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！
bound also to have plucked the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil； he claims to have；
a use for it which distinguishes him from every other being； for； as it happens； his inherently good
nature is also so constituted that the superfluity of delight does it harm； or rather his singleness
contains as a factor in its constitution a principle that goes beyond it； his singleness can overreach
itself and destroy itself。 To prevent this； he finds reason a useful means for duly restraining this
self…transcendence； or rather for preserving himself when he does go beyond the determinate： for
such is the force of consciousness。 The enjoyment of this conscious and essentially universal being
must； in manifold variety and duration； be itself universal and not something determinate。 The
principle of measure or proportion has； therefore； the determinate function of preventing pleasure
in its variety and duration from being quite broken off： i。e。 the function of 〃measure〃 is
immoderation。
As everything is useful for man； man is likewise useful too； and his characteristic function consists
in making himself a member of the human herd； of use for the common good； and serviceable to
all。 The extent to which he looks after his own interests is the measure with which he must also
serve the purpose of others； and so far as he serves their turn； be is taking care of himself： the one
hand washes the other。 But wherever he finds himself there he is in his right place： he makes use of
others and is himself made use of。
Different things are serviceable to one another in different ways。 All things； however； have this
reciprocity of utility by their very nature； by being related to the Absolute in the twofold manner；
the one positive； whereby they have a being all their own； the other negative； and thereby exist for
others。 The relation to Absolute Being； or Religion； is therefore of all forms of profitableness the
most supremely profitable；（7） for it is profiting pure and simple； it is that by which all things
stand…by which they have a being all their own…and that by which all things fall — have an existence
for something else。
Belief； of course； finds this positive outcome of enlightenment as much an abomination as its
negative attitude towards belief。 This enlightened insight into absolute Being； that sees nothing in it
but just absolute Being； the être suprême； the great Void — this intention to find that everything in
its immediate existence is inherently real （an sich） or good； and finally to find the relation of the
individual conscious entity to the Absolute Being； Religion； exhaustively summed up in the
conception of profitableness — all this is for belief utterly and simply revolting。 This special and
peculiar wisdom of enlightenment necessarily seems at the same time to the believing mind to be
sheer insipidity and the confession of insipidity； because it consists in knowing nothing of absolute
Being； or； what amounts to the same thing； in knowing this entirely accurate platitude regarding it
— that it is merely absolute Being； and； again； in knowing nothing but finitude； taking this；
moreover； to be the truth； and thinking this knowledge about finitude as the truth to be the highest
knowledge attainable。
（3） The Rights of Enlightenment
Belief has a divine right as against enlightenment； the right of absolute self…identity or of pure
thought； and it finds itself utterly wronged by enlightenment； for enlightenment distorts all its
moments； and makes them something quite different from what they are in it。 Enlightenment； on the
other hand； has merely a human right as against belief； and can only put in a human claim for its
own truth； for the wrong it commits is the right of disunion； of discordance； and consists in
perverting and altering； a right that belongs to the nature of self…consciousness in opposition to the
simple ultimate essence or thought。 But since the right of enlightenment is the right of
self…consciousness； it will not merely retain its own right； too； in such a way that two equally valid
rights of spirit would be left standing in opposition to one another without either satisfying the
claims of the other； it will maintain the absolute right； because self…consciousness is the negative
function of the notion （Begriff）； a function which does not merely operate in independence； but
also gets control over its opposite。 And because belief is a mode of consciousness； it will not be
able to baulk enlightenment of that right。
For enlightenment does not operate against the believing mind with special principles of its own；
but with those which belief itself implies and contains。 Enlightenment merely brings together and
presents to belief its own thoughts； the thoughts that lie scattered and apart within belief； all
unknown to it。 Enlightenment merely reminds belief； when one of its own forms is present； of
others it also has； but which it is always forgetting when the one is there。 Enlightenment shows itself
to belief to be pure insight； by the fact that it； in a given determinate moment； sees the whole；
brings forward the opposite element standing in direct relation to that moment and； converting the
one in the other； brings out the negative principle which is the essence of both thoughts — the
notion。 It appears； therefore； to belief to be distortion and lies； because it shows up the other side
in the moments of belief。 Enlightenment seems； in consequence； directly to make something else
out of them than they are in their own singleness； but this other is equally essential； and in reality is
to be found in the believing mind itself； only the latter does not think about it； but keeps it
somewhere else。 Hence neither is it foreign to belief nor can it be denied of belief。
Enlightenment itself； however； which reminds belief of the opposite of its various separate
moments； is just as little enlightened regarding its own nature。 It takes up a purely negative attitude
to belief； so far as it excludes its own content from its own pure activity and takes that content to
be negative of itself。 Consequently； neither in this negative； in the content of belief； does it
recognize itself； nor； for this reason； does it bring together the two thoughts； the one which it
contributes and the one against which it brings the first。 Since it does not recognize that what it
condemns in the case of belief is directly its very own thought； it has its own being in the
opposition of both moments； only one of which — viz。 in every case the one opposed to belief — it
acknowledges； but cuts off the other from the first； just as belief does。 Enlightenment；
consequently； does not produce the unity of both as their unity； i。e。 the notion； but the notion
arises before it and comes to light of its own accord； in other words； enlightenment finds the
notion merely as something there at hand。 For in itself the proms of realizing pure insight is just this；
that insight； whose essential nature is the notion； first comes to be for itself in the shape of an
absolute other； and repudiates itself （for the opposite of the notion is an absolute o