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！
This connecting activity of reflection belongs in itself to reason and the rising above those
determinations which attains to an insight into their conflict is the great negative step towards the
true Notion of reason。 But the insight； when not thorough…going； commits the mistake of thinking
that it is reason which is in contradiction with itself； it does not recognise that the contradiction is
precisely the rising of reason above the limitations of the understanding and the resolving of them；
Cognition； instead of taking from this stage the final step into the heights； has fled from the
unsatisfactoriness of the categories of the understanding to sensuous existence； imagining that in
this it possesses what is solid and self…consistent。 But on the other hand； since this knowledge is
self…confessedly knowledge only of appearances； the unsatisfactoriness of the latter is admitted；
but at the same time presupposed： as much as to say that admittedly； we have no proper
knowledge of things…in…themselves but we do have a proper knowledge of them within the sphere
of appearances； as if； so to speak； only the kind of objects were different； and one kind； namely
things…in…themselves； did not fall within the scope of our knowledge but the other kind；
phenomena； did。 This is like attributing to someone a correct perception； with the rider that
nevertheless he is incapable of perceiving what is true but only what is false。 Absurd as this would
be； it would not be more so than a true knowledge which did not know the object as it is in itself。
The criticism of the forms of the understanding has had the result already mentioned； that these
forms do not apply to things…in…themselves。 This can have no other meaning than that these forms
are in themselves something untrue。 But then if they are 'allowed to remain valid for subjective
reason and experience； the criticism has not produced any alteration in them： they are left in the
same shape for the subject knower as they formerly possessed for the object。 If； however； they
are inadequate for the thing…in…itself； still less must the understanding to which they are supposed
to belong put up with them and rest content with them。 If they cannot be determinations of the
thing…in…itself； still less can they be determinations of the understanding to which one ought at least
to concede the dignity of a thing…in…itself。 The determinations of finite and infinite conflict in the
same way； whether they are applied to time and space； to the world； or are determinations within
the mind — just as black and white produce grey whether they are mixed on a canvas or on the
palette。 If our conception of the world is dissolved by the transference to it of the determinations
of infinite and finite； still more is spirit itself； which contains both of them； inwardly
self…contradictory and self…dissolving： it is not the nature of the material or the object to which they
are applied or in which they occur that can make a difference for it is only through those
determinations and in accordance with them that the object contains the contradiction。
The forms of objective thinking； therefore； have been removed by this criticism only from the thing；
but they have been left in the subject just as they were originally。 That is to say； this criticism did
not consider these forms on their own merits and according to their own peculiar content； but
simply took them as accepted starting points from subjective logic： so that there was no question
of an immanent deduction of them as forms of subjective logic； still less of a dialectical
consideration of them。
Transcendental idealism in its more consistent development； recognised the nothingness of the
spectral thing…in…itself left over by the Kantian philosophy； this abstract shadow divorced from all
content； and intended to destroy it completely。 This philosophy also made a start at letting reason
itself exhibit its own determinations。 But this attempt； because it proceeded from a subjective
standpoint； could not be brought to a successful conclusion。？ Later this standpoint； and with it too
the attempt to develop the content of pure science； was abandoned。
But what is commonly understood by logic is considered without any reference whatever to
metaphysical significance。 This science in its present state has； it must be admitted； no content of a
kind which the ordinary consciousness would regard as a reality and as a genuine subject matter。
But it is not for this reason a formal science lacking significant truth。 Moreover； the region of truth
is not to be sought in that matter which is missing in logic； a deficiency to which the
unsatisfactoriness of the science is usually attributed。 The truth is rather that the insubstantial nature
of logical forms originates solely in the way in which they are considered and dealt with。 When
they are taken as fixed determinations and consequently in their separation from each other and
not as held together in an organic unity； then they are dead forms and the spirit which is their living；
concrete unity does not dwell in them。 As thus taken； they lack a substantial content — a matter
which would be substantial in itself。 The content which is missing in the logical forms is nothing else
than a solid foundation and a concretion of these abstract determinations； and such a substantial
being for them is usually sought outside them。
But logical reason itself is the substantial or real being which holds together within itself every
abstract determination and is their substantial； absolutely concrete unity。 One need not therefore
look far for what is commonly called a matter； if logic is supposed to lack a substantial content；
then the fault does not lie with its subject matter but solely with the way in which this subject
matter is grasped。
In Phenomenology of Mind； I have exhibited consciousness in its movement onwards from the
first immediate opposition of itself and the object to absolute knowing。 The path of this movement
goes through every form of the relation of consciousness to the object and has the Notion of
science of its result。
This Notion therefore （apart from the fact that it emerges within logic itself） needs no justification
here because it has received it in that work； and it cannot be justified in any other way than by this
emergence in consciousness； all the forms of which are resolved into this Notion as into their truth。
To establish or explain the Notion of science ratiocinatively can at most achieve this； that a general
idea of the Notion is presented to our thinking and a historical knowledge of it is produced； but a
definition of science — or more precisely of logic — has its proof solely in the already mentioned
necessity of its emergence in consciousness。 The definition with which any science makes an
absolute beginning。 cannot contain anything other than the precise and correct expression of what
is imagined to be the accepted and familiar subject matter and aim of the science。 That
precisely this is what is imagined is an historical asseveration in respect of which one can only
appeal to such and such as recognised facts； or rather the