shorter logic-第51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！


stability。　Touched；　so　to　speak；　by　the　infinite；　it　would　be　annihilated。　But　it
must　not　be　touched　by　the　infinite。　There　must　be　an　abyss；　an　impassable　gulf
between　the　two；　with　the　infinite　abiding　on　yonder　side　and　the　finite　steadfast
on　this。　Those　who　attribute　to　the　finite　this　inflexible　persistence　in　comparison
with　the　infinite　are　not；　as　they　imagine；　far　above　metaphysic：　they　are　still　on
the　level　of　the　most　ordinary　metaphysic　of　understanding。　For　the　same　thing
occurs　here　as　in　the　infinite　progression。　At　one　time　it　is　admitted　that　the　finite
has　no　independent　actuality；　no　absolute　being；　no　root　and　development　of　its
own；　but　is　only　a　transient。　But　next　moment　this　is　straightway　forgotten；　the
finite；　made　a　mere　counterpart　to　the　infinite；　wholly　separated　from　it；　and
rescued　from　annihilation；　is　conceived　to　be　persistent　in　its　independence。　While
thought　thus　imagines　itself　elevated　to　the　infinite；　it　meets　with　the　opposite　fate：
it　comes　to　an　infinite　which　is　only　a　finite；　and　the　finite；　which　it　had　left
behind；　has　always　to　be　retained　and　made　into　an　absolute。　

After　this　examination　（with　which　it　were　well　to　compare　…Plato's　Philebus）；
tending　to　show　the　nullity　of　the　distinction　made　by　understanding　between　the
finite　and　the　infinite；　we　are　liable　to　glide　into　the　statement　that　the　infinite　and
the　finite　are　therefore　one；　and　that　the　genuine　infinity；　the　truth；　must　be
defined　and　enunciated　as　the　unity　of　the　finite　and　infinite。　Such　a　statement
would　be　to　some　extent　correct；　but　is　just　as　open　to　perversion　and　falsehood
as　the　unity　of　Being　and　Nothing　already　noticed。　Besides　it　may　very　fairly　be
charged　with　reducing　the　infinite　to　finitude　and　making　a　finite　infinite。　For；　so
far　as　the　expression　goes；　the　finite　seems　left　in　its　place…it　is　not　expressly
stated　to　be　absorbed。　Or；　if　we'　reflect　that　the　finite；　when　identified　with　the
infinite；　certainly　cannot　remain　what　it　was　out　of　such　unity；　and　will　at　least
suffer　some　change　in　its　characteristics　（as　an　alkali；　when　combined　with　an
acid；　loses　some　of　its　properties）；　we　must　see　that　the　same　fate　awaits　the
infinite；　which；　as　the　negative；　will　on　its　part　likewise　have　its　edge；　as　it　were；
taken　off　on　the　other。　And　this　does　really　happen　with　the　abstract　one…sided
infinite　of　understanding。　The　genuine　infinite　however　is　not　merely　in　the
position　of　the　one…sided　acid；　and　so　does　not　lose　itself。　The　negation　of
negation　is　not　a　neutralisation：　the　infinite　is　the　affirmative；　and　it　is　only　the
finite　which　is　absorbed。　

In　Being…for…self　enters　the　category　of　Ideality。　Being…there…and…then；　as　in　the
first　instance　apprehended　in　its　being　or　affirmation；　has　reality　（§　91）；　and　thus
even　finitude　in　the　first　instance　is　in　the　category　of　reality。　But　the　truth　of　the
finite　is　rather　its　ideality。　Similarly；　the　infinite　of　understanding；　which　is
coordinated　with　the　finite；　is　itself　only　one　of　two　finites；　no　whole　truth；　but　a
non…substantial　element。　This　ideality　of　the　finite　is　the　chief　maxim　of
philosophy；　and　for　that　reason　every　genuine　philosophy　is　idealism。　But
everything　depends　upon　not　taking　for　the　infinite　what；　in　the　very　terms　of　its
characterisation；　is　at　the　same　time　made　a　particular　and　finite。　For　this；　reason
we　have　bestowed　a　greater　amount　of　attention　on　this。　distinction。　The
fundamental　notion　of　philosophy；　the　genuine　infinite；　depends　upon　it。　The
distinction　is　cleared　up　by　the　simple；　and　for　that　reason　seemingly　insignificant；
but　incontrovertible　reflections　contained　in　the　first　paragraph　of　this　section。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（c）　Being…for…self
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　96

Being…for…self；　as　reference　to　itself；　is　immediacy；　and　as　reference　of　the
negative　to　itself；　is　a　self…subsistent；　the　One。　This　unit；　being　without　distinction
in　itself；　thus　excludes　the　other　from　itself。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　96n
To　be　for　self　…　to　be　one　…　is　completed　Quality；　and　as　such；　contains　abstract　Being　and　Being
modified　a　non…substantial　elements。　As　simple　Being；　the　One　is　simple　self…reference；　as　Being
modified　it　is　determinate：　but　the　determinateness　is　not　in　this　case　a　finite　determinateness　…　a
somewhat　in　distinction　from　an　other　…　but　infinite；　because　it　contains　distinction　absorbed　and
annulled　in　itself。　

The　readiest　instance　of　Being…for…self　is　found　in　the　'I'。　We　know　ourselves　as　existents；
distinguished　in　the　first　place　from　other　existents；　and　with　certain　relations　thereto。　But　we　also
come　to　know　this　expansion　of　existence　（in　these　relations）　reduced；　as　it　were；　to　a　point　in　the
simple　form　of　being…for…self。　When　we　say　'I'；　we　express　this　reference…to…self　which　is　infinite；
and　at　the　same　time　negative。　Man；　it　may　be　said；　is　distinguished　from　the　animal　world；　and　in
that　way　from　our　nature　altogether；　by　knowing　himself　as　'I'：　which　amounts　to　saying　that　natural
things　never　attain　free　Being…for…self；　but　as　limited　to　Being…there…and…then；　are　always　and　only
Being　for　another。　

Again；　Being…for…self　may　be　described　as　ideality；　just　as　Being…there…and…then　was　described　as
reality。　It　is　said　that　besides　reality　there　is　also　an　ideality。　Thus　the　two　categories　are　made
equal　and　parallel。　Properly　speaking；　ideality　is　not　somewhat　outside　of　and　beside　reality：　the
notion　of　ideality　just　lies　in　its　being　the　truth　of　reality。　That　is　to　say；　when　reality　is　explicitly　put
as　what　it　implicitly　is；　it　is　at　once　seen　to　be　ideality。　Hence　ideality　has　not　received　its　proper
estimation；　when　you　allow　that　reality　is　not　all　in　all；　but　that　an　ideality　must　be　recognised
outside　of　it。　Such　an　ideality；　external　to　or　it　may　even　be　beyond　reality；　would　be　no　better
than　an　empty　name。　Ideality　only　has　a　meaning　when　it　is　the　ideality　of　something：　but　this
something　is　not　a　mere　indefinite　this　or　that；　but　existence　characterised　as　reality；　which；　if
retained　in　isolation；　possesses　no　truth。　The　distinction　between　Nature　and　Mind　is　not
improperly　conceived；　when　the　former　is　traced　back　to　reality；　and　the　latter　so　fixed　and
complete　as　to　subsist　even　without　Mind：　in　Mind　it　first；　as　it　were；　attains　its　goal　and　its　truth。
And　similarly；　Mind　on　its　part　is　not　merely　a　world　beyond　Nature　and　nothing　more：　it　is　really；
and　with　full　proof；　seen　to　be　mind；　only　when　it　involves　Nature　as　absorbed　in　itself。　Apropos
of　this；　we　should　note　the　double　meaning　of　the　German　word　aufheben　（to　put　by　or　set　aside）。
We　mean　by　it　（1）　to　clear　away；　or　annul：　thus；　we　say；　a　law　or　regulation　is　set　aside；　（2）　to
keep；　or　preserve：　in　which　sense　we　use　it　when　we　say：　something　is　well　put　by。　This　double
usage　of　language；　which　gives　to　the　same　word　a　positive　and　negative　meaning；　is　not　an
accident；　and　gives　no　ground　for　reproaching　language　as　a　cause　of　confusion。　We　should　rather
recognise　in　it　the　speculative　spirit　of　our　language　rising　above　the　me　'either…or'　of
understanding。