shorter logic-第32部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


what　it　is；　if　it　loses　its　quality。　Quantity；　on　the　contrary；　is　the　character　external　to　being；　and
does　not　affect　the　being　at　all。　Thus；　e。g。　a　house　remains　what　it　is；　whether　it　be　greater　or
smaller；　and　red　remains　red；　whether　it　be　brighter　or　darker。　

Measure；　the　third　grade　of　being；　which　is　the　unity　of　the　first　two；　is　a　qualitative　quantity。　All
things　have　their　measure：　i。e。　the　quantitative　terms　of　their　existence；　their　being　so　or　so　great；
does　not　matter　within　certain　limits；　but　when　these　limits　are　exceeded　by　an　additional　more　or
less；　the　things　cease　to　be　what　they　were。　From　measure　follows　the　advance　to　the　second
subdivision　of　the　idea；　Essence。　

The　three　forms　of　being　here　mentioned；　just　because　they　are　the　first；　are　also　the　poorest；　i。e。
the　most　abstract。　Immediate　（sensible）　consciousness；　in　so　far　as　it　simultaneously　includes　an
intellectual　element；　is　especially　restricted　to　the　abstract　categories　of　quality　and　quantity。　

The　sensuous　consciousness　is　in　ordinary　estimation　the　most　concrete　and　thus　also　the　richest；
but　that　is　true　only　as　regards　materials；　whereas；　in　reference　to　the　thought　it　contains；　it　is　really
the　poorest　and　most　abstract。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　A。　QUALITY
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（a）　Being
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　86

Pure　Being　makes　the　beginning：　because　it　is　on　the　one　hand　pure　thought；　and
on　the　other　immediacy　itself；　simple　and　indeterminate；　and　the　first　beginning
cannot　be　mediated　by　anything；　or　be　further　determined。　

All　doubts　and　admonitions；　which　might　be　brought　against　beginning　the　science
with　abstract　empty　being；　will　disappear　if　we　only　perceive　what　a　beginning
naturally　implies。　It　is　possible　to　define　being　as　'I　=　I'；　as　'Absolute　Indifference'
or　Identity；　and　so　on。　Where　it　is　felt　necessary　to　begin　either　with　what　is
absolutely　certain；　i。e。　certainty　of　oneself；　or　with　a　definition　or　intuition　of　the
absolute　truth；　these　and　other　forms　of　the　kind　may　be　looked　on　as　if　they
must　be　the　first。　But　each　of　these　forms　contains　a　mediation；　and　hence　cannot
be　the　real　first：　for　all　mediation　implies　advance　made　from　a　first　on　to　a
second；　and　proceeding　from　something　different。　If　I　=　I；　or　even　the　intellectual
intuition；　are　really　taken　to　mean　no　more　than　the　first；　they　are　in　this　mere
immediacy　identical　with　being：　while　conversely；　pure　being；　if　abstract　no
longer；　but　including　in　it　mediation；　is　pure　thought　or　intuition。　

If　we　enunciate　Being　as　a　predicate　of　the　Absolute；　we　get　the　first　definition　of
the　latter。　The　Absolute　is　Being。　This　is　（in　thought）　the　absolutely　initial
definition；　the　most　abstract　and　stinted。　It　is　the　definition　given　by　the　Eleatics；
but　at　the　same　time　is　also　the　well…known　definition　of　God　as　the　sum　of　all
realities。　It　means；　in　short；　that　we　are　to　set　aside　that　limitation　which　is　in
every　reality；　so　that　God　shall　be　only　the　real　in　all　reality；　the　superlatively　real。
Or；　if　we　reject　reality；　as　implying　a　reflection；　we　get　a　more　immediate　or
unreflected　statement　of　the　same　thing；　when　Jacobi　says　that　the　God　of
Spinoza　is　the　principium　of　being　in　all　existence。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　86n1

When　thinking　is　to　begin；　we　have　nothing　but　thought　in　its　merest　indeterminate：　for　we　cannot
determine　unless　there　is　both　one　and　another：　and　yet　in　the　beginning　there　is　yet　no　other。　The
indeterminate；　as　we　have　it；　is　the　blank　we　begin　with；　not　a　featurelessness　reached　by
abstraction；　not　the　elimination　of　all　character；　but　the　original　featurelessness　which　precedes　all
definite　character　and　is　the　very　first　of　all。　And　this　we　call　Being。　It　is　not　to　be　felt；　or　perceived
by　sense；　or　pictured　in　imagination：　it　is　only　and　merely　thought；　and　as　such　it　forms　the
beginning。　Essence　also　is　indeterminate；　but　in　another　sense：　it　has　traversed　the　process　of
mediation　and　contains　implicit　the　determination　it　has　absorbed。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　86n2

In　the　history　of　philosophy　the　different　stages　of　the　logical　idea　assume　the　shape　of　successive
systems；　each　based　on　a　particular　definition　of　the　Absolute。　As　the　logical　Idea　is　seen　to　unfold
itself　in　a　process　from　the　abstract　to　the　concrete；　so　in　the　history　of　philosophy　the　earliest
systems　are　the　most　abstract；　and　thus　at　the　same　time　the　poorest。　The　relation　too　of　the　earlier
to　the　later　systems　of　philosophy　is　much　like　the　relation　of　the　corresponding　stages　of　the
logical　Idea：　in　other　words；　the　earlier　are　preserved　in　the　later：　but　subordinated　and
submerged。　This　is　the　true　meaning　of　a　much　misunderstood　phenomenon　in　the　history　of
philosophy　—　the　refutation　of　one　system　by　another；　of　an　earlier　by　a　later。　Most　commonly　the
refutation　is　taken　in　a　purely　negative　sense　to　mean　that　the　system　refuted　has　ceased　to　count
for　anything；　has　been　set　aside　and　done　for。　Were　it　so；　the　history　of　philosophy　would　be；　of
all　studies；　most　saddening；　displaying；　as　it　does；　the　refutation　of　every　system　which　time　has
brought　forth。　Now　although　it　may　be　admitted　that　every　philosophy　has　been　refuted；　it　must　be
in　an　equal　degree　maintained　that　no　philosophy　has　been　refuted。　And　that　in　two　ways。　For　first；
every　philosophy　that　deserves　the　name　always　embodies　the　Idea：　and　secondly；　every　system
represents　one　particular　factor　or　particular　stage　in　the　evolution　of　the　Idea。　The　refutation　of　a
philosophy；　therefore；　only　means　that　its　barriers　are　crossed；　and　its　special　principle　reduced　to
a　factor　in　the　completer　principle　that　follows。　

Thus　the　history　of　philosophy；　in　its　true　meaning；　deals　not　with　a　past；　but　with　an　eternal　and
veritable　present：　and；　in　its　results；　resembles　not　a　museum　of　the　aberrations　of　the　human
intellect；　but　a　Pantheon　of　godlike　figures。　These　figures　of　gods　are　the　various　stages　of　the
Idea；　as　they　come　forward　one　after　another　in　dialectical　development。　

To　the　historian　of　philosophy　it　belongs　to　point　out　more　precisely　how　far　the　gradual　evolution
of　his　theme　coincides　with；　or　swerves　from；　the　dialectical　unfolding　of　the　pure　logical　Idea。　It　is
sufficient　to　mention　here；　that　logic　begins　where　the　proper　history　of　philosophy　begins。
Philosophy　began　in　the　Eleatic　school；　especially　with　Parmenides。　Parmenides；　who　conceives
the　absolute　as　Being；　says　that　'Being　alone　is　and　Nothing　is　not'。　Such　was　the　true　starting　point
of　philosophy；　which　is　always　knowledge　by　thought：　and　here　for　the　first　time　we　find　pure
thought　seized　and　made　an　object　to　itself。　

Men　indeed　thought　from　the　beginning　（for　thus　only　were　they　distinguished　from　the　animals）。
But　thousands　of　years　had　to　elapse　before　they　came　to　apprehend　thought　in　its　purity；　and　to
see　it　in　the　truly　objective。　The　Eleatics　are　celebrated　as　daring　thinkers。　But　this　nominal
admiration　is　often　accompanied　by　the　remark　that　they　went　too　far；　when　they　made　Being
alone　true；　and　denied　the　truth　of　every　other　object　of　consciousness。　We　must　go　further　than
mere　Being；　it　is　true：　and　yet　it　is　absurd　to　speak　of　the　other　contents　of　our　consciousness　as
somewhat　as　it　were　outside　and　beside　Being；　or　to　say　that　there　are　other　things；　as　well　as
Being。　The　true　state　of　the　case　is　rather　as　follows。　Being；　as　Being；　is　nothing　fixed　or　ultimate：　it
yields　to　dialectic　and　sinks　into　its　opposite；　which；　also　taken　immediately；　is　Nothing。　After　all；
the　point　is　that　Being　is　the　pure　Thought；　whatever　else　you　may　begin　with　（the　I　=　I；　the
absolute　indifference；　or　God　himself）；　you　begin　with　a　figure　of　materialised　conception；　not　a
product　of　thought；　and　that；　so　far　as　its　thought…content　is　concerned；　such　beginning　is　merely
Being。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　87

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Nothing

But　this　mere　Being；　as　it　is　mere　abstraction；　is　therefore　the　absolutely　negative：
which；　in　a　similarly　immediate　aspect；　is　just　Nothing。　

（1）　Hence　was　derived　the　second　definition　of　the　Absolute：　the　Absolute　is　the
Nought。　In　fact　this　definition　is　implied　in　saying　that　the　thing…in…itself　is　the
indeterminate；　utterly　without　form　and　so　without　content　…　or　in　saying　that　God
is　only　the　supreme　Being　and　nothing　more；　for　this　is　really　declaring　him　to　be
the　same　negativity　as　above。　The　Nothing　which　the　Buddhists　make　the
universal　principle；　as　well　as　the　final　aim　and　goal　of　everything；　is　the　same
abstraction。　

（2）　If　the　opposition　in　thought　is　stated　in　this　immediacy　as　Being　and　Nothing；
the　shock　of　its　nullity　is　too　great　not　to　stimulate　the　attempt　to　fix　Being　and
secure　it　against　the　transition　into　Nothing。　

With　this　intent；　reflection　has　recourse　to　the　plan　of　discovering　some　fixed
predicate　for　Being；　to　mark　it　off　from　Nothing。　Thus　we　find　Being　identified
with　what　persists　amid　all　change；　with　matter；　susceptible　of　innumerable
determinations　…　or　even；　unreflectingly；　with　a　single　existence；　any　chance
object　of　the　senses　or　of　the　mind。　But　every　additional　and　more　concrete
characterisation　causes　Being　to　lose　that　integrity　and　simplicity　it　had　in　the
beginning。　Only　in；　and　by　virtue　of；　this　mere　generality　is　it　Nothing；　something
inexpressible；　whereof　the　distinction　from　Nothing　is　a　mere　intention　or
meaning。　

All　that　is　wanted　is　to　realise　that　these　beginnings　are　nothing　but　these　empty
abstractions；　one　as　empty　as　the　other。　The　instinct　that　induces　us　to　attach　a
settled　import　to　Being；　or　to　both；　is　the　very　necessity　which　leads　to　the
onward　movement　of　Being　and　Nothing；　and　gives　them　a　true　or　concrete
significance。　This　advance　is　the　logical　deduction　and　the　movement　of　thought
exhibited　in　the　sequel。　The　reflection　which　finds　a　profounder　connotation　for
Being　and　Nothing　is　nothing　but　logical　thought；　through　which　such　connotation
is　evolved；　not；　however；　in　an　accidental；　but　a　necessary　way。　

Every　signification；　therefore；　in　which　they　after