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！
that object really in the form of another self…consciousness； i。e。 one which has become in that
object alienated from its own particular individuation； from its natural and contingent existence； but
which partly continues therein to be self…consciousness； and partly is there an essential
consciousness just like pure insight。
In the notion of insight there lies not merely this； that consciousness knows itself in the object it
looks at； and finds itself directly there； without first quitting the thought element and then returning
into itself； the notion implies as well that consciousness is aware of itself as being also the mediating
process； aware of itself as active； as the agency of production。 Through this it gets the thought of
this unity of self as self and object。
Belief also is this very consciousness。 Obedience and action make a necessary moment； through
which the certainty of existence in Absolute Being comes about。 This action of belief does not
indeed make it appear as if Absolute Being is itself produced thereby。 But the Absolute Being for
belief is essentially not the abstract being that lies beyond the believing consciousness； it is the spirit
of the religious communion； it is the unity of that abstract being and self…consciousness。 The action
of the communion is an essential moment in bringing about that it is this spirit of the communion。
That spirit is what it is by the productive activity of consciousness； or rather it does not exist
without being produced by consciousness。 For essential as this process of production is； it is as
truly not the only basis of Absolute Being； it is merely a moment。 The Absolute Being is at the
same time self…complete and self…contained （an und für sich selbst）。
On the other side the notion of pure insight is seen to be something else than its own object； for
just this negative character constitutes the object。 Thus from the other side it also expresses the
ultimate Being of belief as something foreign to self…consciousness； something that is not a bone of
its bone； but is surreptitiously foisted on it like a changeling child。 But here enlightenment is entirely
foolish； belief experiences it as a way of speaking which does not know what it is saying； and does
not understand the facts of the case when it talks about priestly deception； and deluding the
people。 It speaks about this as if by means of some hocus…pocus of conjuring priestcraft there
were foisted on consciousness as true Reality something that is absolutely foreign； and absolutely
alien to it； and yet says all the while that this is an essential reality for consciousness； that
consciousness believes in it； trusts in it； and seeks to make it favourably disposed towards itself；
i。e。 that consciousness therein sees its pure ultimate Being just as much as its own single and
universal individuality； and creates by its own action this unity of itself with its essential reality。 In
other words； it directly declares that to be the very inmost nature of consciousness which it
declares to be something alien to consciousness。
How； then； can it possibly speak about deception and delusion？ By the fact that it directly
expresses about belief the very opposite of what it asserts of belief； it ipso facto really reveals
itself to belief as the conscious lie。 How are deception and delusion to take place； where
consciousness in its very truth has directly and immediately the certitude of itself； where it
possesses itself in its object； since it just as much finds as produces itself there？ The distinction no
longer exists； even in words。
When the general question has been raised； whether it is permissible to delude a people； the
answer； as a fact； was bound to be that the question is pointless； because it is impossible to
deceive a people in this matter。 Brass in place of gold； counterfeit instead of genuine coin may
doubtless have swindled individuals many a time； lots of people have stuck to it that a battle lost
was a battle won； and lies of all sorts about things of sense and particular events have been
plausible for a time； but in the knowledge of that inmost reality where consciousness finds the
direct certainty of its own self； the idea of delusion is entirely baseless。
Let us see further how belief undergoes enlightenment in the case of the different moments of its
own conscious experience； to which the view just noted referred in the first instance only in a
general way。 These moments are pure thought； or； qua object； absolute Being per se （an und für
sich）； then its relation； as a form of knowledge； to absolute Being； the ultimate basis of its belief；
and finally its relation to absolute Being in its acts； i。e。 its 〃worship〃 and service。（5） Just as pure
insight has failed to recognize itself in belief as a whole and denied its own nature； we shall find it
taking up in these moments； too； an attitude similarly perverted and distorted。
Pure insight assumes towards the absolute Being of the believing mind a negative attitude。 This
Being is pure thought； and pure thought established within itself as object or as the true Being； in
the believing consciousness this immanent and essential reality of thought acquires at the same time
for the self…existent consciousness the form of objectivity； but merely the empty form； it exists in
the character of something 〃presented〃 to consciousness。 To pure insight； however； since it is pure
consciousness in its aspect of self existing for itself； this other appears as something negative of
self…consciousness。 This might still be taken either as the pure essential reality of thought； or also as
the being found in sense…experience； the object of sense…certainty。 But since it is at the same time
for the self； and this self； qua self which has an object； is an actual consciousness； for insight the
peculiar object as such is an ordinary existing thing of sense。 This its object appears before it in the
picture…presentation found in belief。 It condemns this idea and in doing so condemns its own
proper object。 It really commits a wrong； however； against belief in so apprehending the object of
belief as if it were its own object。 Accordingly it states regarding belief that its absolute Being is a
piece of stone； a block of wood； having eyes and seeing not； or again a bit of bread…dough； which
is obtained from grain grown on the field and transformed by men and is returned to earth again；
or in whatever other ways belief may be said to anthropomorphize absolute Being； making it
objective and representable。
（2） The Doctrine of Enlightenment
Enlightenment； proclaiming itself as the pure and true； here turns what is held to be eternal life and
holy spirit into a concrete passing thing of sense； and contaminates it with what belongs to
sense…certainty — with an aspect inherently worthless and one which is not to be found at all in the
worshiping attitude of belief； so that enlightenment simply calumniates it by introducing such an
aspect。 What belief reveres is for belief assuredly neither stone nor wood； nor bread…dough； nor
any other sort of thing of time and sense。 If enlightenment thin