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！
Neo…platonists ； in recent times it has for the most part become the work of my friend Creuzer in
symbolism。 This method of treatment is combated and condemned by others。 Man； it is said； must
set to work historically alone； and it is not historic when a theory unthought of by the ancients； is
read into a myth； or brought out of it。 In one light； this is quite correct； for it points to a method
adopted by Creuzer； and also by the Alexandrians who acted in a similar way。 In conscious
thought the ancients had not such theories before them； nor did anyone maintain them； yet to say
that such content was not implicitly present； is an absurd contention。 As the products of reason；
though not of thinking reason； the religions of the people； as also the mythologies； however simple
and even foolish they may appear； indubitably contain as genuine works of art； thoughts； universal
determinations and truth for the instinct of reason is at their basis。 Bound up with this is the fact
that since mythology in its expression takes sensuous forms； much that is contingent and external
becomes intermingled； for the representation of the Notion in sensuous forms always possesses a
certain incongruity； seeing that what is founded on imagination cannot express the Idea in its real
aspect。 This sensuous form produced as it is by an historic or natural method； must be determined
on many sides； and this external determination must； more or less； be of such a nature as not to
express the Idea。 It may also be that many errors are contained in that explanation； particularly
when a single one is brought within our notice； all the customs； actions； furnishings； vestments； and
offerings taken together； may undoubtedly contain something of the Idea in analogy； but the
connection is far removed； and many contingent circumstances must find their entrance。 But that
there is a Reason there； must certainly be recognized； and it is essential so to comprehend and
grasp mythology。
But Mythology must remain excluded from our history of Philosophy。 The reason of this is found in
the fact that in Philosophy we have to do not with theorems generally； or with thoughts which only
are implicite contained some particular form or other； but with thoughts which are explicit； and
only in so far as they are explicit and in so far as a content such as that belonging to Religion； has
come to consciousness in the form of Thought。 And this is just what forms the immense distinction
which we saw above； between capacity and actuality。 The theorems which are implicite
contained within Religion do not concern us； they must be in the form of thoughts； since Thought
alone is the absolute form of the Idea。
In many mythologies； images are certainly used along with their significance； or else the images are
closely attended by their interpretation。 The ancient Persians worshipped the sun； or fire； as being
the highest existence； the first cause in the Persian Religion is Zervane Akerene … unlimited time；
eternity。 This simple eternal existence possesses according to Diogenes L？rtius （I。 8）； 〃the two
principles Ormuzd and Ahriman； the rulers over good and evil。〃 Plutarch in writing on Isis and
Osiris （T。 II。 p。 369； ed。 Xyl。） says； 〃It is not one existence which holds and rules the whole； but
good is mingled with evil； nature as a rule brings forth nothing pure and simple； it is not one
dispenser； who； like a host； gives out and mixes up the drink from two different barrels。 But
through two opposed and inimical principles of which the one impels towards what is right； and the
other in the opposite direction； if not the whole world； at least this earth is influenced in different
ways。 Zoroaster has thus emphatically set up the one principle （Ormuzd） as being the Light； and
the other （Ahriman） as the Darkness。 Between the two is Mithra； hence called by the Persians the
Mediator。〃 Mithra is then likewise substance； the universal existence； the sun raised to a totality。 It
is not the mediator between Ormuzd and Abriman by establishing peace and leaving each to
remain as it was； it does not partake of good and evil both； like an unblest middle thing； but it
stands on the side of Ormuzd and strives with him against the evil。 Ahriman is sometimes called the
first…born son of the Light； but Ormuzd only remained within the Light。 At the creation of the
visible world； Ormuzd places on the earth in his incomprehensible kingdom of Light； the firm
arches of the heavens which are above yet surrounded on every side with the first original Light。
Midway to the earth is the high hill Albordi； which reaches into the source of Light。 Ormuzd's
empire of Light extended uninterruptedly over the firm vault of the heavens and the hill Albordi；
and over the earth too； until the third age was reached。 Then Ahriman； whose kingdom of night
was formerly bound beneath the earth； broke in upon Ormuzd's corporeal world and ruled in
common with him。 Now the space between heaven and earth was divided into light and night。 As
Orniuzd had formerly only a spiritual kingdom of light； Ahriman had only one of night； but now that
they were intermingled he placed the terrestrial light thus created in opposition to the terrestrial
night。 From this time on； two corporeal worlds stand opposed； one pure and good； and one
impure and evil； and this opposition permeates all nature。 On Albordi； Ormuzd created Mithra as
mediator for the earth。 The end of the creation of the bodily world is none other than to reinstate
existence； fallen from its creator； to make it good again； and thus to make the evil disappear for
ever。 The bodily world is the battle…ground between good and evil； but the battle between light
and darkness is not in it self an absolute and irreconcilable opposition； but one which can be
conquered； and in it Ormuzd； the principle of Light； will be the conqueror。
I would remark of this； that when we consider the elements in these ideas which bear some further
connection with Philosophy； the universal of that duality with which the Notion is necessarily set
forth can alone be interesting and noteworthy to us； for in it the Notion is just the immediate
opposite of itself； the unity of itself with itself in the 〃other：〃 a simple existence in which absolute
opposition appears as the opposition of existence； and the sublation of that opposition。 Because
properly the Light principle is the only existence of both； and the principle of Darkness is the null
and void； … the principle of Light identifies itself with Mithra； which was before called the highest
existence。 The opposition has laid aside the appearance of contingency； but the spiritual principle
is not separate from the physical； because the good and evil are both determined as Light and
Darkness。 We thus here see thought breaking forth from actuality； and yet not such a separation as
only takes place in Religion； when the supersensuous is itself again represented in a manner
sensuous； notionless and dispersed； for the whole of what is dispersed in sensuous form is
gathered together in the one single opposition； and activity is thus simply represented。 These
determinations lie much nearer to Thought； th