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！
ach one had expected a different thing； and hence； had perceived and had ignored different things。
Again； the opposition of the I and You in the person himself is a noteworthy thing。 According to Noel； this is done particularly when one perceives one's own foolish management： ‘‘How could you have behaved so foolishly！'' Generalized it might be restated as the fact that people say You to themselves whenever the dual nature of the ego becomes visible； i。 e。； whenever one no longer entertains a former opinion； or when one is undecided and carries about contradictory intentions； or whenever one wants to compel himself to some achievement。 Hence ‘‘How could you have done this？''‘‘Should you do this or should you not？''‘‘You simply shall tell the truth。''More nave people often report such inner dialogues faithfully and without considering that they give themselves away thereby； inasmuch as the judge learns at least that when this occurred the practical ego was a stranger to the considering ego； through whom the subjective conditions of the circumstances involved may be explained。
What people call excellent characterizes them。 Excellences are for each man those qualities from which others get the most advantage。 Charity； self…sacrifice； mercy； honesty； integrity； courage； prudence； assiduity； and however else anything that is good and brave may be called； are always of use to the other fellow but barely and only indirectly the possessor of the virtues。 Hence we praise the latter and spur others on to identical qualities （to our advantage）。 This is very barren and prosaic； but true。 Naturally； not everybody has advantage in the identical virtues of other people； only in those which are of use to their individual situation charity is of no use to the rich； and courage of no use to the protected。 Hence； people give themselves away more frequently than they seem to； and even when no revelation of their inner lives can be attained from witnesses and accused； they always express enough to show what they consider to be virtue and what not。
Hartenstein characterizes Hegel as a person who made his opponents out of straw and rags in order to be able to beat them down the more easily。 This characterizes not only Hegel but a large group of individuals whose daily life consists of it。 Just as there is nowhere any particularly definite boundary between sanity and foolishness； and everything flows into everything else； so it is with men and their testimonies； normal and abnormal。 From the sober； clear； and true testimony of the former； to the fanciful and impossible assertions of the latter； there is a straight； slowly rising road on which testimony appears progressively less true； and more impossible。 No man can say where the quality of foolishness beginsnervousness； excitement； hysteria； over…strain； illusion； fantasy； and pathoformic lies； are the shadings which may be distinguished； and the quantity of untruth in such testimonies may be demonstrated； from one to one hundred per cent。； without needing to skip a single degree。 We must not； however； ignore and simply set aside even the testimony of the outlaws and doubtful persons； because also they may contain some truth； and we must pay still more attention to such as contain a larger percentage of truth。 But with this regard we have our so…called smart lawyers who are over…strained； and it is they who build the real men of straw which cost us so much effort and labor。 The form is indeed correct； but the content is straw； and the figure appears subjectively dangerous only to its creator。 And he has created it because he likes to fight but desires also to conquer easily。 The desire to construct such figures and to present them to the authorities is widespread and dangerous through our habit of seeking some particular motive； hatred； jealousy； a long…drawn quarrel； revenge； etc。 If we do not find it we assume that such a motive is absent and take the accusation； at least for the time； to be true。 We must not forget that frequently there can be no other defining motive than the desire to construct a man of straw and to conquer him。 If this explanation does not serve we may make use finally of a curious phenomenon； called by Lazarus _heroification_； which repeats itself at various levels of life in rather younger people。 If we take this concept in its widest application we will classify under it all forms that contain the almost invincible demand for attention； for talking about oneself； for growing famous； on the part of people who have neither the capacity nor the perseverance to accomplish any extraordinary thing； and who； hence； make use of forbidden and even criminal means to shove their personalities into the foreground and so to attain their end。 To this class belong all those half…grown girls who accuse men of seduction and rape。 They aim by this means to make themselves interesting。 So do the women who announce all kinds of persecutions which make them talked about and condoled with； and the numerous people who want to do something remarkable and commit arson； then again certain political criminals of all times who became ‘‘immortal'' with one single stab； and hence devoted their otherwise worthless lives thereto； and finally； even all those who； when having suffered from some theft； arson； or bodily harm； defined their damage as considerably greater than it actually was； not for the purpose of recovering their losses； but for the purpose of being discussed and condoled with。
As a rule it is not difficult to recognize this ‘‘heroification；'' inasmuch as it betrays itself through the lack of other motives； and appears definitely when the intent is examined and exaggerations are discovered which otherwise would not appear。
Topic 5。 ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS。
Section 50。
The question of association is essentially significant for lawyers because； in many cases； it is only by use of it that we can discover the conditions of the existence of certain conceptions； by means of which witnesses may be brought to remember and tell the truth； etc。； without hypnotizing them； or overtesting the correctness of their statements。 We will cursorily make a few general observations only：
Concerning the law of association； very little has been learned since the time of Aristotle。 It is determined by：
1。 Similarity （the common quality of the symbol）。
2。 Contrast （because every image involves opposition between its extremes）。
3。 Co…existence； simultaneity （the being together of outer or inner objects in space）。
4。 Succession （images call each other out in the same order in which they occur）。
Hume recognized only three grounds of association of objects similarity； contact in time and space； and causality。 Theo。 Lipps recognizes as the really different grounds of association only similarity and simultaneity （the simultaneity of their presence in the mind； especially）。
If； however； simultaneity is to be taken in this sense it may be considered the sole ground of association； for if the images are not simultaneous there can be no question of association。 Simultaneity in the mind is only the second process； for images are simultaneous in the mind only bec