友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
飞读中文网 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

philosophy of right-第34章

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!



for the established order is more or less lacking; man insists on having the authoritative as his will;
as that to which he has granted recognition。 

                                 § 139。 

Once self…consciousness has reduced all otherwise valid duties to emptiness and
itself to the sheer inwardness of the will; it has become the potentiality of either
making the absolutely universal its principle; or equally well of elevating above the
universal the self…will of private particularity; taking that as its principle and
realising it through its actions; i。e。 it has become potentially evil。 

Remark: To have a conscience; if conscience is only formal subjectivity; is simply to be on the
verge of slipping into evil; in independent self…certainty; with its independence of knowledge and
decision; both morality and evil have their common root。 

The origin of evil in general is to be found in the mystery of freedom (i。e。 in the speculative aspect
of freedom); the mystery whereby freedom of necessity arises out of the natural level of the will
and is something inward in comparison with that level。 It is this natural level of the will which
comes into existence as a self…contradiction; as incompatible with itself in this opposition; and so it
is just this particularity of the will which later makes itself evil。 That is to say; particularity is always
duality; here it is the opposition of the natural level and the inwardness of the will。 In this
opposition; the latter is only a relative and abstract subjectivity which can draw its content only
from the determinate content of the natural will; from desire; impulse; inclination; &c。 Now it is
said of these desires; impulses; &c。; that they may be either good or evil。 But since the will here
makes into a determinant of its content both these impulses in this contingent character which they
possess as natural; and also; therefore; the form which it has at this point; the form of particularity
itself; it follows that it is set in opposition to the universal as inner objectivity; to the good; which
comes on the scene as the opposite extreme to immediate objectivity; the natural pure and simple;
as soon as the will is reflected into itself and consciousness is a knowing consciousness。 It is in this
opposition that this inwardness of the will is evil。 Man is therefore evil by a conjunction between
his natural or undeveloped character and his reflection into himself; and therefore evil belongs
neither to nature as such by itself … unless nature were supposed to be the natural character of the
will which rests in its particular content … nor to introverted reflection by itself; i。e。 cognition in
general; unless this were to maintain itself in that opposition to the universal。 

With this facet of evil; its necessity; there is inevitably combined the fact that this same evil is
condemned to be that which of necessity ought not to be; i。e。 the fact that evil ought to be
annulled。 It is not that there ought never to be a diremption of any sort in the will … on the contrary;
it is just this level of diremption which distinguishes man from the unreasoning animal; the point is
that the will should not rest at that level and cling to the particular as if that and not the universal
were the essential thing; it should overcome the diremption as a nullity。 Further; as to this necessity
of evil; it is subjectivity; as infinite self…reflection; which is present in and confronted by this
opposition of universal and particular; if it rests in this opposition; i。e。 if it is evil; then it is eo ipso
independent; regarding itself as isolated; and is itself this Self…Will。 Therefore if the individual
subject as such does evil; the evil is purely and simply his own responsibility。 

Addition: The abstract self…certainty which knows itself as the basis of everything has in it the
potentiality either of willing the universality of the concept or alternatively of taking a particular
content as a principle and realising that。 The second alternative is evil; which therefore always
includes the abstraction of self…certainty。 It is only man who is good; and he is good only because
he can also be evil。 Good and evil are inseparable; and their inseparability is rooted in the fact that
the concept becomes an object to itself; and as object it eo ipso acquires the character of
difference。 The evil will wills something opposed to the universality of the will; while the good will
acts in accordance with its true concept。 

The difficulty of the question as to how the will can be evil as well as good usually arises because
we think of the will as related to itself purely positively and because we represent its volition as
something determinate confronting it; as the good。 But the problem of the origin of evil may be
more precisely put in the form: 'How does the negative come into the positive?' If we begin by
presupposing that in the creation of the world God is the absolutely positive; then; turn where we
will; we shall never discover the negative within that positive; since to talk of God's 'Permitting' evil
is to ascribe to him a passive relation to evil which is unsatisfactory and meaningless。 In the
representative thinking of religious mythology there is no comprehension of the origin of evil; i。e。
the positive and the negative are not discovered in one another; there is only a representation of
their succession and juxtaposition; so that it is from outside that the negative comes to the positive。
But this cannot satisfy thought; which demands a reason and a necessity and insists on
apprehending the negative as itself rooted in the positive。 Now the solution of the problem; the
way the concept treats the matter; is already contained in the concept; since the concept; or to
speak more concretely; the Idea; has it in its essence to differentiate itself and to posit itself
negatively。 If we adhere to the purely positive; i。e。 if we rest in the unmixed good which is
supposed to be good at its source; then we are accepting an empty category of the Understanding
which clings to abstractions and one…sided categories of this kind and by the very asking of this
question makes it a difficult one。 If we begin with the standpoint of the concept; however; we
apprehend the positive as activity and as self…distinction。 Evil and good alike have their origin in the
will and the will in its concept is both good and evil。 

The natural will is implicitly the contradiction of self…distinction; of being both inwardness and also
self…awareness。 To maintain then that evil implies the further point that man is evil in so far as his
will is natural would be to contradict the usual idea that it is just the natural will which is guiltless
and good。 But the natural will stands in opposition to the content of freedom; and the child and the
uneducated man; whose wills are only natural; are for that very reason liable to be called to
account for their actions only in a less degree。 Now when we speak of man; we mean not the child
but the self…conscious adult; and when we speak of good; we mean the knowledge of it。 It is
doubtless true that the natural is inherently innocent
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!