按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
proper object。 It really commits a wrong； however； against belief in so apprehending the object of
belief as if it were its own object。 Accordingly it states regarding belief that its absolute Being is a
piece of stone； a block of wood； having eyes and seeing not； or again a bit of bread…dough； which
is obtained from grain grown on the field and transformed by men and is returned to earth again；
or in whatever other ways belief may be said to anthropomorphize absolute Being； making it
objective and representable。
（2） The Doctrine of Enlightenment
Enlightenment； proclaiming itself as the pure and true； here turns what is held to be eternal life and
holy spirit into a concrete passing thing of sense； and contaminates it with what belongs to
sense…certainty — with an aspect inherently worthless and one which is not to be found at all in the
worshiping attitude of belief； so that enlightenment simply calumniates it by introducing such an
aspect。 What belief reveres is for belief assuredly neither stone nor wood； nor bread…dough； nor
any other sort of thing of time and sense。 If enlightenment thinks it worth while to say its object all
the same is this as well； or even that it is this in its inherent nature and in truth； then belief also
knows that something which it is 〃as well〃； but for it this something lies outside； its worship； on the
other hand； however； belief does not look on such things as stones； etc。； as having an inherent and
essential being at all； the essential nature as grasped by pure thought is alone for it something
inherently real。
The second moment is the relation of belief as a form of knowing consciousness to this ultimate
Being。 As pure thinking consciousness belief has this Being immediately before it。 But pure
consciousness is just as much a mediate relation of conscious certainty to truth； a relation
constituting the ground of belief。 For enlightenment this ground comes similarly to be regarded as a
chance knowledge of chance occurrences。 The ground of knowledge； however； is the conscious
universal； and in its ultimate meaning is absolute spirit； which in abstract pure consciousness； or
thought as such； is merely absolute Being； but qua self…consciousness is the knowledge of itself。
Pure insight treats this conscious universal； self…knowing spirit pure and simple； likewise as an
element negative of self…consciousness。 Doubtless this insight is itself pure mediate thought；； i。e。
thought mediating itself with itself； it is pure knowledge； but since it is pure insight； or pure
knowledge； which does not yet know itself； i。e。 for which as yet there is no awareness that it is this
pure process of mediation； this process seems to insight； like everything else constituting it； to be
something external； an other。 When realizing its inherent principle； then； it develops this moment
essential to it； but that moment seems to it to belong to belief； and to be； in its character of an
external other； a fortuitous knowledge of stories of 〃real〃 events in this ordinary sense of 〃real〃。 It
thus here charges religious belief with basing its certainty on some particular historical evidences；
which； considered as historical evidences； would assuredly not even warrant that degree of
certainty about the matter which we get regarding any event mentioned in the newspapers。 It
further makes the imputation that the certainty in the case of religious belief rests on the accidental
fact of the preservation of all this evidence： on the preservation of this evidence partly by means of
paper； and partly through the skill and honesty in transferring what is written from one paper to
another； and lastly rests upon the accurate interpretation of the sense of dead words and letters。
As a matter of fact； however； it never occurs to belief to make its certainty depend on such
evidences and such fortuitous circumstances。 Belief in its conscious assurance occupies a na？ve
unsophisticated attitude towards its absolute object； knows it with a purity； which never mixes up
letters； paper； or copyists with its consciousness of the Absolute Being； and does not make use of
things of that sort to affect its union with the Absolute。 On the contrary； this consciousness is the
self…mediating； self…relating ground of its knowledge； it is spirit itself which bears witness of itself
both in the inner heart of the individual consciousness； as well as through the presence everywhere
and in all men of belief in it。 If belief wants to appeal to historical evidences in order to get also that
kind of foundation； or at least confirmation； for its content which enlightenment speaks of； and is
really serious in thinking and acting as if that were an important matter； then it has eo ipso allowed
itself to be corrupted and led astray by the insinuations of enlightenment； the efforts it makes to
secure a basis or support in this way are merely indications that show how it has been affected and
infected by enlightenment。
There still remains the third aspect； the active relation of consciousness to Absolute Being； its
forms of service。（6） This action consists in cancelling the particularity of the individual； or the
natural form of its self…existence； whence arises its certainty of being pure self…consciousness； of
being； as the result of its action； i。e。 as a self…existing conscious individual； one with ultimate
Reality。
Since in this action purposiveness and end are distinguished； and pure insight likewise takes up a
negative attitude towards this action； and denies itself just as it did in the other moments； it must as
regards purposiveness present the appearance of being stupid and unintelligent； since insight united
with intention； accordance of end with means； appears to it as an other； as really the opposite of
what insight is。 As regards the end； however； it has to make badness； enjoyment； and possession；
its purpose； and prove itself in consequence to be the impurest kind of intention； since pure
intention； qua external； an other； is similarly impure intention。
Accordingly we find that； so far as concerns purposiveness； enlightenment thinks it foolish if the
believing individual seeks to obtain the higher consciousness of freedom from entanglement with
natural enjoyment and pleasure； by positively denying itself natural enjoyment and pleasure； and
proving through its acts that there is no lie in its open contempt for them； but rather that the
contempt is quite genuine。
In the same way enlightenment finds it foolish for consciousness to absolve itself of its
characteristic of being absolutely individual； excluding all others； and possessing property of its
own； by itself demitting its own property； for thereby it shows in reality that this isolation is not
really serious。 It shows rather that itself is something that can rise above the natural necessity of
isolating itself and of denying； in this absolute isolation of its own individual existence； that e others
are one and the same with itself。
Pure insight finds both purposeless as well as wrong。 It is purposeless to renounce a pleasure and
give away a possession in order to show oneself independent of pleasure and possession； hence；
in the converse case； insight will be obliged to proclaim the man a fool； who； in order to eat；
employs the expedient of actually eating。 Insight again thinks it wrong to deny oneself a meal； and
give away butter and eggs not for money； nor money for butter and eggs； but just to give them
away and get no return at all； it declares a meal； or the possession of things of that sort； to be an
end in itself； and hence in fact declares itself to be a very impure intention which ascribes essential
value to enjoyment and possessions of this kind。 As pure intention it further maintains the necessity
of rising above natural existence； above covetousness as to the means for such existence； it only
finds it foolish and wrong that this supremacy should be demonstrated by action。 In other words
this pure intention is in reality a deception； which pretends to and demands an inner elevation； but
declares that it is superfluous； foolish； and even wrong to be in earnest in the matter； to put this
uplifting into concrete expression； into actual shape and form； and demonstrate its truth。
Pure insight thus denies itself both as pure insight — for it denies directly purposive action； and as
pure intention — for it denies the intention of proving its independence of the ends of individual
existence。
Thus； then； enlightenment makes belief learn what it means。 It takes on this appearance of being
bad； because just by the fact of relation to an external other it gives itself a negative reality； it
presents itself as the opposite of itself。 Pure insight and intention have to adopt this relational
attitude； however； for that is their actualization。
This realization appeared； in the first instance； as a negative reality。 Perhaps its positive reality is
better constituted。 Let us see how this stands。
If all prejudice and superstition have been banished； the question arises what next？ What is the
truth enlightenment has diffused in their stead？ It has already given expr