, and the heart may be impressed by looking at things in this fashion. It is another thing, however, if we have to get to know God by this means, and if we mean to speak of absolute wisdom. A bronto-theology, a testacean-theology, &c., have been discovered in this way. The content, the active working of God, are here simply such finite ends as may be shown to be present in existence generally. Absolutely higher ends would be found in morality, in freedom; moral good would have to be an end for itself in order that an absolute end of such a nature might also be attained in the world. But here we are in the region of actions in accordance with ends in general, while it is finite, limited ends which present themselves in observation. The Power which works in accordance with ends is merely the life-force, and is not yet Spirit, the personality of God. When it is said that the Good is the end, then it may be asked, What is good? If it is further said that happiness comes to men in proportion to their moral worth, that the end is that the good man should be happy and the bad man unhappy, then, as a matter of fact, we see in the world what forms a most cruel contrast to this, and we find just as many incitements to morality as there are sources of temptation. In short, perception and observation, considered in this aspect, do indeed give us conformity to an end, but in an equal degree do they give what is not in conformity to an end, and in the long-run it comes to be a matter of calculating which of the two elements predominates. It is, accordingly, some such finite end, speaking generally, which constitutes the content of the idea of the wisdom of God.

The defect of the proof consists in this, that the idea of conformity to an end or of wisdom is defined in a general way merely, and for this reason attention is directed to those observations and to the knowledge


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/174

 gained by sense-perception, in connection with which accordingly relative ends of this sort present themselves.

Even if God is conceived of as a Power working actively in accordance with ends, still this does not give what is sought after when we speak of God. A Power which works in accordance with ends is, in fact, the lifeforce of Nature, and not yet Spirit. The conception of the life-force expresses something which is an end for itself, an actually existing end and activity in accordance therewith. In its content, accordingly, as thus expressed, we have nothing beyond what is involved in the conception of living Nature.

So far as the form of this Proof is concerned, we have in it, speaking generally, that of the syllogism of the Understanding. There are existing things characterised by a teleological arrangement, i.e., there are in a general way relations between things in conformity with ends, and in addition to this there is the definite existence of these objects which have the character of means, of something accidental so far as the ends are concerned. These objects, however, are at the same time not contingent when standing in this relation to one another, but rather it is implied in the notion or conception of the end, in the conception of the life-force, that not only have the ends been posited, but the objects too, which are means. This is quite correct, but the argument is further developed as follows. The arrangement of things in accordance with an end is composed, so far as its inner, its essential nature is concerned, of a Power which constitutes the connection or positing of the two, and by means of which they come to suit each other. Now, it is argued, if there are such things, here again it is the Being of these things which constitutes the starting-point. The transition, however, on the other hand, contains the moment of Not-Being. The means do not exist; they exist only in so far as they have been negatively posited, and so far as they exist they


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/175

 have merely a contingent existence in connection with the end. What, however, is demanded by the argument is, that they should not be forms of existence standing in a relation of indifference to the end. When, therefore, it is said that such things do actually exist, it is necessary to add to this the moment that their Being is not their own Being, but Being which has been degraded to a means. On the other hand, when it is said ends do actually exist, they certainly do; but since there is a Power which arranges them in a certain way, the existence of the ends in common with that of the means is posited as well. It is not the Being of the ends which, as positive Being, has the power of making the mediation the transition, but rather it is just in this transition that their Being is changed into a Being which has been posited or made dependent on something else.

The minor proposition here, however, does not get farther than the Being of things, instead of taking their Not-Being also into consideration. The general content of this form of proof is this: The world is arranged in accordance with an end, leaving out of consideration more definite ends. Conformity to an end is the notion not only in finite things, but expresses also the absolute essential character of the Notion, i.e., the divine Notion, the essential characterisation or determination of God. God is Power, self-determination, and this means that He determines Himself in accordance with ends. The main defect in the argument is that it starts from perception, from phenomena. These supply a conformity to ends which is finite merely, while the pure end is the universal and absolute end.

We shall now pass on to the concrete or more definite form of religion, to the concrete determination of God. The notion or general conception is that of Power which works actively in accordance with ends. In the region of religion we occupy a different standpoint, that of consciousness or the self-consciousness of Spirit. Here we


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/176

 have the Notion no longer in the form merely of lifeforce, but as it determines itself in consciousness. We now have religion as consciousness of Spirit, which is a universal Power working in accordance with ends. In the object of religion it is the idea of Spirit in general which is present, but the point to determine is, which moment of Thought or Spirit is actively present. The content is not yet Spirit in and for itself; the object of the idea does not yet express the content of Spirit, this content being here a Power which works in accordance with ends. Since religion is defined as consciousness, here it is to be defined as self-consciousness. Here we have divine self-consciousness in general, both in its objective form as determination of the object, and also in its subjective form as determination of the finite spirit. Consciousness, Spirit, determines itself here as self-consciousness. That is implied in what has gone before; how it is so implied has now to be briefly indicated. In power, which is wisdom, the determinateness is posited as ideal in such a way that it pertains to the notion. The determinateness appears as determinate Being, Being for an Other. Along with consciousness difference is posited first as difference in reference to the self. Here it is posited as the individual difference of the self; it is relation to self, and consciousness is thus self-consciousness. God is posited as self-consciousness in so far as consciousness and its connection with the object are thought of essentially as self-consciousness. Definite existence, the objectivity of God, the Other, is something ideal or spiritual. God is thus essentially for Spirit, for Thought in general, and this fact that He as Spirit is for Spirit is at all events one aspect of the relation. It may constitute the Totality of the relation when it means that God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, but it is essentially, at all events, one characteristic. We have further seen that the Notion must be characterised as end. The end must not, however, merely preserve this


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/177

 form, remain shut up within itself and belong to itself; on the contrary, it has to be realised. The question now comes to be, supposing that wisdom has to act, that the end has to be realised, what is to serve as the material or sphere for this? This can be nothing else than Spirit in general, or, to put it more definitely, Man. He is the object of the Power which determines itself, which acts in accordance with this determination, namely, wisdom. Man, or finite consciousness, is Spirit in the character of finitude. The act of realisation is a positing of the Notion of a kind which is different from the mode in which the absolute Notion realises itself, and consequently it assumes the mode of finitude, which, however, is at the same time spiritual. Spirit is only for Spirit; it is here characterised as self-consciousness, and the Other, in which it realises itself, is the finite spirit, and there too it is equally self-consciousness. This sphere or universal reality is itself something spiritual. It must be a sphere in which Spirit at the same time actually exists or is for itself. Man is thus conceived of as an essential end, as the sphere of divine power or wisdom.

Finally, Man thus stands to God in an affirmative relation, for the fundamental determination is that he is self-consciousness. Man, who constitutes this aspect of reality, is accordingly self-consciousness; he is consciousness of the absolute Essence as being his own, consequently the freedom of consciousness is posited in God, and thus Man is here at home with himself. This moment of consciousness is an essential one, it is a fundamental determination, though not as yet the complete expression of the relation. Man exists for himself as a self-constituted end, his consciousness is free in God, it is justified in God, exists essentially for self, and is directed towards God. This is the principle in a general form, while the definite forms are the particular religions, those of Sublimity, of Beauty, and of Utility or Conformity to an End.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/178

 C.

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT.

We have on the one side power pure and simple and abstract wisdom, and on the other a contingent end to be carried out. Both are united, and wisdom is unlimited; but for this reason it is indeterminate, and because of this the end as real is contingent or finite. The mediation of the two sides to concrete unity, which is of such a kind that the notion of wisdom is itself the content of its end, already constitutes the transition to a higher stage. The main determination here is expressed by the question, What is wisdom? what is the end? It is an end which is inadequate to the power.

(a.) The subjectivity which is inherently power has no connection with sense; the natural or immediate element is in it negated; it is only for Spirit, for Thought. This Power, which exists for itself, is essentially One. That which we have called reality, Nature, is only something posited, negated, and passes away into independent self-existent Being, where there is no Many, no One and the Other. Thus the One is purely exclusive, having no Other beside it, and not suffering anything alongside of it which might have independence. This One is the wisdom of The All; everything is posited by means of it, but is for it merely something external and accidental. This is the sublimity of the One, of this Power, and of Power which is wise. Since, on the other hand, it takes on the form of definite existence, namely, self-consciousness, and as Being exists for an Other, the end also is only one, though it is none the less sublime, and still it is a limited end which is not yet determined by means of multiplicity, and is thus an infinitely limited end. Both of these aspects correspond with one another, the infinitude of the Power and the limited character of its actual end. On the one hand there is sublimity, and on


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/179

 the other the opposite, an infinite limitedness or restrictedness. This is the first form in reference to the end. The One has what is infinite alongside of it, while, however, setting up for being the One.

So far as the relation between Nature and Spirit is concerned, the Religion of Sublimity means that the sensuous, the finite, the natural, what is spiritually and physically natural, has not yet been taken up into free subjectivity or transfigured within it. The characteristic of this stage is that free subjectivity is elevated to the condition of pure Thought, a form which is more adequate to express the content than the sensuous is. Here the natural element is dominated by this free subjectivity, in which the Other is merely ideal, and has no true lasting existence as against free subjectivity. Spirit is what raises itself, what is raised above the natural, above finitude. This is the Religion of Sublimity.

The Sublime is not, however, the Measureless, which, in order to determine itself and to take on a definite form, can make use only of what is immediately present and of silly distortions of it, and has to do this in order to produce a conformity with its inner nature. Sublimity, on the other hand, can do without immediate existence and its modes, and does not, like the other, get into a condition of poverty which forces it to lay hold of these modes in order to represent itself, but pronounces these to be a mere show or illusion.

(6.) The other characteristic or determination is that the natural or finite is transfigured in Spirit, in the freedom of Spirit. Its transfiguration consists in this, that it is a symbol of the spiritual in such a way that in this transfiguration of the physical-natural or spiritual-natural, the natural itself stands over against the spiritual as finite, as the other side of that essentiality, of that substantiality which we call God. This last is free subjectivity, in connection with which the finite is posited merely as a symbol, in which God, Spirit, appears. This is the mode


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/180

 of present individuality, of Beauty. In respect of the determination of the end, this mode means that the end is not one only, but that there are many ends, and that the infinitely limited end is elevated to the condition of a real end. Here the real end is no longer exclusive, but allows much—all, in fact, the right of existence alongside of it, and a genial tolerance is here the fundamental characteristic. There are subjects of various sorts which have a valid existence alongside of each other, many unities from which definite existence gets the means it employs, and thus existence gets a certain friendly character attached to it. Just because there are many particular ends, multiplicity does not disdain to exhibit itself in immediate determinate existence. The multiplicity, the kind or variety, possesses universality in itself. The end permits the different kinds of things to have a valid existence alongside of itself; it is on terms of friendship with particularity and shows itself in it, and in its character, as particular end, it permits the means to have a valid existence alongside of itself, and manifests itself in it. It is at this point that the determination or category of Beauty comes in. Beauty is end existing potentially, which allies itself with immediate existence, and in this way establishes its own validity. Above the Beautiful and the particular end there floats the Universal in the form of a Power devoid of anything subjective, devoid of wisdom, indeterminate in itself, and this accordingly is Fate—cold necessity. Necessity is, indeed, that particular development of the Essence which allows its phenomenal manifestation or appearance to unfold itself in the form of independent realities, while the moments of this outward manifestation show themselves in the shape of distinct or differentiated forms. Implicitly, however, these moments are identical, and their existence is accordingly not to be taken seriously. It is only Destiny, the inner identity of the differences, which is to be taken seriously.

(c.) The third form of religion is equally represented


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/181

 by a finite particular end, which in its particularity represents itself as universality, and expands itself so as to reach universality, but which is all the same still empirical and external. It is not the true universality of the Notion, but one which, comprising the world and the peoples of the world within itself, extends them so as to reach universality, while it at the same time loses its determinate character, and has for its end the cold abstract Power, and is in itself devoid of an end.

In external existence these three moments are represented by the Jewish, the Greek, and the Roman religions. Power, as subjectivity, determines itself as wisdom acting in accordance with an end; this end is, to begin with, still undetermined; particular ends come into existence, and finally an empirical universal end appears.

These religions correspond in reverse order to those preceding them. The Jewish religion corresponds to the Persian, the element of difference common to the two being that, regarded from this standpoint, the determinateness represents the inner nature of the Essence which is the end of self-determination. At an earlier stage, however, in the religions which precede, the determinateness had a natural character. In the Persian religion this was represented by light, this element being in its nature universal, simple, and physical. This was accordingly the final stage reached, taking the natural as a starting-point, Nature being thus comprehended in a unity which was similar to that of Thought. Here, in the Jewish religion, particularity is represented by a simple abstract end, namely, power, which is really only wisdom. Regarding the question from the second standpoint, we have in the Greek religion many particular ends and one Power above them; in the Hindu religion there are in the same way the many natural realities, and above them Brahma, the self-thinking One. Considering the matter from the third standpoint, we have an empirical universal end which is itself the selfless, all-destroying Destiny, not


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/182

 true subjectivity, and corresponding to this we have power as individual empirical self-consciousness. Thus, too, in the Chinese religion there appears an individual existence which represents itself as the Universal pure and simple, as determining everything as God. The first mode of natural existence is self-consciousness, individual, natural. The natural, in its character as something single or individual, is what actually exists as, and is determined as, self-consciousness. Here, accordingly, the arrangement is the reverse of what we have in the Religion of Nature. In the present instance, what is primary is Thought, which is concrete in itself, simple subjectivity, which then advances so as to get determination within itself. In the other case, in the Religion of Nature, it was the natural immediate self-consciousness which was the primary element, and which finally embodied itself in the pictorial conception of light.

I.

THE RELIGION OF SUBLIMITY.

What this religion has in common with that of Beauty is the ideality it ascribes to the natural, which it brings into subjection to the spiritual, and further that in it God is consciously known as conscious Spirit, as Spirit whose determinations are rational and moral. God, however, in the Religion of Beauty has still a particular nature or content, or, to put it otherwise, He is merely moral Power in the manifested form of Beauty, and therefore in a manifestation which still takes place in a sensuous material, in the region of sensuous matter, the matter of the idea or ordinary conception: the region in which the manifestation takes places is not yet that of Thought. The necessity for rising higher to the Religion of Sublimity is to be found in the fact that the particular spiritual and moral forces are taken out of their state of


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/183

 particularity and included within a spiritual unity. The truth of the Particular is the universal unity, which is concrete in itself in so far as it has the Particular within itself, and yet has this in itself in such a way that in its essence it is subjectivity.

The region for the play of this manifestation of reason, which, as subjectivity, is, so far as its content is concerned, universal, and is, so far as its form is concerned, free—the region in which pure subjectivity shows itself, is that of pure Thought. This pure subjectivity has been freed from the natural, and consequently from what is sensuous, whether this is found in the external world of sense or is a sensuous idea. It is the spiritual subjective unity, and it is this which first rightly gets from us the name God.

This subjective unity is not substance, but subjective unity; it is absolute Power, while the natural is merely something posited, ideal, and not independent. It does not manifest itself in any natural material, but in Thought. Thought is the mode of its definite existence or manifestation.

There is absolute power in the Hindu religion also, but the main point is that it be concretely determined within itself, and thus be the absolute wisdom. The rational characteristics of freedom, the moral characteristics, are united so as to form one characteristic, one End, and thus the characteristic of this subjectivity is holiness. Morality thus characterises itself as holiness.

The higher truth of the subjectivity of God is not the determination or characteristic of the Beautiful, in which the constituent element, the absolute content, is separated into particulars, but the characteristic of holiness; and the relation between these two determinations is similar to that between the animals and man: the animals have a particular character, but it is the character of universality which is the human moral rationality of freedom, and the unity of this, rationality, a unity which has an


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/184

 essential independent existence, is the true subjectivity, the subjectivity which determines itself within itself. This is wisdom and holiness. The content of the Greek gods, the moral Powers, are not holy, because they are particular and limited.

A.

THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE CONCEPTION.

The Absolute, God, is defined as the one subjectivity, pure subjectivity, and, as a consequence, as subjectivity which is universal in itself, or the reverse. This subjectivity, which is universal in itself, is clearly One only. The unity of God consists in this, that the consciousness of God is the consciousness of Him as One. The point here is not to show that the unity exists implicitly, that the unity lies at the basis of things, as is the case in the Indo-Chinese religion; for God is not posited as infinite subjectivity when His unity is merely implicit, and He is not known and does not exist for consciousness as subjectivity. God in the present case is, on the contrary, consciously known as a personal One, not as One, as in Pantheism. Thus the immediate natural mode of conceiving of God disappears, the mode, for instance, which appears in the Persian religion, in which He is thought of as light. Religion is conceived of as the religion of Spirit, but only so far as its basis is concerned, only as it exists in the region that specially belongs to it, that of Thought. This unity of God contains itself One Power, a Power which consequently is absolute, and within this all externality, and consequently all that belongs to the world of sense, that takes on the form of sense, or is a picture, disappears.

God is here without form. He does not exist in any external sensuous form. There is no image of Him. He does not exist for the sensuous idea, but, on the contrary, He exists only for thought. The infinite


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/185

 is the subjectivity which thinks, and, being thinking subjectivity, it exists only for thought.

(a.) God is defined as absolute power, which is wisdom. Power in its form as wisdom is, to begin with, reflected into itself as subject. This reflection into self, this self-determination of power, is the self-determination which is entirely abstract and universal, which does not yet particularise itself within itself, the determinate character being only determinateness in general. It is owing to this subjectivity which makes no distinction within itself that God is defined as One. Within this One all particularity has vanished. It is implied in this that natural things, the things which have a determinate particular character and constitute the world, have no longer any valid independent existence in their condition of immediacy. Independence is represented by One only. All else is merely something posited, dependent for its being on something else, something which is kept from existing by the One, for the One is abstract subjectivity, and all else is unsubstantial as compared with it.

(b.) The next point is the determination of the end followed out by the absolute Power. From one point of view, God is Himself His end. He is wisdom. And it is, to begin with, required of this determination that it be equal to the power. It is itself, however, merely a general end, or, to put it otherwise, wisdom is merely abstract, is merely called wisdom.

(c.) The determinateness, however, must not remain merely a determination within the Notion, but receive the form of reality also. This form is, to begin with, an immediate one. The end of God is, in fact, merely the first reality, and accordingly is a wholly single or individual end. The next step is that the end, the determinateness, should on its part be raised to the condition of concrete universality. We certainly have here pure subjectivity on the one side, but the determinateness is not yet equalised with it. This first end is thus limited,