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！
Further； if the state is to come into existence as the self…knowing ethical actuality of mind； it is
essential that its form should be distinct from that of authority and faith。 But this distinction emerges
only in so far as the church is subjected to inward divisions。 It is only thereafter that the state； in
contrast with the particular sects； has attained to universality of thought … its formal principle … and
is bringing this universality into existence。 （In order to understand this； it is necessary to know not
only what universality is in itself； but also what its existence is。 Hence so far from its being or its
having been a misfortune for the state that the church is disunited； it is only as a result of that
disunion that the state has been able to reach its appointed end as a self…consciously rational and
ethical organisation。 Moreover； this disunion is the best piece of good fortune which could have
befallen either the church or thought so far as the freedom and rationality of either is concerned）。
Addition： The state is actual； and its actuality consists in this； that the interest of the whole is
realised in and through particular ends。 Actuality is always the unity of universal and particular； the
universal dismembered in the particulars which seem to be self…subsistent； although they really are
upheld and contained only in the whole。 Where this unity is not present； a thing is not actual even
though it may have acquired existence。 A bad state is one which merely exists； a sick body exists
too； but it has no genuine reality。 A hand which is cut off still looks like a hand； and it exists； but
without being actual。 Genuine actuality is necessity； what is actual is inherently necessary。
Necessity consists in this； that the whole is sundered into the differences of the concept and that
this divided whole yields a fixed and permanent determinacy； though one which is not fossilised but
perpetually recreates itself in its dissolution。
To a mature state thought and consciousness essentially belong。 Therefore the state knows what it
wills and knows it as something thought。 Now since knowing has its seat in the state； the seat of
science must be there too and not in the church。 Despite this； it is often said nowadays that the
state must grow out of religion。 The state is mind fully mature and it exhibits its moments in the
daylight of consciousness。 Now the fact that what is hidden in the Idea steps forth into objective
existence gives the state the appearance of something finite； and so the state reveals itself as a
domain of worldliness； while religion displays itself as a domain of the infinite。 If this be so； the
state seems to be the subordinate； and since what is finite cannot stand on its own feet； the state is
therefore said to need the church as its basis。 As finite； it lacks justification； and it is only through
religion that it can become sacrosanct and pertain to the infinite。 This handling of the matter；
however； is supremely one…sided。 Of course the state is essentially worldly and finite； it has
particular ends and particular powers； but its worldly character is only one of its aspects； and it is
only to an unintelligent superficial glance that it is finite and nothing more。 For the state has a
life…giving soul； and the soul which animates it is subjectivity； which creates differences and yet at
the same time holds them together in unity。 In the realm of religion too there are distinctions and
limitations。 God； it is said； is triune； thus there are three persons whose unity alone is Spirit （Geist）。
Therefore to apprehend the nature of God concretely is to apprehend it through distinctions alone。
Hence in the kingdom of God there are limitations； just as there are in the world； and to hold that
mind （Geist） on earth； i。e。 the state； is only a finite mind； is a one…sided view； since there is nothing
irrational about actuality。 Of course a bad state is worldly and finite and nothing else； but the
rational state is inherently infinite。
Secondly； it is averred that the state must deny e its justification from religion。 In religion； the Idea
is mind in the inwardness of the heart； but it is this same Idea which gives itself a worldly form as
the state and fashions for itself an embodiment and an actuality in knowing and willing。 Now if you
say that the state must be grounded on religion； you may mean that it should rest on rationality and
arise out of it； but your statement may also be misunderstood to mean that men are most adroitly
schooled to obedience if their minds are shackled by a slavish religion。 （The Christian religion；
however； is the religion of freedom； though it must be admitted that this religion may become
changed in character and perverted from freedom to bondage when it is infected with
superstition。） Now if you mean that men must have religion so that their minds； already shackled；
may the more easily be oppressed by the state； then the purport of your statement is bad。 But if
you mean that men ought to respect the state； this whole whose limbs they are； then of course the
best means of effecting this is to give them philosophical insight into the essence of the state；
though； in default of that； a religious frame of mind may lead to the same result。 For this reason； the
state may have need of religion and faith。 But the state remains essentially distinct from religion；
since whatever it claims； it claims in the form of a legal duty； and it is a matter of indifference to it in
what spirit that duty is performed。 The field of religion； on the other hand； is the inner life； and just
as the state would jeopardise the right of that life if； like religion； it made claims on it； so also when
the church acts like a state and imposes penalties； it degenerates into a religion of tyranny。
A third difference which is connected with the foregoing is that the content of religion is and
remains veiled； and consequently religion's place is in the field of the heart； feeling； and
representative thinking。 In this field everything has the form of subjectivity。 The state； on the other
hand； actualises itself and gives its specific institutions a stable； objective； existence。 Now if
religious feeling wished to assert itself in the state in the same way as it is wont to do in its own
field； it would overturn the organisation of the state； because the different organs of the state have
latitude to pursue their several distinct paths； while in religion everything is always referred back to
the whole。 If this whole； then； wished to engulf all the concerns of the state； this would be
tantamount to fanaticism； the wish to have the whole in every particular could be fulfilled only by
the destruction of the particular； and fanaticism is just the refusal to give scope to particular
differences。 Hence to say： 'To the pious man no law is given' is nothing but an expression of this
same fanaticism。 Once piety usurps the place of the state； it cannot tolerate the determinate but
simply shatters it。 It is quite consistent with this if piety leaves decisions to conscience； to the inner
life； and is not governed by reasons。 This inner life does not devel