shorter logic-第16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！


perceives　and　wills。　Man　is　a　thinker；　and　is　universal；　but　he　is　a　thinker　only　because　he　feels　his
own　universality。　The　animal　too　is　by　implication　universal；　but　the　universal　is　not　consciously　felt
by　it　to　be　universal：　it　feels　only　the　individual。　The　animal　sees　a　singular　object；　for　instance；　its
food；　or　a　man。　For　the　animal　all　this　never　goes　beyond　an　individual　thing。　Similarly；　sensation
has　to　do　with　nothing　but　singulars；　such　as　this　pain　or　this　sweet　taste。　Nature　does　not　bring　its
nous　into　consciousness：　it　is　man　who　first　makes　himself　double　so　as　to　be　a　universal　for　a
universal。　This　first　happens　when　man　knows　that　he　is　'I'。　By　the　term　'I'　I　mean　myself；　a　single
and　altogether　determinate　person。　And　yet　I　really　utter　nothing　peculiar　to　myself；　for　every　one
else　is　an　'I'　or　'Ego'；　and　when　I　call　myself　'I'；　though　I　indubitably　mean　the　single　person　myself；
I　express　a　thorough　universal。　'I'；　therefore；　is　mere　being…for…self；　in　which　everything　peculiar　or
marked　is　renounced　and　buried　out　of　sight；　it　is　as　it　were　the　ultimate　and　unanalysable　point　of
consciousness。　We　may　say　'I'　and　thought　are　the　same；　or；　more　definitely；　'I'　is　thought　as　a
thinker。　What　I　have　in　my　consciousness　is　for　me。　'I'　is　the　vacuum　or　receptacle　for　anything
and　everything：　for　which　everything　is　and　which　stores　up　everything　in　itself。　Every　man　is　a
whole　world　of　conceptions；　that　lie　buried　in　the　night　of　the　'Ego'。　It　follows　that　the　'Ego'　is　the
universal　in　which　we　leave　aside　all　that　is　particular；　and　in　which　at　the　same　time　all　the
particulars　have　a　latent　existence。　In　other　words；　it　is　not　a　mere　universality　and　nothing　more；
but　the　universality　which　includes　in　it　everything。　Commonly　we　use　the　word　'I'　without　attaching
much　importance　to　it；　nor　is　it　an　object　of　study　except　to　philosophical　analysis。　In　the　'Ego'；　we
have　thought　before　us　in　its　utter　purity。　While　the　brute　cannot　say　'I'；　man　can；　because　it　is　his
nature　to　think。　Now　in　the　'Ego'　there　are　a　variety　of　contents；　derived　both　from　within　and　from
without；　and　according　to　the　nature　of　these　contents　our　state　may　be　described　as　perception；
or　conception；　or　reminiscence。　But　in　all　of　them　the　'I'　is　found：　or　in　them　all　thought　is　present。
Man；　therefore；　is　always　thinking；　even　in　his　perceptions：　if　he　observes　anything；　he　always
observes　it　as　a　universal；　fixes　on　a　single　point　which　he　places　in　relief；　thus　withdrawing　his
attention　from　other　points；　and　takes　it　as　abstract　and　universal；　even　if　the　universality　be　only　in
form。

In　the　case　of　our　ordinary　conceptions；　two　things　may　happen。　Either　the　contents　are　moulded
by　thought；　but　not　the　form；　or；　the　form　belongs　to　thought　and　not　the　contents。　In　using　such
terms；　for　instance；　as　anger；　rose；　hope；　I　am　speaking　of　things　which　I　have　learnt　in　the　way　of
sensation；　but　I　express　these　contents　in　a　universal　mode；　that　is；　in　the　form　of　thought。　I　have
left　out　much　that　is　particular　and　given　the　contents　in　their　generality：　but　still　the　contents　remain
sense…derived。　On　the　other　hand；　when　I　represent　God；　the　content　is　undeniably　a　product　of
pure　thought；　but　the　form　still　retains　the　sensuous　limitations　which　it　has　as　I　find　it　immediately
present　in　myself。　In　these　generalised　images　the　content　is　not　merely　and　simply　sensible；　as　it　is
in　a　visual　inspection；　but　either　the　content　is　sensuous　and　the　form　appertains　to　thought；　or　vice
versa。　In　the　first　case　the　material　is　given　to　us；　and　our　thought　supplies　the　form：　in　the　second
case　the　content　which　has　its　source　in　thought　is　by　means　of　the　form　turned　into　a　something
given；　which　accordingly　reaches　the　mind　from　without。　

（2）　Logic　is　the　study　of　thought　pure　and　simple；　or　of　the　pure　thought…forms。　In　the　ordinary
sense　of　the　term；　by　thought　we　generally　represent　to　ourselves　something　more　than　simple　and
unmixed　thought；　we　mean　some　thought；　the　material　of　which　is　from　experience。　Whereas　in
logic　a　thought　is　understood　to　include　nothing　else　but　what　depends　on　thinking　and　what
thinking　has　brought　into　existence。　It　is　in　these　circumstances　that　thoughts　are　pure　thoughts。
The　mind　is　then　in　its　own　home…element　and　therefore　free；　for　freedom　means　that　the　other
thing　with　which　you　deal　is　a　second　self　…　so　that　you　never　leave　your　own　ground　but　give　the
law　to　yourself。　In　the　impulses　or　appetites　the　beginning　is　from　something　else；　from　something
which　we　feel　to　be　external。　In　this　case　then　we　speak　of　dependence。　For　freedom　it　is
necessary　that　we　should　feel　no　presence　of　something　else　which　is　not　ourselves。　The　natural
man；　whose　motions　follow　the　rule　only　of　his　appetites；　is　not　his　own　master。　Be　he　as
self…willed　as　he　may；　the　constituents　of　his　will　and　opinion　are　not　his　own；　and　his　freedom　is
merely　formal。　But　when　we　think；　we　renounce　our　selfish　and　particular　being；　sink　ourselves　in
the　thing；　allow　thought　to　follow　its　own　course；　and　if　we　add　anything　of　our　own；　we　think　ill。　

If　in　pursuance　of　the　foregoing　remarks　we　consider　Logic　to　be　the　system　of　the　pure　types　of
thought；　we　find　that　the　other　philosophical　sciences；　the　Philosophy　of　Nature　and　the
Philosophy　of　Mind；　take　the　place；　as　it　were；　of　an　Applied　Logic；　and　that　Logic　is　the　soul
which　animates　them　both。　Their　problem　in　that　case　is　only　to　recognise　the　logical　forms　under
the　shapes　they　assume　in　Nature　and　Mind　…　shapes　which　are　only　a　particular　mode　of
expression　for　the　forms　of　pure　thought。　If　for　instance　we　take　the　syllogism　（not　as　it　was
understood　in　the　old　formal　logic；　but　as　its　real　value）；　we　shall　find　it　gives　expression　to　the　law
that　the　particular　is　the　middle　term　which　fuses　together　the　extremes　of　the　universal　and　the
singular。　The　syllogistic　form　is　a　universal　form　of　all　things。　Everything　that　exists　is　a　particular；
which　couples　together　the　universal　and　the　singular。　But　Nature　is　weak　and　fails　to　exhibit　the
logical　forms　in　their　purity。　Such　a　feeble　exemplification　of　the　syllogism　may　be　seen　in　the
magnet。　In　the　middle　or　point　of　indifference　of　a　magnet；　its　two　poles；　however　they　may　be
distinguished；　are　brought　into　one。　Physics　also　teaches　us　to　see　the　universal　or　essence　in
Nature：　and　the　only　difference　between　it　and　the　Philosophy　of　Nature　is　that　the　latter　brings
before　our　mind　the　adequate　forms　of　the　notion　in　the　physical　world。

It　will　now　be　understood　that　Logic　is　the　all…animating　spirit　of　all　the　sciences；　and　its　categories
the　spiritual　hierarchy。　They　are　the　heart　and　centre　of　things：　and　yet　at　the　same　time　they　are
always　on　our　lips；　and；　apparently　at　least；　perfectly　familiar　objects。　But　things　thus　familiar　are
usually　the　greatest　strangers。　Being；　for　example；　is　a　category　of　pure　thought：　but　to　make　'is'　an
object　of　investigation　never　occurs　to　us。　Common　fancy　puts　the　Absolute　far　away　in　a　world
beyond。　The　Absolute　is　rather　directly　before　us；　so　present　that　so　long　as　we　think；　we　must；
though　without　e