text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/89

 (goodness) and the absoluteness, the infinitude of consciousness of self. It is this ability to abstract from all that is immediate, from all that is external, which constitutes the essential moment of the isolation or seclusion of Spirit. This isolation is exempted from the temporariness, change and vicissitude of this world, from evil and from disunion, and is represented as the absoluteness of consciousness of self in the thought of the immortality of the soul. At first the prominent element in this thought is continued existence in time; this exemption from the dominion and from the vicissitudes of change is represented, however, as essentially and originally belonging to Spirit, and not as being brought about secondarily by means of reconciliation. And thus advance is made to the further determination that the Spirit’s consciousness of self is an eternal, absolute moment in that eternal life in which it is lifted up far above time, above this abstraction of change, and above the reality of change, above dualism, when it is taken up into the unity and reconciliation which is presupposed as originally present in the object of consciousness.

II.—Of Judgment, or Definite Religion.

If in the first part we have considered religion in its notion or conception, the simple conception of religion, the character of the content, the Universal, it is now necessary to leave this sphere of Universality and go on to treat of determinateness in religion.

The notion as such is not as yet unfolded; the determinate qualities, the moments are contained in it, but are not as yet openly displayed, and have not received the right distinction or difference which belongs to them. It is only by means of the judgment (i.e., the act of differentiation) that they receive this. It is when God, the Notion, performs the act of judgment, and the category of determinateness enters, that we first come to have


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/90

 existing religion, which is at the same time definitely existing religion.

The course followed in passing from the abstract to the concrete is based upon our method, upon the notion, and not on the fact that much special content is present. There is a complete distinction between this and our point of view. Spirit, to which belongs Being which is absolute and supreme, is, exists only as activity; that is to say, in so far as it posits itself, is actual or for itself, and produces itself. But in this its activity it has the power of knowing, and only as it thus knows is it that which it is. It is thus essential to religion not only to exist in its notion, but also to be the consciousness of that which the notion is, and the material in which the notion as the plan, so to speak, realises itself, which it makes its own, which it moulds in accordance with itself, is human consciousness. So too, Right, for example, only is when it exists in the spirit, when it takes possession of the wills of men, and they know of it as the determination of their wills. And it is in this way that the Idea first realises itself, having before only been posited as the form of the notion.

Spirit, in short, is not immediate; natural things are immediate, and remain in this condition of immediate Being. The Being of Spirit is not thus immediate, but is, exists only as producing itself, as making itself for itself by means of negation as Subject; otherwise it would be substance only. And this coming to itself on the part of Spirit is movement, activity, and mediation of itself with itself.

A stone is immediate, it is complete. Wherever there is life, however, this activity is already to be found. Thus the first form of the existence of plants is the feeble existence of the germ, and out of this it has to develop itself and to produce itself. Finally the plant epitomises itself when it has unfolded itself in the seed; this beginning of the plant is also its ultimate product.

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


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/91

 In like manner man is at first a child, and as belonging to Nature he describes this round in order to beget another.

In plants there are two kinds of individual forms: this germ which begins, is different from the one which is the completion of its life, and in which this evolution reaches maturity. But it is the very nature of Spirit, just because it is living, to be at first only potential, to be in its notion or conception, then to come forward into existence, to unfold, produce itself, become mature, bringing forth the notion of itself, that which it implicitly is, so that what it is in itself or implicitly may be its notion actually or for itself. The child is not as yet a reasonable person; it has capacities only, it is at first reason, Spirit, potentially only. It is by means of education and development that it becomes Spirit.

This, then, is what is called self-determination entering into existence, being “for other,” bringing one’s moments into distinction, and unfolding one’s self. These distinctions are no other than the characteristics which the notion itself implicitly contains.

The development of these distinctions, and the course of the tendencies which result from them, are the way by which Spirit comes to itself; it is itself, however, the goal. The absolute end, which is that Spirit should know itself, comprehend itself, should become object to itself as it is in itself, arrive at perfect knowledge of itself, first appears as its true Being. Now this process, followed by self-producing Spirit, this path taken by it, includes distinct moments; but the path is not as yet the goal, and Spirit does not reach the goal without having traversed the path; it is not originally at the goal; even what is most perfect must traverse the path to the goal in order to attain it. Spirit, in these halting-places of its progress, is not as yet perfect; its knowledge, its consciousness regarding itself, is not what is true, and it is not as yet revealed to itself. Spirit being


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/92

 essentially this activity of self-production, it follows that there are stages of its consciousness, but its consciousness of itself is always in proportion only to the stage which has been reached. Now these stages supply us with definite religion; here religion is consciousness of the universal Spirit, which is not as yet fully developed as absolute; this consciousness of Spirit at each stage is definite consciousness of itself, it is the path of the education of Spirit. We have therefore to consider the definite forms of religion. These, as being stages on the road followed by Spirit, are imperfect.

The different forms or specific kinds of religion are, in one aspect, moments of religion in general, or of perfected religion. They have, however, an independent aspect too, for in them religion has developed itself in time, and historically.

Religion, in so far as it is definite, and has not as yet completed the circle of its determinateness—so far that is as it is finite religion, and exists as finite—is historical religion, or a particular form of religion. Its principal moments, and also the manner in which they exist historically, being exhibited in the progress of religion from stage to stage, and in its development, there thus arises a series of forms of religion, or a history of religion.

That which is determined by means of the Notion must of necessity have existed, and the religions, as they have followed upon one another, have not arisen accidentally. It is Spirit which rules inner life, and to see only chance here, after the fashion of the historical school, is absurd.

The essential moments of the notion or conception of religion show themselves and make their appearance at every stage in which religion exists at all. It is only because the moments are not as yet posited in the totality of the notion, that any difference between it and its true form arises. These definite religions are not indeed our religion, yet they are included in ours as essential,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/93

 although as subordinate moments, which cannot miss having in them absolute truth. Therefore in them we have not to do with what is foreign to us, but with what is our own, and the knowledge that such is the case is the reconciliation of the true religion with the false. Thus the moments of the notion or conception of religion appear on lower stages of development, though as yet in the shape of anticipations or presentiments, as natural flowers and creations of fancy which have, so to speak, blossomed forth by chance. What determines the characteristics of these stages, however, through their entire history, is the determinateness of the notion itself, which can at no stage be absent. The thought of the Incarnation, for example, pervades every religion. Such general conceptions make their presence felt too in other spheres of Spirit. What is substantial in moral relations, as, for example, property, marriage, protection of the sovereign and of the State, and the ultimate decision which rests with subjectivity regarding that which is to be done for the whole, all this is to be found in an uneducated society as well as in the perfect state; only the definite form of this substantial element differs according to the degree of culture which such a society has reached. What is here of special importance, however, is that the notion should also become actually known in its totality, and in exact accordance with the degree in which this knowledge is present, is the stage at which the religious spirit is, higher or lower, richer or poorer. Spirit may have something in its possession without having a developed consciousness of it. It actually has the immediate, proper nature of Spirit, has a physical, organic nature, but it does not know that nature in its essential character and truth, and has only an approximate, general idea of it. Men live in the State, they are themselves the life, activity, actuality of the State, but the positing, the becoming conscious of what the State is, does not on that account take place, and yet


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/94

 the perfected State just means that everything which is potentially in it, that is to say, in its notion or conception, should be developed, posited, and made into rights and duties, into law. In like manner the moments of the notion or conception are actually present in the definite religions, in mental pictures, feelings, or immediate imagery; but the consciousness of these moments is not as yet evolved, or, in other words, they have not as yet been elevated to the point at which they are the determination of the absolute object, and God is not as yet actually represented under these determinations of the totality of the conception of religion. It is undoubtedly true that the definite religions of the various peoples often enough exhibit the most distorted, confused, and abortive ideas of the divine Being, and likewise of duties and relations as expressed in worship. But we must not treat the matter so lightly, and conceive of it in so superficial a manner, as to reject these ideas and these rites as superstition, error, and deceit, or only trace back their origin to pious feeling, and thus value them as merely representing some sort of religious feeling, without caring how they may chance to be constituted. The mere collection and elaboration of the external and visible elements cannot satisfy us either. On the contrary, something higher is necessary, namely, to recognise the meaning, the truth, and the connection with truth; in short, to get to know what is rational in them. They are human beings who have hit upon such religions, therefore there must be reason in them, and amidst all that is accidental in them a higher necessity. We must do them this justice, for what is human, rational in them, is our own too, although it exists in our higher consciousness as a moment only. To get a grasp of the history of religions in this sense, means to reconcile ourselves even with what is horrible, dreadful, or absurd in them, and to justify it. We are on no account to regard it as right or true, as it presents itself in its purely immediate


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/95

 form—there is no question of doing this—but we are at least to recognise its beginning, the source from which it has originated as being in human nature. Such is the reconciliation with this entire sphere, the reconciliation which completes itself in the notion. Religions, as they follow upon one another, are determined by means of the notion. Their nature and succession are not determined from without; on the contrary, they are determined by the nature of Spirit which has entered into the world to bring itself to consciousness of itself. Since we look at these definite religions in accordance with the notion, this is a purely philosophical study of what actually is or exists. Philosophy indeed treats of nothing which is not and does not concern itself with what is so powerless as not even to have the energy to force itself into existence.

Now in development as such, in so far as it has not as yet reached its goal, the moments of the notion are still in a state of separation or mutual exclusion, so that the reality has not as yet come to be equal to the notion or conception. The finite religions are the appearance in history of these moments. In order to grasp these in their truth, it is necessary to consider them under two aspects; on the one hand, we have to consider how God is known, how He is characterised; and on the other, how the subject at the same time knows itself. For the two aspects the objective and subjective have but one foundation for their further determination, and but one specific character pervades them both. The idea which a man has of God corresponds with that which he has of himself, of his freedom. Knowing himself in God, he at the same time knows his imperishable life in God; he knows of the truth of his Being, and therefore the idea of the immortality of the soul here enters as an essential moment into the history of religion. The ideas of God and of immortality have a necessary relation to each other; when a man knows truly about God, he knows


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/96

 truly about himself too: the two sides correspond with each other. At first God is something quite undetermined; but in the course of the development of the human mind, the consciousness of that which God is gradually forms and matures itself, losing more and more of its initial indefiniteness, and with this the development of true self-consciousness advances also. The Proofs of the Existence of God fall to be included also within the sphere of this progressive development, it being their aim to set forth the necessary elevation of the spirit to God. For the diversity of the characteristics which in this process of elevation are attributed to God, is fixed by the diversity of the points of departure, and this diversity again has its foundation in the nature of the historical stage of actual self-consciousness which has been reached. The different forms which this elevation of the spirit takes will always indicate the metaphysical spirit of the period in question, for this corresponds with the prevalent idea of God and the sphere of worship. If we now attempt to indicate in a more precise way the divisions of this stage of definite religion, we find that what is of primary importance here is the manner of the divine manifestation. God is manifestation, not in a general sense merely, but as being Spirit He determines Himself as appearing to Himself; that is to say, He is not Object in the general sense, but is Object to Himself.

1. As for manifestation generally, or abstract manifestation, it is Nature in general. Manifestation is Being for Other, an externalisation of things mutually distinct, and one, in fact, which is immediate and not yet reflected into itself. This logical determination is taken here in its concrete sense as the natural world. What is for an “Other,” exists for this very reason in a sensuous form. The thought, which is for another thought, which, as having Being, is to be posited as distinct, that is to say, as something which exists as an independent subject in reference to the other, is only capable of being


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/97

 by the one to the other through the sensuous medium of sign or speech, in fact, by bodily means.

But since God exists essentially only as appearing to Himself, that abstract attitude of man to nature does not belong to religion; on the contrary, in religion nature is only a moment of the Divine, and therefore must, as it exists for the religious consciousness, have also the characteristic note of the spiritual mode of existence in it. It thus does not remain in its pure, natural element, but receives the characteristic quality of the Divine which dwells in it. It cannot be said of any religion that in it men have worshipped the sun, the sea, or nature; when they worship these objects, the latter no longer have for the worshippers the prosaic character which they have for ourselves. Even while these objects are for them divine, they still, it is true, remain natural; but when they become objects of religion, they at once assume a spiritual aspect. The contemplation of the sun, the stars, &c., as individual natural phenomena, is outside the sphere of religion. The so-called prosaic manner of looking at nature, as the latter exists for consciousness when regarding it through the understanding, betokens a separation which comes later; its presence is consequent on much deeper and more thorough-going reflection. Not till the spirit or mind has posited itself independently for itself, and as free from nature, does the latter appear to it as an Other, as something external.

The first mode of manifestation then, in the form of Nature namely, has the subjectivity, the spiritual nature of God as its centre in a general sense only, and consequently these two determinations have not as yet come into relation through reflection. When this takes place, it constitutes the second mode of manifestation.

2. In Himself or potentially God is Spirit; this is our notion or conception of Him. But for this very reason He must be posited too as Spirit, and this means that the manner of His manifestation must be itself a spiritual


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/98

 one, and consequently the negation of the natural. And for this it is necessary that His determinateness, the Idea on the side of reality, be equal to the conception; and the relation of reality to the divine conception is complete when Spirit exists as Spirit; that is to say, when both the conception and reality exist as this Spirit. To begin with, however, we see that the form of nature constitutes that determinateness of the conception of God, or the aspect of reality belonging to the Idea. The emergence of the spiritual element of subjectivity out of nature, accordingly appears at first merely as a conflict between the two sides, which are still entangled with one another in that conflict. Therefore this stage of definite religion too remains in the sphere of what is natural, and in fact constitutes, in common with the preceding one, the stage of the Religion of Nature.

3. It is actually within the definite religions as they succeed each other that Spirit in its movement attempts to make the determinateness correspond with the notion or conception, but this determinateness appears here as still abstract, or, to put it otherwise, the notion appears as still the finite notion. These attempts, in which the principle of the preceding stages, namely, Essence, or essential Being, strives to grasp itself together into infinite inwardness are: 1. the Jewish religion; 2. the Greek; 3. the Roman. The God of the Jews is Oneness or soleness, which as such continues to be abstract unity, and is not as yet concrete in itself. This God is indeed God in the Spirit, but does not exist as yet as Spirit. He is something not presented to sense, an abstraction of Thought, which has not as yet that fulness in itself which constitutes it Spirit. The freedom which the notion seeks to reach through self-development in the Greek religion, still lives under the sway of the sceptre of necessity of Essence; and the notion as it appears in and seeks to win its independence in the Roman religion is still limited, since it is related to an external world


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/99

 which stands opposite to it, in which it is only to be objective, and is, therefore, external adaptation to an end, or external utility.

These are the principal specific forms which here present themselves as the modes of the Reality of Spirit. As determinate they are inadequate to the notion or conception of Spirit, and are finite in character, and this infinitude, namely, that there is one God, this abstract affirmation, is finite also. This determination of the manifestation of God in consciousness as pure ideality of the One, as abolition of the manifold character of external manifestation, might perhaps be contrasted, as being that which is true, with the religion of nature, but it is really only one form of determinateness as against the totality of the notion of Spirit. It corresponds with this totality just as little as its opposite does. These definite religions are not in fact as yet the true religion, and in them God is not as yet known in His true nature, since there is wanting to them the absolute content of Spirit.

III.—Revealed Religion.

Manifestation, development, and determination or specification do not go on ad infinitum, and do not cease accidentally. True progress consists rather in this, that this reflexion of the notion into itself stops short, inasmuch as it really returns into itself. Thus manifestation is itself infinite in nature; the content is in accordance with the conception of Spirit, and the manifestation is, like Spirit, in and for itself. The notion or conception of religion has in religion become objective to itself. Spirit, which is in and for itself, has now no longer individual forms, determinations of itself, before it, as it unfolds itself. It knows itself no longer as Spirit in any definite form or limitation, but has now overcome those limitations, this finiteness, and is actually, what it is potentially. This knowledge of Spirit for itself or


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/100

 actually, as it is in itself or potentially, is the being in-and-for-itself of Spirit as exercising knowledge, the perfect, absolute religion, in which it is revealed what Spirit, what God is; this is the Christian religion.

That Spirit, as it does in all else, must in religion also run through its natural course, is necessarily bound up with the conception of Spirit. Spirit is only Spirit when it exists for itself as the negation of all finite forms, as this absolute ideality.

I form ideas, I have perceptions, and here there is a certain definite content, as, for instance, this house, and so on. They are my perceptions, they present themselves to me; I could not, however, present them to myself if I did not grasp this particular content in myself, and if I had not posited it in a simple, ideal manner in myself. Ideality means that this definite external existence, these conditions of space, of time, and matter, this separateness of parts, is done away with in something higher; in that I know this external existence, these forms of it are not ideas which are mutually exclusive, but are comprehended, grasped together in me in a simple manner.

Spirit is knowledge; but in order that knowledge should exist, it is necessary that the content of that which it knows should have attained to this ideal form, and should in this way have been negated. What Spirit is must in that way have become its own, it must have described this circle; and these forms, differences, determinations, finite qualities, must have existed in order that it should make them its own.

This represents both the way and the goal—that Spirit should have attained to its own notion or conception, to that which it implicitly is, and in this way only, the way which has been indicated in its abstract moments, does it attain it. Revealed religion is manifested religion, because in it God has become wholly manifest. Here all is proportionate to the notion; there is no longer


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/101

 anything secret in God. Here, then, is the consciousness of the developed conception of Spirit, of reconciliation, not in beauty, in joyousness, but in the Spirit. Revealed religion, which was hitherto still veiled, and did not exist in its truth, came at its own time. This was not a chance time, dependent on some one’s liking or caprice, but determined on in the essential, eternal counsel of God; that is, in the eternal reason, wisdom of God; it is the notion of the reality or fact itself, the divine notion, the notion of God Himself, which determines itself to enter on this development, and has set its goal before it.

This course thus followed by religion is the true theodicy; it exhibits all products of Spirit, every form of its self-knowledge, as necessary, because Spirit is something living, working, and its impulse is to press on through the series of its manifestations towards the consciousness of itself as embracing all truth.


text: Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/102


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/103

 PART I

THE CONCEPTION OF RELIGION


text: Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/104


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/105

 THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

PART I

THE CONCEPTION OF RELIGION

we have to commence with is the question, How is a beginning to be made? It is at least a formal demand of all science, and of philosophy in particular, that nothing should find a place in it which has not been proved. To prove, in the superficial sense, means that a content, a proposition, or a conception is exhibited as resulting from something that has preceded it.

But when a beginning has to be made, nothing has as yet been proved; for we are not yet in the region of result, of what is mediated, or established by means of something else. In dealing with a beginning, we have to do with the immediate. Other sciences have an easy part in this respect, their object being something actually given for them. Thus in geometry, for example, a beginning has been made, for there is a space, or a point. Here there is no question of proving the object, for its existence is directly granted.

It is not allowable in philosophy to make a beginning with “There is, there are,” for in philosophy the object must not be presupposed. This may constitute a difficulty in regard to philosophy in general. But in the present case we do not begin at the point where philosophy has its fountainhead. The science of religion is a science within philosophy; it assumes, so far, the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/106

 of the other divisions of philosophical study, and it is thus a result. From the philosophical point of view we are here already in possession of a result flowing from premises previously established, which now lie behind us. We may, nevertheless, turn for aid to our ordinary consciousness, accept data assumed in a subjective way, and make a beginning from there.

The beginning of religion is, similarly with its general content, the as yet undeveloped conception of religion itself; namely, that God is the absolute Truth, the Truth of everything, and that religion alone is absolutely true knowledge. We have thus to begin by treating—

A.

GOD.

For us who are already in possession of religion, what God is, is something we are familiar with—a substantial truth which is present in our subjective consciousness. But scientifically considered, God is at first a general, abstract name, which as yet has not come to have any true value. For it is the Philosophy of Religion which is the unfolding, the apprehension of that which God is, and it is only by means of it that our philosophical knowledge of His nature is reached. God is this well-known and familiar idea—an idea, however, which has not yet been scientifically developed, scientifically known.

Having thus referred to this development, which has its justification in philosophical science itself, we shall, to begin with, accept as a simple statement of fact the assertion that the result of philosophy is that God is the absolutely True, the Universal in and for itself, the All-comprehending, All-containing, that from which everything derives subsistence. And in regard to this assertion we may also appeal in the first place to religious consciousness, where we find the conviction that God is


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/107

 indeed the absolutely True, from which all proceeds, and into which all returns, upon which all is dependent, and beside which nothing has absolute true self-sustained existence. This, then, is what constitutes the beginning.

This beginning is, scientifically, still abstract. The heart may be ever so full of this idea, still in science it is not with what is in the heart that we have to do, but with what is definitely considered as object for consciousness, and more strictly for thinking consciousness which has attained to the form of thought. To give this fulness the form of thought, of the Notion, is the special work of the Philosophy of Religion.

a. The beginning as abstract, as the first content, Universality namely, has thus, as it were, as yet a subjective standing, implying that the Universal is universal for the beginning only, and does not continue in this condition of universality. The beginning of the content is itself to be conceived of in such a way that, while in all further developments of this content, this Universal will show itself to be absolutely concrete, rich in matter, and full of content, we at the same time do not pass beyond this universality; that this universality, though in a sense we leave it behind so far as the form is concerned, inasmuch as it undergoes a definite development, nevertheless maintains its position as the absolute, permanent foundation, and is not to be taken as a mere subjective beginning.

In so far as He is the Universal, God is for us from the point of view of development, what is shut up within itself, what is in absolute unity with itself. If we say God is that which is shut up within itself, in using such an expression we are thinking of a development which we expect to take place; but the undeveloped condition which we have called the Universality of God, is not in regard to the content itself to be taken as an abstract Universality, outside of which, and as opposed to which, the particular has an independent existence.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/108

 This Universality is thus to be understood as the absolutely full, filled up universality, and when we thus say that God is universal, concrete, full of content, we imply that God is One only, and not one as contrasted with many Gods, but that there is only the One, that is, God.

Existing things, the developments of the natural and spiritual world, take manifold forms, and have an infinite variety; they have a being which differs in degree, force, strength, content; but the being of all these things is not independent, but is supported by, dependent on, something else, and has no true independence. If we attribute a being to particular things, it is only a borrowed being, only the semblance of a being, not the absolute self-sustained Being, which is God.

God in His universality, this Universal, in which there is no limitation, no finiteness, no particularity, is the absolute Self-subsisting Being, and the only Self-subsisting Being; and what subsists has its root, its subsistence, in this One alone.

If the substantial element in this its first form is understood in this sense, we may express ourselves thus: God is the absolute Substance, the only true reality. All else, which is real, is not real in itself, has no real existence of itself; the one absolute reality is God alone, and thus He is the absolute Substance.

If this conception is held to in this abstract fashion, it is undoubtedly Spinozism. Substantiality, Substance as such, is as yet not at all differentiated from subjectivity. But the following thought also forms part of the presupposition thus made. God is Spirit, the Absolute Spirit, the eternally undifferentiated Spirit, essentially at home with Himself; this ideality, this subjectivity of Spirit, which is, so to speak, transparency, pure ideality excluding all that is particular, is just the Universality spoken of above, that pure relation to self, what is and remains absolutely at home with itself.

If we use the expression “Substance,” it is implied


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/109

 that this Universal is not yet conceived of as concrete in itself: when it is so conceived of, it is Spirit; and Spirit too always is this unity with itself, even in its concrete inner determination—this One Reality, which we just now called Substance. A further characteristic is that the substantiality, the unity of the absolute reality with itself, is only the foundation, one moment in the determination of God as Spirit. The disparagement of philosophy is connected mainly with this way of looking at the question. You hear it said that philosophy must be Spinozism if it is consistent, and that thus it is atheism, fatalism.

But at the beginning we have not as yet characteristics which are distinguished, as One and Another; at the beginning we are only concerned with the One, not with the Other.

In starting from here we have the content as yet in the form of substantiality. Even when we say, “God, Spirit,” these are indefinite words or general ideas. Everything depends upon what has entered into consciousness. At first it is the Simple, the Abstract, that enters into consciousness. In this first simplicity, we still have God in the character of Universality, but we do not remain at this standpoint.

Still, this content continues to be the foundation; in all further development, God never comes out of His unity with Himself. When He, as it is commonly expressed, creates the world, there does not come into existence something evil, Another, which is self-sustained, and independent.

b. This beginning is an object for us or content in us; we have this object; and thus the question immediately arises, Who are we? “We,” “I,” the spirit is itself something very concrete, manifold. I have perceptions, I am, I see, hear, &c., all this I am; this feeling, this seeing. Thus the more precise meaning of this question is, which of these forms of consciousness determines the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/110

 shape in which this content exists for our minds? Is it found in idea, will, imagination, or feeling? What is the place, where this content, this object has its home? Which of all these supplies the basis of this mental possession?

If we think of the current answers in regard to this, we find it said that God is in us in so far as we believe, feel, form ideas, know. These forms, faculties, aspects of ourselves, namely, feeling, faith, ordinary conception, are to be more particularly considered further on, and especially in relation to this very point. For the present we postpone the search for any reply, nor do we betake ourselves to what we know by experience, observation, namely that we have God in our feeling, &c. To begin with, we shall keep to what we have actually before us, this One, Universal, this Fulness, which is this ever unchangeable transparent ethereal element.

If in considering this One we ask, For which of our faculties or mental activities does this One, this pure Universal, exist? we can only point to the corresponding activity of our mind, the faculty which answers to it, as the soil or substratum in which this content has its home. This is Thought.

Thought alone is the substratum of this content. Thought is the activity of the Universal; it is the Universal in its activity, or operation; or if we express it as the comprehension of the Universal, then that for which the Universal is, is still Thought.

This Universal, which can be produced by Thought, and which is for Thought, may be quite abstract; it is then the Immeasurable, the Infinite, the removal of all limit, of all particularity. This Universal, which is to begin with negative, has its seat in Thought only.

To think of God means to rise above what is sensuous, external, and individual. It means to rise up to what is pure, to that which is in unity with itself; it is a going forth above and beyond the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/111

 sensuous, beyond what belongs to the sphere of the senses, into the pure region of the Universal. And this region is Thought.

Such, so far as the subjective side is concerned, is the substratum for this content. The content is this absolutely undivided, continuous, self-sufficing One, the Universal; and Thought is the mode of mind for which this Universal exists.

Thus we have a distinction between Thought and the Universal which we at first called God; it is a distinction which in the first place belongs only to our reflection, and which is as yet by no means included in the content on its own account. It is the result of philosophy, as it is already the belief of religion, that God is the One true Reality, and that there is no other reality whatsoever. In this One Reality and pure clearness, the reality and the distinction which we call thinking, have as yet no place.

What we have before us is this One Absolute: we cannot as yet call this content, this determination, religion; for to religion belongs subjective spirit, consciousness. This Universal has its place in Thought, but its localisation in Thought is, to begin with, absorbed in this One, this Eternal, this absolute existence.

In this true, absolute, determination, which is only not as yet developed, perfected, God remains through all development absolute Substance.

This Universal is the starting-point and point of departure, but it is this absolutely abiding Unity, and not a mere basis out of which differences spring, the truth rather being that all differences are here enclosed within this Universal. It is, however, no inert, abstract Universal, but the absolute womb, the eternal impetus and source from which everything proceeds, to which everything returns, and in which everything is eternally preserved.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/112

 Thus the Universal never goes out of this ethereal element of likeness with itself, out of this state in which it is together with or at home with itself. It is not possible that God, as this Universal, can actually exist along with another whose existence is anything more than the mere play of appearance or semblance of existence. In relation to this pure Unity and pure transparency, matter is nothing impenetrable, nor has the spirit, the “I,” such exclusiveness as to possess true substantiality of its own.

c. There has been a tendency to call this idea by the name Pantheism; it would be more correctly designated, “the idea of substantiality.” God is here characterised at first as substance only; the absolute Subject, too, Spirit, remains substance; Spirit is not however substance only, but is also self-determined as Subject. Those who say that speculative philosophy is Pantheism, generally know nothing of this distinction; they overlook the main point, as they always do, and they disparage philosophy by representing it as different from what it really is.

Pantheism, with those who bring this charge against philosophy, has usually been taken to mean that everything, the All, the Universum, this complex collection of all that exists, those infinitely many finite things are God, and philosophy is accused of maintaining that All is God—that is, this infinite manifoldness of single things; not the Universality which has essential being, but the individual things in their empirical existence, as they are immediately.

If it be said, God is all this here, this paper, &c., then that is certainly Pantheism, as understood by those who by way of reproach bring forward the objection to which reference has been made, their meaning being that God is everything, all individual things. If I say “species,” that too is a universality, but of quite another kind than Totality, in which the Universal is thought of


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/113

 only as that which comprehends all individual existences, and as that which has Being, that which lies at the foundation of all things, the true content of all individual things.

Pantheism of this kind is not to be found in any religion, and the statement that it is so discoverable is wholly false. It has never occurred to any man to say, all is God—that is, things in their individuality or contingency—much less has it been maintained in any philosophy.

With oriental pantheism, or more correctly Spinozism, we shall make acquaintance later on, under the head of definite religion. Spinozism itself as such, and oriental pantheism, too, contain the thought that in everything the divine is only the universal element of a content, the Essence of things, while at the same time it is also represented as being the determined or specific Essence of the things.

When Brahm says, “I am the brightness, the shining element in metals, the Ganges among rivers, the life in all that lives, &c.,” what is individual is done away with and absorbed. Brahm does not say, “I am the metal, the rivers, the individual things of each kind by themselves, as such, as they exist immediately.”

The brightness is not the metal itself, but is the Universal, the Substantial, elevated above any individual form; it is no longer το παν, everything as individual. What is expressed here is no longer what is called pantheism; the idea expressed is rather that of the Essence in such individual things.

All that has life is characterised by the note of time and space; it is, however, only on the imperishable element in this singularity that stress is laid. “The life of all that lives” is, in that imperishable sphere of life, the Unlimited, the Universal. When, however, it is said that everything is God, the singularity is understood in accordance with all its limits, its finiteness, its


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/114

 perishableness. The origin of this idea of pantheism is to be found in the fact that stress is laid on the abstract, not on the spiritual unity; and then, when the idea takes its religious form, where only the substance, the One, ranks as true reality, those who hold these opinions forget that it is just in presence of this One that the individual finite things disappear, and have no reality ascribed to them, and yet they attempt to retain this reality in a material way alongside of the One. They do not believe the Eleatics, who say, the One only exists, and expressly add, and what is not has no existence whatever. All that is finite would be limitation, negation of the One; but that which is not, limitation, finiteness, limit, and that which is limited, have no existence whatever.

Spinozism has been charged with being atheism, but the world, this All, does not exist at all in Spinozism; it has an outward form it is true, we speak of its existence, and our life is to be in it as thus existing. In the philosophical sense, however, the world has no reality at all, has no existence. No reality is ascribed to these individual things; they are finite in nature, and it is plainly stated that they do not exist at all.

Spinozism has been universally charged with leading to the following conclusions:—If all be One, then this philosophy maintains that good is one with evil, and that there is no difference between good and evil, and with this all religion is done away with. You hear it asserted that if the distinction of good and evil is not valid in itself, then it is a matter of indifference whether a man be good or bad. It may, indeed, be conceded that the distinction between good and evil is done away with potentially, that is, in God, who is alone the true Reality. In God there is no evil; the distinction between good and evil could exist only if God were Evil; no one, however, would concede that evil is something affirmative, and that this affirmative is in God.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/115

 God is good, and good alone; the distinction between evil and good is not present in this One, in this Substance; it is with the element of distinction, or differentiation, that it first enters at all.

God is the One absolutely self-sufficing Being; in substance there is no distinction, no element of difference. With the distinction of God from the world, and especially from man, there first appears the distinction between good and evil. It is a fundamental principle of Spinozism, with regard to this distinction between God and man, that man must have God alone as his chief end. And thus the love of God is law for the element of difference, that is to say, for man; this love to God is alone to be his guide; he is not to ascribe value to his separate existence, to his difference in itself, not to desire to continue in it, but to direct his entire thought towards God alone.

This is the most sublime morality, that evil is nonexistent, and that man is not to allow to this distinction, this nullity, any valid existence. Man may wish to persist in this difference, to carry this separation on into a settled opposition to God—the essentially existing Universal—and then man is evil. But it is also possible for him to regard his difference as non-existent, to place his true being in God alone, and direct his aim toward God—and then man is good.

In Spinozism, the distinction between good and evil undoubtedly makes its appearance with reference to God and man—and it appears in it with this qualification, that evil is to be regarded as non-existent. In God as such, in His character as Substance, there is no distinction; it is for man that this distinction exists, as does also the distinction between good and evil.

In accordance with that superficiality with which the polemic against philosophy is carried on, it is added, moreover, that philosophy is a system of Identity. It is quite correct to say that Substance is this one self-identity, but Spirit is just as much this self-identity.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/116

100 Everything is ultimately identity, unity with itself. But those who speak of the philosophy of Identity mean abstract Identity, unity in general, and pay no attention to that upon which alone all depends; namely, the essential nature of this unity, and whether it is defined as Substance or as Spirit. The whole of philosophy is nothing else than a study of the nature of different kinds of unity; the Philosophy of Religion, too, is a succession of unities; it is always unity, yet a unity which is always further defined and made more specific.

In the physical world there are many kinds of unity: when water and earth are brought together, this is a unity, but it is a mixture. If I bring together a base and an acid and a salt, a crystal is the result. I have water too, but I cannot see it, and there is not the slightest moisture. The unity of the water with this material is, therefore, a unity of quite a different character from that in which water and earth are mingled. What is of importance, is the difference in the character of the unity. The Unity of God is always Unity, but everything depends upon the particular nature of this Unity; this point being disregarded, that upon which everything depends is overlooked.

What we have first is this divine Universality—Spirit in its entirely undetermined Universality—for which there exists absolutely no element of difference. But upon this absolute foundation (and this we state for the moment as fact) there now appears that element of distinction which, in its spiritual character, is consciousness, and it is with this distinction that religion, as such, begins. When the absolute Universality advances to the stage of judgment, that is to say, when it proceeds to posit itself as determinateness, and God exists as Spirit for Spirit, we have reached the standpoint from which God is regarded as the object of consciousness, and Thought, which at the beginning was universal, is seen to have entered into the condition of relation and differentiation.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/117

 B.

THE RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE.

In the doctrine of God we have God before us as object, simply by Himself. The relation of God to man, it is true, has a place in it as well; and while, according to the prevailing ideas of earlier times, this relation did not appear to form an essential part of the doctrine, modern theology, on the other hand, treats more of religion than of God. All that is required of man is that he should be religious; this is the main point, and it is even regarded as a matter of indifference whether a man knows anything of God or not; or it is held that religion is something entirely subjective, and that man has really no knowledge of the nature of God. In the Middle Ages, on the contrary, it was the essential Being of God that was principally considered and defined. We have to recognise the truth which is involved in the modern view, namely, that God is not to be considered apart from the subjective spirit; this, however, not on the ground that God is an Unknown, but because God is essentially Spirit, exists as Spirit which knows. We have here thus a relation of Spirit to Spirit. This relation of Spirit with Spirit lies at the foundation of religion.

If, accordingly, we should consider ourselves as exempted from the necessity of beginning with the proof of the existence of God, it would still remain for us to prove that religion exists, and that it is necessary; for philosophy cannot assume its object as given.

It might, indeed, be said that such proof is needless, and it might be asserted in support of this that all peoples are religious. But this is only of the nature of an assumption, and the expression “all” at once involves us in certain difficulties. For there are peoples of whom it can scarcely be said that they have a religion; their Highest, which they worship in a way, is the sun, the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/118

 moon, or whatever else may strike them as remarkable in material nature. We have besides, the phenomenon of a very “advanced” form of culture which denies the Being of God altogether, at the same time denying that religion is the truest expression of the Spirit. Thinkers of this extreme sort have even seriously maintained that priests, in instilling a religion into men, are no better than deceivers, their sole object being to make men subject to themselves.

A further attempt which has been made to prove the necessity of religion does not get beyond establishing an external conditional necessity, in which religion is made a means, and something practised with a definite end in view. But religion is thereby degraded to the condition of something contingent, which has not value on its own account, but may either be discarded by me or made use of by me for some definite purpose. The true view, which represents the real state of the case and the false one, are here very close together, and the obliquity or error in the latter appears to be only a slight displacement, so to speak, of the former.

Both in ancient and modern times you find the idea given expression to, that a town, state, family, or individual has been doomed to destruction because they despised the gods; that adoration of the gods, on the other hand, and reverence towards them preserve states, and make them prosperous; and that the happiness and advancement of individuals are furthered by their being religious.

Undoubtedly it is only when religion is made the foundation that the practice of righteousness attains stability, and that the fulfilment of duty is secured. It is in religion that what is deepest in man, the conscience, first feels that it lies under an absolute obligation, and has the certain knowledge of this obligation; therefore the State must rest on religion, for it is in religion we first have any absolute certainty and security as regards the dispositions of men, and duties they owe to


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/119

 the State. From every other kind of obligation it is possible to find a way of escape by means of excuses, exceptions, or counter reasons. Obligations other than the religious one may be evaded by disparaging the laws and regulations of the state, or by belittleing the individuals who govern and who are in authority, and by regarding them from a point of view from which they are no longer necessarily objects of respect. For all these particular obligations have not only an essential existence as law, but have at the same time a finite existence in the present. They are so constituted as to invite the investigation of reflection, and to allow it either to find fault with or to justify them, and they thus awaken the criticism of the individual, who can in turn grant himself a dispensation from them. It is only religion which suppresses all this subjective criticism and weighing of reasons, annihilates it, and brings in this infinite, absolute obligation of which we have spoken. In short, reverence for God, or for the gods, establishes and preserves individuals, families, states; while contempt of God, or of the gods, loosens the basis of laws and duties, breaks up the ties of the family and of the State, and leads to their destruction.

These are undoubtedly considerations of the highest truth and importance, and contain the essential, substantial connection between religion and morality. Now if a deduction be made from the proposition before us stating as the result of experience that religion is therefore necessary, this would be an external kind of conclusion. Possibly, however, it might only be faulty in respect of the subjective act of apprehension, no false or misleading turn being given to the content or matter of the assertion. If, however, the conclusion be now stated thus: “therefore religion is useful for the ends set before them by individuals, governments, states,” &c., then an attitude is at once taken up by which religion is treated as a means. But in religion we have to do with Spirit, which is many-sided in its activities. Even the animal organism,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/120

 when attacked by any disease, though its reaction to a remedy is determined by definite laws, is yet indifferent to many of its particular properties, so that a choice of remedies is possible. Still more does Spirit degrade what it employs as means to a mere matter of detail. It is then conscious of its freedom to use either one particular means or some other.

Thus if religion be a means, the spirit knows that it can make use of it; knows, too, that it can, however, have recourse to other means. Indeed the spirit stands in such a relation to religion that it may, if it likes, resolve to trust to its own resources. Further, the spirit has the freedom of its aims—its power, its cunning, the control of the opinions of men; these are all means, and just in the very freedom of its aims, which implies in so many words that its aims are to be the ultimate standard, and religion is to be only a means, it has the freedom to make its own power and authority its object, and thus to set ends before itself in pursuit of which it can either dispense with religion or even act in direct opposition to its behests. The point of importance, on the contrary, is that the spirit should resolve upon such aims, or should know its obligation to pursue such as are of value objectively in and for themselves, to the disregard of others which are more enticing, and at the sacrifice of particular ends in general. Objective aims demand the giving up of subjective interests, inclinations, and ends; and this sacrifice or negation is involved in the statement, that the worship of God lays the foundation of the true weilbeing of individuals, peoples, and states. Even though the latter be the consequence of the former, yet it is the former which is the principal thing; it has its own determination and determinateness, and it regulates the purposes and opinions of men, which as particular things are not what is primary, and ought not to be allowed to determine themselves. Thus a slight turn given to the position of reflection


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/121

 alters and entirely destroys its first meaning above referred to, and makes out of the necessity a mere utility which, as being contingent, is capable of being perverted.

Here we are concerned, on the contrary, with the inner necessity, which exists in and for itself; a necessity to which, indeed, there is no doubt that caprice—evil—is able to oppose itself; but in this case this caprice belongs to a sphere outside, attaching itself to the Ego, which, as free, is able to take its stand on the summit of its own independent individuality.

Such caprice is no longer connected with the necessity of which we speak; it is no longer the perversion of the very notion of necessity, as is the case so long as necessity is understood merely as utility.

I.—The Necessity of the Religious Standpoint.

The general necessity of the Notion accordingly develops itself in this wise. Religion is (1) conceived of as result, but (2) as a result which at the same time annuls itself as result, and that (3) it is the content itself which passes over in itself and through itself to posit itself as result. That is objective necessity, and not a mere subjective process. It is not we who set the necessity in movement; on the contrary, it is the act of the content itself, or, the object may be said to produce itself. Subjective deduction and intellectual movement occur, for example, in geometry; the triangle does not itself go through the process that we follow out in the intellectual act of demonstration.

Religion, however, as something essentially spiritual, is by its very existence itself this process and this transition. In the case of natural things, as, for example, the sun, we are in presence of an immediate existence at rest, and in the mental picture or idea we form of it there is no consciousness of an act of passing over, or transition. The religious consciousness, on the other hand,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/122

 is in its very essence the parting from and forsaking of what is immediate, what is finite; it is a passing over to the intellectual, or, objectively defined, the gathering up of what is perishable into its absolute substantial essence. Religion is the consciousness of what is in and for itself true, in contrast to sensuous, finite truth, and to sense perceptions. Accordingly, it is a rising above, a reflecting upon, a transition from what is immediate, sensuous, individual (for the immediate is what is first, and therefore is not exaltation), and is thus a going out and on to an Other. This does not mean, however, a going on to a Third, and so on, for in that case the Other would be itself again something finite, and not an Other. Consequently it is a progress onward to a Second, but of such a kind that this progress, this production of a Second, annuls and absorbs itself, and this Second is rather the First, that which is truly unmediated and unposited or independent. The standpoint of religion shows itself in this transition as the standpoint of truth, in which the whole wealth of the natural and spiritual world is contained. Every other manner in which this wealth of being exists must prove itself to be, in comparison, an external, arid, miserable, self-contradictory, and destructive mode of reality which involves the ending of truth, and has in it the note of untruth, a mode of reality which only returns to its foundation and its source as the standpoint of religion. By this demonstration, then, it is made clearly apparent that Spirit cannot stop short at any of these stages, nor can it remain there, and that it is only religion which is the true reality or actuality of self-consciousness.

So far as the proof of this necessity is concerned, the following remarks may be sufficient.

When it has to be shown in regard to anything that it is necessary, it is implied that we start from something else, from an Other. What is here the Other of the true divine existence is non-divine existence, the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/123

 finite world, finite consciousness. Now if we are to begin from this as the immediate, the finite, the untrue, and in fact as an object of our knowledge, and as immediately apprehended by us in its definite qualitative existence, if we begin in this manner from what is First, we find that it shows itself, as we proceed, not to be what it directly presents itself as being, but is seen to be something which destroys itself, which appears as becoming, as moving on to something else. Therefore it is not our reflection and study of the subject, our judgment, which tells us that the finite with which we begin is founded on something that is true. It is not we who bring forward its foundation. On the contrary, the movement of the finite itself shows that it loses itself in something other, in something higher than itself. We follow the object as it returns of itself to the fountain of its true being.

Now, while the object which forms the starting-point perishes in this, its true Source, and sacrifices itself, this does not mean that it has vanished in this process. Its content is, on the contrary, posited in its ideal character. We have an example of this absorption and ideality in consciousness. I relate myself to an object, and then contemplate it as it is. The object, which I at once distinguish from myself, is independent; I have not made it, it did not wait for me in order to exist, and it remains although I go away from it. Both, I and the object, are therefore two independent things, but consciousness is at the same time the relation of these two independent things to each other, a relation in which they appear as one. In that I have knowledge of the object, these two, I and the Other, exist for me in this my simple determinate character. If we rightly grasp what takes place here, we have not only the negative result that the oneness and independence of the two is done away with. The annulling which takes place is not only empty negation, but the negation of those two things from which I


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/124

 started. The non-existence here is thus only the nonexistence of the independence of the two—the non-existence in which both determinations are abrogated, yet preserved and ideally contained.

Should we now desire to see how in this manner the natural universe and the spiritual universe return to their truth in the religious standpoint, the detailed consideration of this return would constitute the whole circle of the philosophical sciences. We should have to begin here with Nature; it is the immediate; Spirit would in that case be opposed to Nature, and both, in so far as they confront one other as independent, are finite.

We may here, accordingly, distinguish between two ways of considering the matter.

In the first place, we might consider what Nature and Spirit are in themselves, or ideally. This would show that potentially they are identical in the one Idea, and both only reflect what is one and the same, or, we might say, that they have their one root in the Idea. But this would still be an abstract way of looking at them, being limited to what these objects are potentially, and not implying that they are conceived of according to the Idea and reality. The distinctions which essentially belong to the Idea would be left unregarded. This absolute Idea is the element of necessity, is the essence of both Nature and Spirit, and in it what constitutes their difference, their limit and finiteness, drops away. The Essence of Spirit and of Nature is one and the same, and in this identity they are nothing more than what they are in their separation and qualitative existence. It is, however, our act of knowledge which, in this way of looking at them, strips these two of their difference, and does away with their finiteness. It is outside of these limited worlds that they are limited, and that their limit disappears in the Idea which is their unity. This disappearance of the limit is an abstracting from it which takes place in our act of cognition or knowledge. We


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/125

 do away with the form of its finiteness, and come to its truth. This way of conceiving of the matter is so far rather of a subjective kind, and that which presents itself as being the truth of this finiteness is the self-existing Idea—the Substance, according to Spinoza, or the Absolute, as it was conceived of by Schelling.

Both natural things and the spiritual world are shown to be finite, so that what is true is the vanishing of their limits in Absolute Substance, and the recognition of the fact that this substance is the absolute identity of the two, of Subjective and Objective, of Thought and Being. But Substance is merely this identity. The specific form and quality is taken away by us, and does not appear in Substance, which is therefore rigid, cold, motionless necessity, in which knowledge, subjectivity, cannot find satisfaction, because it does not recognise in it its own vitality and distinctions. This phenomenon is seen in all ordinary acts of devotion. We rise above finiteness, we forget it; but yet it is not truly done away with simply because we have forgotten it.

The second method consists in a recognition of the necessity by which the self-abrogation of the finite, and the positing of the Absolute, take place objectively. It must be shown of Nature and Spirit that they, in accordance with their notion, abrogate or annul themselves, and their finiteness must not be taken from them merely by a subjective removal of their limits. Here then we have the movement of thought, which is likewise the movement of the thing itself, or true reality, and it is the very process of Nature and of Spirit out of which proceeds the True.

a. We have now, therefore, to consider Nature as it really is in itself—as the process of which the transition to Spirit is the ultimate truth, so that Spirit proves itself to be the truth of Nature. It is the essential character of Nature to sacrifice itself, to consume itself, so that the Psyche comes forth out of this burnt-offering


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/126

 and the Idea rises into its proper element, into its own ethereality. This sacrifice of Nature is its process, and it appears in a more definite form as an advance through a series of graduated stages, in which the differences are present in the form of mutual exclusion. The connection is something purely internal. The moments, through which the Idea runs its course in the web or garment of Nature, are a series of independent forms. Nature is the Idea potentially, and only potentially, and the peculiar mode of its existence is to be outside of itself, in perfect externality. The nature of its progress is, more chiefly speaking, this, that the Notion which is enclosed in it breaks through its covering, absorbs the outer crust of its externality, idealises it, and while rendering the coating of the crystal transparent, is itself revealed to view. The indwelling Notion becomes external, or conversely, Nature immerses itself in itself, and what is external constitutes itself a mode of the Notion. Thus an externality comes into view which is itself ideal, and is held in the unity of the Notion. This is the truth of Nature, namely, Consciousness. In consciousness I am the Notion; and that which is for me, of which I have a consciousness, is, in short, my existence. In nature, what exists is not consciously known; it is merely something that is external, and it is Spirit which first knows the externality and posits it as identical with itself. In sensation, which is the culminating point and the end of Nature, an independent existence, a being for self, is already inherent, so that the definite character, which a thing has, is at the same time ideal, and is taken back into the Subject. The qualities of a stone are mutually exclusive, and the notion or conception we form of it is not in the stone. In sensation, on the other hand, external qualities do not exist as such, but are reflected into themselves, and here Soul, subjectivity, begins. And now the identity, which as gravitation is only impulse and a striving after


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/127

 which ought to be, has come into existence. In gravitation there is always an element of mutual exclusion still remaining, the different points repel one another, and this one point, namely, sensation—the being in self—does not come forward into existence. But the whole force and life of Nature is ever pressing on towards sensation and towards Spirit. While, however, in this progress Spirit appears as necessary through Nature, and as mediated through Nature, yet this mediation is of such a kind that it at once abrogates itself. What proceeds out of the mediation shows itself as the foundation and the truth of that out of which it has proceeded. To philosophical knowledge the advance is a stream going in opposite directions, leading forward to what is Other than itself, but at the same time working backwards in such a way that that which appears as the last, as founded on what precedes, shows itself rather to be the first—the foundation.

b. Spirit itself is, to begin with, immediate; it is in the process of coming to itself that it becomes for itself, or self-conscious, and it is its very life to become for itself, or self-conscious, by means of itself. In this process it is essential to distinguish between two aspects presented by Spirit; first, what Spirit is in and for itself, and, secondly, its finiteness. First of all, Spirit is without relation, ideal, enclosed in the Idea; in its second aspect, Spirit in its finiteness is consciousness, and since what is Other than itself exists for it, stands in an attitude of relation. Nature is only appearance; it is when we think and reflect that Nature is for us Idea; therefore this which is its own transfiguration, that is, Spirit, is something found outside of it. The essential nature of Spirit consists, on the contrary, in this, that the Idea lies in Spirit itself, and that the Absolute, that which is true in and for itself, exists for Spirit. In its immediacy Spirit is still finite, and this finiteness is characterised by the fact that in the first place what it is in and for itself, or


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/128

 essentially, is distinguished from that which is present to its consciousness. But its essential nature and its infinitude consist in this, that its consciousness and its Idea absolutely correspond. This perfecting of Spirit, and this effacing of the differences of that relation, may be conceived of in accordance with the twofold aspect of its essential existence and of its actual consciousness. At first the two are distinguished; what it is essentially does not exist for consciousness, and this its essential existence still wears for Spirit an aspect of otherness or strangeness. But the two stand in a relation of reciprocity, so that the advance of the one is at the same time the perfecting of the other. In the “Phenomenology of Spirit,” Spirit is considered in its phenomenal existence as consciousness, and the necessity of its advance till it reaches the absolute standpoint is demonstrated. The forms assumed by Spirit, the stages which it produces, are there treated of as they present themselves in its consciousness. What, however, Spirit knows, what Spirit as consciousness is, is one thing; the necessary nature of that which Spirit knows, and which exists for Spirit, is another. The former, namely the fact that its world exists for Spirit, is, as the word implies, a mere fact of existence, and appears therefore as contingent. The latter, the necessity, namely, by which this world has arisen for it, does not exist for Spirit at this stage of consciousness. So far as Spirit is concerned it takes place secretly, it exists only for philosophical contemplation, and belongs to the development of that which Spirit is according to its notion or conception. In this development a stage is now reached where Spirit attains to absolute consciousness, at which rationality exists for it as a world; and while on the other hand as consciousness it develops itself towards a consciousness of the essential nature of the world, it is here the point is reached, where the two modes, which were at first different,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/129

 coincide. The perfect form of consciousness is reached when it becomes conscious of the true object, and the object, what is substantial, Substance, reaches its perfect or completed stage when it exists for itself, that is, when it distinguishes itself from itself and has itself as object. Consciousness forces itself on to consciousness of the Substantial, and this latter, which is the notion of Spirit, forces itself on to phenomenal existence and to a relation in which it exists as self-conscious or for itself. This final stage, where the movement of both sides is brought into harmony, is the moral world, the State. Here the freedom of the Spirit, which proceeds on its way independent as the sun, exists as a present, realised object, as a necessity and a concretely existing world. Here consciousness likewise attains its perfect state, and each man finds himself provided in this world of the State with all he needs, and has his freedom in it. Consciousness, or being-for-self, and the essential being of Spirit have thus attained the self-same goal.

c. But this manifestation of the Divine Life is itself still in the region of finiteness, and the abrogation of this finiteness constitutes the religious standpoint, where God is Object of consciousness as absolute Power and Substance into which the whole wealth of the natural as of the spiritual world has returned. The religious point of view, as representing the unfolding of the natural and spiritual universe, shows itself in this progressive movement as the absolutely true and primary, which has nothing lying behind it as a permanent presupposition, but has absorbed everything into itself. The requirements of necessity indeed imply that this entire wealth of the natural and spiritual world should bury itself in its truth, namely, in the Universal which exists in and for itself. But this Universal, since it is essentially determined to particularity, and as concrete, as Idea, is essentially self-repulsion, develops particularity or determinateness out of itself, and posits itself for consciousness.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/130

 The forms of this development and self-determination of the Universal are the principal moments in logic, and these likewise constitute the form of the whole abovementioned sphere of being. The development of God in Himself is consequently the same logical necessity as that of the Universe, and this latter is only in so far inherently divine as it is at every stage the development of this form.

To begin with, this development is, it is true, different in each case in respect of the matter (Stoff), since, when it proceeds in an element of pure universality, it yields only Divine forms and moments; while in the region of finiteness, on the other hand, it yields finite forms and finite spheres of existence. Thus this matter and its forms are so far quite different, regardless of the fact that the form of the necessity is the same. Further, however, these two elements (Stoffe), the development of God in Himself and the development of the Universe, are not absolutely different. The Divine Idea signifies that it is the Absolute Subject, the truth of the universum of the natural and spiritual world, and not merely an abstract Other. Therefore the matter is the same in both cases. It is the intellectual divine world, the divine life in itself, which develops itself; but the spheres of its life are the same as those of the world life. This latter, which is the divine life in the mode of Appearance, or phenomenal existence, in the form of finiteness, is looked at in that eternal life in its eternal form and truth, sub specie æterni. Thus we have finite consciousness, finite world, nature, that which presents itself in the phenomenal world. It is this, in fact, which constitutes the antithesis of the Other and the Idea. The Other of the simple Idea which exists as yet in its substantiality, appears, too, in God, but there retains His attribute of eternity, and continues to abide in love and in the divine condition. This Other, which remains in the condition of what has


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/131

 independent essential being, being in and for self, is, however, the truth of the Other as it appears in the form of the finite world, and as finite consciousness. The element or matter, the necessity of which we have considered, is therefore essentially the same, whether it presents itself in the Divine Idea as existing absolutely, or whether it appears as the wealth of the finite world; for the finite world has its true and ideal existence only in that world of the Idea.

The necessity which appeared to lie behind and outside of the religious standpoint, when the latter was deduced from the preceding stages of the natural and spiritual world, we now see to be inherent in itself, and it is thus to be set down as its own inner form and development. In passing on to this development, we accordingly begin again with the form of Appearance or phenomenal existence, and in the first place we shall consider Consciousness as it here appears in a condition of relation, and fashions and develops the forms of this relation until the inner necessity develops and attains completeness in the notion itself.

II.—The Forms of Religious Consciousness.

What we have first to consider in the sphere in which the religious spirit manifests itself is the diversity of form assumed by the religious attitude. These forms, being of a psychological kind, belong to the region of finite spirit. What is common to all these, to begin with, is the consciousness of God; and this is not consciousness only, but is, more correctly speaking, certainty too. The more definite form assumed by this certainty is faith—certainty, that is, so far as it is present in faith, or so far as this knowledge of God is feeling, and exists in feeling. This has reference to the subjective side.

In the second place, we have to consider the objective side, the mode of the content or object. The form in


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/132

 which, in the first instance, God exists for us, is the mode of sense-perception, of idea, or ordinary thought, finally, the form of thought as such.

What comes first, therefore, is the consciousness of God in general—the fact that He is an Object to us, that in short we have ideas of Him. But this consciousness does not only mean that we have an object and an idea, but also that this content exists, and is not merely an idea. That is the certainty of God.

The term idea, or the fact that a thing is an object in consciousness, means that this content is in me, is mine. I may have ideas of objects which are wholly fictitious and fanciful; what constitutes the idea here is in such a case my own, but only my own; it exists merely as an idea; I am at the same time aware that the content here has no existence. In dreams, too, I exist as consciousness, I have objects in my mind, but they have no existence.

But we so conceive of the consciousness of God that the content is our idea, and at the same time exists; that is, the content is not merely mine, is not merely in the subject, in myself, in my idea and knowledge, but has an absolute existence of its own, exists in and for itself. This is essentially involved in the content itself in this case. God is this Universality which has an absolute existence of its own, and does not exist merely for me; it is outside of me, independent of me.

There are thus two points bound up together here. This content is at once independent and at the same time inseparable from me; that is, it is mine, and yet it is just as much not mine.

Certainty is this immediate relation between the content and myself. If I desire to express such certainty in a forcible manner, I say “I am as certain of this as of my own existence.” Both (the certainty of this external Being and the certainty of myself) are one certainty, and I would do away with my own Being, I should have no knowledge of myself if I were to do away with that


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/133

 Being. This unity thus involved in the certainty is the inseparability from me of this content which yet is different from me and myself; it is the inseparability of two things which are yet distinguished from one another.

It is possible to stop here, and it has even been maintained that we are compelled to stop at this certainty. A distinction, however, at once suggests itself to people’s minds here, and it is one which is made in connection with everything. A thing, it is said, may be certain, but it is another question whether it is true. The truth is here opposed to the certainty; from the fact that a thing is certain, it does not necessarily follow that it is true.

The immediate form of this certainty is that of faith. Faith, indeed, directly involves an antithesis; and this antithesis is more or less indefinite. It is usual to put faith in contrast with knowledge. Now, if it be wholly opposed to knowledge, we get an empty antithesis. What I believe, I also know; it is contained in my consciousness. Faith is a form of knowledge, but by knowledge is usually understood a mediated knowledge, a knowledge involving clear apprehension.

To put it more definitely, certainty is called faith, partly in so far as this is not an immediate, sensuous certainty, and partly, too, in so far as this knowledge is not a knowledge of the necessity or necessary nature of a content. What I see immediately before me, that I know; I do not believe that there is a sky above me; I see it. On the other hand, if I have rational insight into the necessity of a thing, in this case, too, I do not say “I believe,” as, for example, in the theorem of Pythagoras. In this case it is assumed that a person does not merely accept the evidence of a thing on authority, but that he has seen into its truth for himself.

In recent times, faith has been taken to mean a certainty which stands in contrast with the perception of the necessary nature of an object. This, especially, is the meaning attached to faith by Jacobi. Thus, says


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/134

 Jacobi, we only believe that we have a body, we do not know it. Here knowledge has the more restricted meaning of knowledge of necessity. When I say “I see this,”—“this,” says Jacobi, is only a belief, for I perceive, I feel; and such sensuous knowledge is entirely immediate and unmediated, it is no reasoned principle. Here faith has in fact the meaning of immediate certainty.

Thus the expression “faith” is principally used to express the certainty that a God exists, in so far as we do not have any perception of the necessity of what constitutes God. In so far as the necessity of the content, its proved existence, is called the Objective, objective knowledge, or cognition, so far is faith something subjective. We believe in God in so far as we have not a perception of the necessity of this content which implies that He is what He is.

It is customary to say that we must believe in God, because we have no immediate or sensuous perception of Him. We speak, it is true, of grounds or reasons for belief, but language of this sort is inappropriate; for if I have grounds, and in fact objective, proper grounds, then the existence of the object is for me proved. The grounds themselves, however, may be of a subjective kind, and in this case I simply let my knowledge pass as proved knowledge, and in so far as these grounds are subjective, I speak of faith.

The first, the simplest, and as yet most abstract form of this subjective method of proof is this, that in the being of the Ego, the being of the object, too, is contained. This proof and this mode of the object’s appearance is given as the first and immediate form, in Feeling.

1. The Form of Feeling.

In regard to this, we find, to begin with, that the following conclusions hold good.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/135

 a. We have knowledge of God, and, in fact, immediate knowledge. We are not to seek to comprehend God, it is said, we are not to argue about God, because rational knowledge has proved of no use here.

b. We must ask for a support for this knowledge. We have this knowledge only in ourselves, thus it is only subjective knowledge, and therefore a foundation is asked for. Where, it is asked, is the place in which divine Being is, and in reply to this, it is said, “God is in Feeling.” Thus feeling gets the position of a basis or causal ground in which the Being of God is given.

These propositions are quite correct, and are not to be denied, but they are so trivial that it is not worth while to speak of them here. If the science of religion be limited to these statements, it is not worth having, and it is not possible to understand why theology exists at all.

a. We have immediate knowledge of the fact that God is. This proposition has, in the first instance, a quite simple and ingenuous meaning; afterwards, however, it gets a meaning which is not ingenuous or without a suggestion of bias, namely this, that this so-called immediate knowledge is the only knowledge of God; and in taking up this position modern theology is in so far opposed to revealed religion, and likewise to rational knowledge, for it, too, denies this proposition.

The element of truth in this must be considered more closely. We know that God is, and this we know immediately. What does “to know” mean? It is different from cognition or philosophical apprehension. We have the expression “certain” (gewiss), and we are accustomed to oppose certainty to truth. The term “to know” expresses the subjective manner in which a thing exists for me in my consciousness, so that it has the character of something existent.

Knowledge, therefore, essentially means this, that the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/136

 object, the Other, is or exists, and that its existence is linked with my existence. I may also know what it is, either by immediate sense-perception, or as the result of reflection; but when I say “I know it,” I know only its being or bare existence. This existence is not, it is true, empty existence; I have a knowledge also of more definite characteristics, qualities of the object, but of these, too, I know only that they are. Knowing is also used in the sense of having an idea, but it is always implied that the content is or exists. Such knowledge thus implies an abstract attitude and an immediate relation; whereas the expression “Truth” suggests a severance between certainty and objectivity, and the mediation of the two. On the other hand, we speak of “Cognition” or philosophical knowledge, when we have knowledge of a Universal, and at the same time comprehend it in its special definite character, and as a connected whole in itself.

We comprehend or cognise Nature, Spirit, but not a particular house or a particular individual. The former are Universals, the latter are particulars, and we comprehend or cognise the rich content of those Universals in their necessary relation to one another.

Considered more closely, this knowledge is consciousness, but purely abstract consciousness, that is to say, abstract activity of the Ego; while consciousness proper contains fuller determinations of content, and distinguishes these from itself, as object. This knowledge therefore merely means that such and such a content is or exists, and consequently it is the abstract relation of the Ego to the object, whatever the content is; or to put it otherwise, immediate knowledge is nothing but thought taken in a quite abstract sense. Thought, however, too, means the self-identical activity of the Ego, and therefore, taken generally, is immediate knowledge.

To speak more precisely, thought is that in which its object has also the character of something abstract, the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/137

Rh activity of the Universal. This thought is contained in everything, however concrete the relation in any particular case may be; but it is only called thought in so far as the content has the character of something abstract, of a Universal.

Knowledge is here accordingly no immediate knowledge of a corporeal object, but knowledge of God; God is the absolutely universal Object; He is not any kind of particularity, He is the most universal Personality. Immediate knowledge of God is immediate knowledge of an object which is absolutely universal, so that the product only is immediate. Immediate knowledge of God is therefore a thinking of God, for Thought is the activity for which the Universal is.

God has here no other content, no further meaning; He is merely nothing that belongs to the sphere of sense; He is a Universal of which we know only that it does not come within the sphere of immediate sense-perception. It is, in fact, as a movement of mediation that thought first attains its complete state, for it begins from what is “other than itself,” permeates it, and in this movement changes it into what is Universal. But here thought has the merely Universal for its object, as the undetermined or indeterminate Universal; that is, has a quality, a content, which it itself is, in which it is, in fact, in immediate or abstract contact with itself. It is the light which illumines, but has no other content than just light. It is just such an immediateness as is implied when I ask what feels feeling? what perceives perception? and am merely answered, feeling has feeling, perception perceives. In view of this tautology, the relation is an immediate one.

Thus knowledge of God means nothing more than this, I think God. But now it is to be added further that this content of thought, this product, is, it is something existent. God is not only thought by us, but He is; He is not merely a determination of the Universal. We


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/138

 must proceed to ascertain by examining into the Notion (Begriff) itself, how far the Universal receives the determination or attribute of Being or existence.

We must turn to logic for a definition of Being. Being is Universality taken in its empty and most abstract sense; it is pure relation to self, without further reaction either in an outward or an inward direction. Being is Universality as abstract Universality. The Universal is essentially identity with itself; Being is this too, it is simple. The determination of the Universal, it is true, directly involves the relation to particulars; this particularity may be conceived of as outside the Universal, or, more truly, as inside it; for the Universal is also this relation to itself, this permeation of the Particular. Being, however, discards all relation, every determination which is concrete; it is without further reflection, without relation to what is other than itself. It is in this way that Being is contained in the Universal; and when I say “the Universal is,” I merely express its dry, pure, abstract relation to itself, this barren immediateness which Being is. The Universal is no Immediate in this sense; it must also be a Particular; the Universal must come to be in the Particular itself: this bringing of itself to the Particular does not represent what is abstract and immediate. By the term “Being,” on the contrary, we express the abstract Immediate, this barren relation to self. Thus when I say “This object is,” I express the utmost extreme of arid abstraction; it is the emptiest, most sterile determination possible.

To know is to think, and this is the Universal, and has in itself the characteristic of the abstract Universal, the immediateness of being: this is the meaning of immediate knowledge.

We are thus in the region of abstract logic; it always happens so when we think we are on concrete ground, the ground of immediate consciousness. But this latter is the very poorest possible soil for thoughts, and those


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/139

 contained in it are of the very baldest and emptiest kind. It is a proof of the grossest ignorance to believe that immediate knowledge is outside the region of thought. We fight with such distinctions, and when they are considered more closely they simply vanish. Even according to the very poorest definition of “immediate knowledge,” namely, that given above, religion belongs to the sphere of thought.

We, accordingly, go on to inquire more precisely wherein it is that what I know in immediate consciousness is different from other things that I know. I know as yet nothing but that the Universal is; what further content God has is to be discussed in the sequel. The standpoint of immediate consciousness gives nothing more than the form of Being referred to. That man cannot know what God is, is the standpoint of “enlightenment,” and this coincides with that of the immediate knowledge of God. But further, God is an Object of my consciousness, I distinguish Him from myself, He is something different from me, and I from Him. If we compare other objects in accordance with what we know of them, we find we know of them this too, that they are, and are something other than ourselves, they exist for themselves, and further they are either universal or they are not, they are something universal and at the same time something particular; they have some sort of definite content. The wall is; it is a thing. Thing is a Universal, and thus much I know too of God. We know far more of other things, but if we abstract from all their definite characteristics, we only say, as we said just now of the wall, “It is,” thus we know just as much of it as we do of God. And thus God has been called an abstract Ens. But this ens is the very emptiest form of existence compared with which other entia show themselves to have a far fuller existence.

We have said that God is in immediate knowledge; we are too; this immediateness of Being belongs to the Ego too. All other concrete, empirical things are or exist also, they are identical with themselves, this is


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/140

 abstractly their Being as Being. This Being exists in common with me, but the object of my knowledge is so constituted that I can also withdraw its Being from it; I represent it to myself, believe in it, but this in which I believe is a Being in my consciousness only. Consequently, universality and this quality of immediateness fall asunder, and must of necessity do so. This reflection must necessarily occur to one, for we are two, and must be separate; otherwise we would be one; that is, a characteristic must be attributed to the one which does not belong to the other. Such a characteristic is Being; “I am;” the Other, the object, therefore is not. I take Being to myself, to my side; I do not doubt my own existence, and on that account it drops away in the case of the Other. Since the Being here is only the Being of the object in such a way that the object is only this definitely known Being, there is wanting to it essential Being, Being in and for itself, and it receives this only in consciousness. It is merely known as known Being, not as having Being in and for itself. The Ego only exists, not the object. I may indeed doubt everything, but my own existence I cannot doubt, for is that which doubts,  is the doubt itself. If the doubt becomes the object of doubt, the doubter doubts of doubt itself, and thus the doubt vanishes. is immediate relation to oneself; Being is in the “I.” Immediateness thus gets a fixed place over against Universality, and is seen to belong to my side. In the “I,” Being is simply in myself; I can abstract from everything, but I cannot abstract from thought, for the abstracting is itself thought, it is the activity of the Universal, simple reference to self. Being is exemplified in the very act of abstraction. I can indeed destroy myself, but that is the liberty to abstract from my existence. “I am,”—in the the “am” is already included.

Now, in the act of exhibiting the Object—God—as He who is Being, we have taken Being to ourselves, the