shorter logic-第43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！


morality。　From　this　sort　of　party…pleading；　Dialectic　is　wholly　different；　its　purpose　is　to　study
things　in　their　own　being　and　movement　and　thus　to　demonstrate　the　finitude　of　the　partial
categories　of　understanding。　

Dialectic；　it　may　be　added；　is　no　novelty　in　philosophy。　Among　the　ancients　Plato　is　termed　the
inventor　of　Dialectic；　and　his　right　to　the　name　rests　on　the　fact　that　the　Platonic　philosophy　first
gave　the　free　scientific；　and　thus　at　the　same　time　the　objective；　form　to　Dialectic。　Socrates；　as　we
should　expect　from　the　general　character　of　his　philosophising；　has　the　dialectical　element　in　a
predominantly　subjective　shape；　that　of　Irony。　He　used　to　turn　Dialectic；　first　against　ordinary
consciousness；　and　then　especially　against　the　Sophists。　In　his　conversations　he　used　to　simulate
the　wish　for　some　clearer　knowledge　about　the　subject　under　discussion；　and　after　putting　all　sorts
of　questions　with　that　intent；　he　drew　those　with　whom　he　conversed　to　the　opposite　of　what　their
first　impressions　had　pronounced　correct。　

If；　for　instance；　the　Sophists　claimed　to　be　teachers；　Socrates　by　a　series　of　questions　forced　the
Sophist　Protagoras　to　confess　that　all　learning　is　only　recollection。　In　his　more　strictly　scientific
dialogues；　Plato　employs　the　dialectical　method　to　show　the　finitude　of　all　hard　and　fast　terms　of
understanding。　Thus　in　the　Parmenides　he　deduces　the　many　from　the　one。　In　this　grand　style　did
Plato　treat　Dialectic。　In　modern　times　it　was；　more　than　any　other；　Kant　who　resuscitated　the
name　of　Dialectic；　and　restored　it　to　its　post　of　honour。　He　did　it；　as　we　have　seen；　by　working　out
the　Antinomies　of　the　reason。　The　problem　of　these　Antinomies　is　no　mere　subjective　piece　of
work　oscillating　between　one　set　of　grounds　and　another；　it　really　serves　to　show　that　every
abstract　proposition　of　understanding；　taken　precisely　as　it　is　given；　naturally　veers　round　to　its
opposite。　

However　reluctant　Understanding　may　be　to　admit　the　action　of　Dialectic；　we　must　not　suppose
that　the　recognition　of　its　existence　is　peculiarly　confined　to　the　philosopher。　It　would　be　truer　to
say　that　Dialectic　gives　expression　to　a　law　which　is　felt　in　all　other　grades　of　consciousness；　and　in
general　experience。　Everything　that　surrounds　us　may　be　viewed　as　an　instance　of　Dialectic。　We
are　aware　that　everything　finite；　instead　of　being　stable　and　ultimate；　is　rather　changeable　and
transient；　and　this　is　exactly　what　we　mean　by　that　Dialectic　of　the　finite；　by　which　the　finite；　as
implicitly　other　than　what　it　is；　is　forced　beyond　its　own　immediate　or　natural　being　to　turn
suddenly　into　its　opposite。　

We　have　。。。　identified　Understanding　with　what　is　implied　in　the　popular　idea　of　the　goodness　of
God；　we　may　now　remark　of　Dialectic；　the　in　same　objective　signification；　that　its　principle
answers　to　the　idea　of　his　power。　All　things；　we　say　…　that　is；　the　finite　world　as　such　…　are
doomed；　in　saying　so；　we　have　a　vision　of　Dialectic　as　the　universal　and　irresistible　power　before
which　nothing　can　stay；　however　secure　and　stable　it　may　deem　itself。　The　category　of　power　does
not；　it　is　true；　exhaust　the　depth　of　the　divine　nature　of　the　notion　of　；　but　it　certainly　forms　a　vital
element　in　all　religious　consciousness。　

Apart　from　this　general　objectivity　of　Dialectic；　we　find　traces　of　its　presence　in　each　of　the
particular　provinces　and　phases　of　the　natural　and　spiritual　world。　Take　as　an　illustration　the
motion　of　the　heavenly　bodies。　At　this　moment　the　planet　stands　in　this　spot；　but　implicitly　it　is　the
possibility　of　being　in　another　spot；　and　that　possibility　of　being　otherwise　the　planet　brings　into
existence　by　moving。　Similarly　the　'physical'　elements　prove　to　be　Dialectical。　The　process　of
meteorological　action　is　the　exhibition　of　their　Dialectic。　It　is　the　same　dynamic　that　lies　at　the　root
of　every　natural　process；　and；；　as　it　were；　forces　nature　out　of　itself。　

To　illustrate　the　presence　of　Dialectic　in　the　spiritual　world；　especially　in　the　provinces　of　law　and
morality；　we　have　only　to　recollect　how　general　experience　shows　us　the　extreme　of　one　state　or
action　suddenly　into　its　opposite：　a　Dialectic　which　is　recognised　in　many　ways　in　common
proverbs。　The　summum　jus　summa　injuria；　which　means　that　to　drive　an　abstract　right　to　its
extremity　is　to　do　a　wrong。　

In　political　life；　as　every　one　knows；　extreme　anarchy　and　extreme　despotism　naturally　lead　to　one
another。　The　perception　of　Dialectic　in　the　province　of　individual　Ethics　is　seen　in　the　well…known
adages：　〃Pride　comes　before　a　fall〃；　〃Too　much　wit　outwits　itself〃。　Even　feeling；　bodily　as　well　as
mental；　has　its　dialectic。　Everyone　knows　how　the　extremes　of　pain　and　pleasure　pass　into　each
other：　the　heart　overflowing　with　joy　seeks　relief　in　tears；　and　the　deepest　melancholy　will　at　times
betray　its　presence　by　a　smile。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　81n2

Scepticism　should　not　be　looked　upon　merely　as　a　doctrine　of　doubt。　It　would　be　more　correct　to
say　that　the　Sceptic　has　no　doubt　of　his　point；　which　is　the　nothingness　of　all　finite　existence。　He
who　only　doubts　still　clings　to　the　hope　that　his　doubt　may　be　resolved；　and　that　one　or　other　of
the　definite　views；　between　which　he　wavers；　will　turn　out　solid　and　true。　Scepticism　properly　so
called　is　a　very　different　thing：　its　is　complete　hopelessness　about　all　which　understanding　counts
stable；　and　the　feeling　to　which　it　gives　birth　is　one　of　unbroken　calmness　and　inward　repose。　Such
at　least　is　the　noble　Scepticism　of　antiquity；　especially　as　exhibited　in　the　writings　of　Sextus
Empiricus；　when　in　the　later　times　of　Rome　it　had　been　systematised　as　a　complement　to　the
dogmatic　systems　of　Stoic　and　Epicurean。　

Of　far　other　stamp；　and　to　be　strictly　distinguished　from　it；　is　the　modern　Scepticism　。。。；　which
partly　preceded　the　Critical　Philosophy；　and　partly　sprang　out　of　it。　That　later　Scepticism　consisted
solely　in　denying　the　truth　and　certitude　of　the　supersensible；　and　in　pointing　to　the　facts　of　sense
and　of　immediate　sensations　as　what　we　have　to　keep　to。　

Even　to　this　day　Scepticism　is　often　spoken　of　as　the　irresistible　enemy　of　all　positive　knowledge；
and　hence　of　philosophy；　in　so　far　as　philosophy　is　concerned　with　positive　knowledge。　But　in
these　statements　there　is　a　misconception。　It　is　only　the　finite　thought　of　abstract　understanding
which　has　to　fear　Scepticism；　because　unable　to　withstand　it：　philosophy　includes　the　sceptical
principle　as　a　subordinate　function　of　its　own；　in　the　shape　of　Dialectic。　In　contradistinction　to　mere
scepticism；　however；　philosophy　does　not　remain　content　with　the　purely　negative　result　of
Dialectic。　

The　sceptic　mistakes　the　true　value　of　his　result；　when　he　supposes　it　to　be　no　more　than　a
negation　pure　and　simple。　For　the　negative　which　emerges　as　the　result　of　dialectic　is；　because　a
result；　at　the　same　time　positive：　it　contains　what　it　results　from；　absorbed　into　itself；　and　made　part
of　its　own　nature。　Thus　conceived；　however；　the　dialectical　stage　has　the　features　characterising
the　third　grade　of　logical　truth；　the　speculative　form