哲学史-philosophy of history(英文版)-第6章

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！


distinguish　these　from　each　other。　The　movement　of　the　solar　system　takes　place　according　to
unchangeable　laws。　These　laws　are　Reason；　implicit　in　the　phenomena　in　question。　But　neither　the
sun　nor　the　plas；　which　revolve　around　it　according　to　these　laws；　can　be　said　to　have　any
consciousness　of　them。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　16

A　thought　of　this　kind；　—　that　Nature　is　an　embodiment　of　Reason；　that　it　is　unchangeably
subordinate　to　universal　laws；　appears　nowise　striking　or　strange　to　us。　We　are　accustomed　to
such　conceptions；　and　find　nothing　extraordinary　in　them。　And　I　have　mentioned　this　extraordinary
occurrence；　partly　to　show　how　history　teaches；　that　ideas　of　this　kind；　which　may　seem　trivial　to
us；　have　not　always　been　in　the　world；　that　on　the　contrary；　such　a　thought　makes　an　epoch　in　the
annals　of　human　intelligence。　Aristotle　says　of　Anaxagoras；　as　the　originator　of　the　thought　in
question；　that　he　appeared　as　a　sober　man　among　the　drunken。　Socrates　adopted　the　doctrine
from　Anaxagoras；　and　it　forthwith　became　the　ruling　idea　in　Philosophy；　except　in　the　school　of
Epicurus；　who　ascribed　all　events　to　chance。　“I　was　delighted　with　the　sentiment；”　—　Plato
makes　Socrates　say　—　“and　hoped　I　had　found　a　teacher　who　would　show　me　Nature　in　harmony
with　Reason；　who　would　demonstrate　in　each　particular　phenomenon　its　specific　aim；　and　in　the
whole；　the　grand　object　of　the　Universe。　I　would　not　have　surrendered　this　hope　for　a　great　deal。
But　how　very　much　was　I　disappointed；　when；　having　zealously　applied　myself　to　the　writings　of
Anaxagoras；　I　found　that　he　adduces　only　external　causes；　such　as　Atmosphere；　Ether；　Water；
and　the　like。”　It　is　evident　that　the　defect　which　Socrates　plains　of　respecting　Anaxagoras's
doctrine；　does　not　concern　the　principle　itself；　but　the　shorting　of　the　propounder　in　applying　it
to　Nature　in　the　concrete。　Nature　is　not　deduced　from　that　principle：　the　latter　remains　in　fact　a
mere　abstraction；　inasmuch　as　the　former　is　not　prehended　and　exhibited　as　a　development　of
it；　—　an　organisation　produced　by　and　from　Reason。　I　wish；　at　the　very　outset；　to　call　your
attention　to　the　important　difference　between　a　conception；　a　principle；　a　truth　limited　to　an
abstract　form　and　its　determinate　application；　and　concrete　development。　This　distinction　affects
the　whole　fabric　of　philosophy；　and　among　other　bearings　of　it　there　is　one　to　which　we　shall　have
to　revert　at　the　close　of　our　view　of　Universal　History；　in　investigating　the　aspect　of　political　affairs
in　the　most　recent　period。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　17

We　have　next　to　notice　the　rise　of　this　idea　—　that　Reason　directs　the　World　—　in　connection　with
a　further　application　of　it；　well　known　to　us；　—　in　the　form；　viz。　of　the　religious　truth；　that　the
world　is　not　abandoned　to　chance　and　external　contingent　causes；　but　that　a　Providence　controls
it。　I　stated　above；　that　I　would　not　make　a　demand　on　your　faith；　in　regard　to　the　principle
announced。　Yet　I　might　appeal　to　your　belief　in　it；　in　this　religious　aspect；　if；　as　a　general　rule；　the
nature　of　philosophical　science　allowed　it　to　attach　authority　to　presuppositions。　To　put　it　in
another　shape；　—　this　appeal　is　forbidden；　because　the　science　of　which　we　have　to　treat；
proposes　itself　to　furnish　the　proof　（not　indeed　of　the　abstract　Truth　of　the　doctrine；　but）　of　its
correctness　as　pared　with　facts。　The　truth；　then；　that　a　Providence　（that　of　God）　presides　over
the　events　of　the　World　—　consorts　with　the　proposition　in　question；　for　Divine　Providence　is
Wisdom；　endowed　with　an　infinite　Power　which　realises　its　aim；　viz。　the　absolute　rational…design　of
the　World。　Reason　is　Thought　conditioning　itself　with　perfect　freedom。　But　a　difference　—　rather　a
contradiction　—　will　manifest　itself；　between　this　belief　and　our　principle；　just　as　was　the　case　in
reference　to　the　demand　made　by　Socrates　in　the　case　of　Anaxagoras's　dictum。　For　that　belief　is
similarly　indefinite；　it　is　what　is　called　a　belief　in　a　general　Providence；　and　is　not　followed　out　into
definite　application；　or　displayed　in　its　bearing　on　the　grand　total　—　the　entire　course　of　human
history。　But　to　explain　History　is　to　depict　the　passions　of　mankind；　the　genius；　the　active　powers；
that　play　their　part　on　the　great　stage；　and　the　providentially　determined　process　which　these
exhibit；　constitutes　what　is　generally　called　the　“plan”　of　Providence。　Yet　it　is　this　very　plan　which
is　supposed　to　be　concealed　from　our　view：　which　it　is　deemed　presumption；　even　to　wish　to
recognise。　The　ignorance　of　Anaxagoras；　as　to　how　intelligence　reveals　itself　in　actual　existence；
was　ingenuous。　Neither　in　his　consciousness；　nor　in　that　of　Greece　at　large；　had　that　thought　been
further　expanded。　He　had　not　attained　the　power　to　apply　his　general　principle　to　the　concrete；　so
as　to　deduce　the　latter　from　the　former。　It　was　Socrates　who　took　the　first　step　in　prehending
the　union　of　the　Concrete　with　the　Universal。　Anaxagoras；　then；　did　not　take　up　a　hostile　position
towards　such　an　application。　The　mon　belief　in　Providence　does；　at　least　it　opposes　the　use　of
the　principle　on　the　large　scale；　and　denies　the　possibility　of　discerning　the　plan　of　Providence。　In
isolated　cases　this　plan　is　supposed　to　be　manifest。　Pious　persons　are　encouraged　to　recognise　in
particular　circumstances；　something　more　than　mere　chance；　to　acknowledge　the　guiding　hand　of
God；　e。g。　when　help　has　unexpectedly　e　to　an　individual　in　great　perplexity　and　need。　But
these　instances。　of　providential　design　are　of　a　limited　kind；　and　concern　the　acplishment　of
nothing　more　than　the　desires　of　the　individual　in　question。　But　in　the　history　of　the　World；　the
Individuals　we　have　to　do　with　are　Peoples；　Totalities　that　are　States。　We　cannot；　therefore；　be
satisfied　with　what　we　may　call　this　“peddling”　view　of　Providence；　to　which　the　belief　alluded　to
limits　itself。　Equally　unsatisfactory　is　the　merely　abstract；　undefined　belief　in　a　Providence；　when
that　belief　is　not　brought　to　bear　upon　the　details　of　the　process　which　it　conducts。　On　the　contrary
our　earnest　endeavour　must　be　directed　to　the　recognition　of　the　ways　of　Providence；　the　means　it
uses；　and　the　historical　phenomena　in　which　it　manifests　itself；　and　we　must　show　their　connection
with　the　general　principle　above　mentioned。　But　in　noticing　the　recognition　of　the　plan　of　Divine
Providence　generally；　I　have　implicitly　touched　upon　a　prominent　question　of　the　day；　viz。　that　of
the　possibility　of　knowing　God：　or　rather　—　since　public　opinion　has　ceased　to　allow　it　to　be　a
matter　of　question　—　the　doctrine　that　it　is　impossible　to　know　God。　In　direct　contravention　of
what　is　manded　in　holy　Scripture　as　the　highest　duty；　　—　that　we　should　not　merely　love；　but
know　God；　—　the　prevalent　dogma　involves　the　denial　of　what　is　there　said；　viz。　that　it　is　the　Spirit
（der　Geist）　that　leads　into　Truth；　knows　all　things；　perates　even　into　the　deep　things　of　the
Godhead。　While　the　Divine　Being　is　thus　placed　beyond　our　knowledge；　and　outside　the　limit　of　all
human　things；　we　have　the　convenient　licence　of　wandering　as　far　as　we　list；　in　the　direction　of　our
own　fancies。　We　are　freed　from　the　obligation　to　refer　our　knowledge　to　the　Divine　and　True。　On
the　other　hand；　the　vanity　and　egotism　which　characterise　it　find；　in　this　false　position；　ample
justification　and　the　pious　modesty　which　puts　far　from　it　the　knowledge　of　God；　can　well　estimate
how　much　furtherance　thereby　accrues　to　its　own　wayward　and　vain　strivings。　I　have　been
unwilling　to　leave　out　of　sight　the　connection　between　our　thesis　…　that　Reason　governs　and　has
governed　the　World　—　and　the　question　of　the　possibility　of　a　Knowledge　of　God；　chiefly　that　I
might　not　lose　the　opportunity　of　mentioning　the　imputation　against　Philosophy　of　being　shy　of
noticing　religious　truths；　or　of　having　occasion　to　be　so　in　which　is　insinuated　the　suspicion　that　it
has　anything　but　a　clear　conscience　in　the　presence　of　these　truths。　So　far　from　this　being　the　case；
the　fact　is；　that　in　recent　times　Philosophy　has　been　obliged　to　defend　the　domain　of　religion
ag