shorter logic-第47部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


to　those　who　define　God　to　be　mere　Being；　a　definition　not　a　whit　better　than　that　of　the
Buddhists；　who　make　God　to　be　Nought；　and　who　from　that　principle　draw　the　further　conclusion
that　self…annihilation　is　the　means　by　which　man　becomes　God。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Becoming
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　88

Nothing；　if　it　be　thus　immediate　and　equal　to　itself；　is　also　conversely　the　same　as
Being　is。　The　truth　of　Being　and　of　Nothing　is　accordingly　the　unity　of　the　two：
and　this　unity　is　Becoming。　

（1）　The　proposition　that　Being　and　Nothing　is　the　same　seems　so　paradoxical　to
the　imagination　or　understanding；　that　it　is　perhaps　taken　for　a　joke。　And　indeed　it
is　one　of　the　hardest　things　thought　expects　itself　to　do：　for　Being　and　Nothing
exhibit　the　fundamental　contrast　in　all　its　immediacy　…　that　is；　without　the　one
term　being　invested　with　any　attribute　which　would　involve　its　connection　with
the　other。　This　attribute　however；　as　the　above　paragraph　points　out；　is　implicit　in
them　…　the　attribute　which　is　just　the　same　in　both。　So　far　the　deduction　of　their
unity　is　completely　analytical：　indeed　the　whole　progress　of　philosophising　in
every　case；　if　it　be　a　methodical；　that　is　to　say　a　necessary；　progress；　merely
renders　explicit　what　is　implicit　in　a　notion。　It　is　as　correct　however　to　say　that
Being　and　Nothing　are　altogether　different；　as　to　assert　their　unity。　The　one　is　not
what　the　other　is。　But　since　the　distinction　has　not　at　this　point　assumed　definite
shape　（Being　and　Nothing　are　still　the　immediate）；　it　is；　in　the　way　that　they　have
it；　something　unutterable；　which　we　merely　mean。　

（2）　No　great　expenditure　of　wit　is　needed　to　make　fun　of　the　maxim　that　Being
and　Nothing　are　the　same；　or　rather　to　adduce　absurdities　which；　it　is　erroneously
asserted；　are　the　consequences　and　illustrations　of　that　maxim。　

If　Being　and　Nought　are　identical；　say　these　objectors；　it　follows　that　it　makes　no
difference　whether　my　home；　my　property；　the　air　I　breathe；　this　city；　the　sun；
the　law；　God；　are　or　are　not。　Now　in　some　of　these　cases　the　objectors　foist　in
private　aims；　the　utility　a　thing　has　for　me；　and　then　ask；　whether　it　be　all　the
same　to　me　if　the　thing　exist　and　if　it　do　not。　For　that　matter　indeed；　the　teaching
of　philosophy　is　precisely　what　frees　man　from　the　endless　crowd　of　finite　aims
and　intentions；　by　making　him　so　insensible　to　them　that　their　existence　or
non…existence　is　to　him　a　matter　of　indifference。　But　it　is　never　to　be　forgotten
that；　once　mention　something　substantial；　and　you　thereby　create　a　connection
with　other　existences　and　other　purposes　which　are　ex　hypothesi　worth　having：
and　on　such　hypothesis　it　comes　to　depend　whether　the　Being　or　not…Being　of　a
determinate　subject　are　the　same　or　not。　A　substantial　distinction　is　in　these　cases
secretly　substituted　for　the　empty　distinction　of　Being　and　Nought。　

When　a　concrete　existence　is　disguised　under　the　name　of　Being　and　not…Being；
empty…headedness　makes　its　usual　mistake　of　speaking　about；　and　having　in
mind；　an　image　of　something　else　than　what　is　in　question：　and　in　this　place　the
question　is　about　abstract　Being　and　Nothing。　In　others　of　the　cases　referred　to；　it
is　virtually　absolute　existences　and　vital　ideas　and　aims；　which　are　placed　under
the　mere　category　of　Being　and　not…Being。　But　there　is　no　more　to　be　said　of
these　concrete　objects；　than　that　they　merely　are　or　are　not。　Barren　abstractions；
like　Being　and　Nothing　…　the　initial　categories　which；　for　that　reason；　are　the
scantiest　anywhere　to　be　found　…　are　utterly　inadequate　to　the　nature　of　these
objects。　Substantial　truth　is　something　far　above　these　abstractions　and　their
oppositions。　And　always　when　a　concrete　existence　is　disguised　under　the　name
of　Being　and　not…Being；　empty…headedness　makes　its　usual　mistake　of　speaking
about；　and　having　in　mind　an　image　of；　something　else　than　what　is　in　question：
and　in　this　place　the　question　is　about　abstract　Being　and　Nothing。　

（3）　It　may　perhaps　be　said　that　nobody　can　form　a　notion　of　the　unity　of　Being
and　Nought。　As　for　that；　the　notion　of　the　unity　is　stated　in　the　section　preceding；
and　that　is　all：　apprehend　that；　and　you　have　comprehended　this　unity。　What　the
objector　really　means　by　comprehension　…　by　a　notion　…　is　more　than　his　language
properly　implies：　he　wants　a　richer　and　more　complex　state　of　mind；　a　pictorial
conception　which　will　propound　the　notion　as　a　concrete　case　and　one　more
familiar　to　the　ordinary　operations　of　thought。　And　so　long　as　ordinary
incomprehensibility　means　only　the　want　habituation　for　the　effort　needed　to
grasp　an　abstract　thought；　free　from　all　sensuous　admixture；　and　to　seize　a
speculative　truth；　the　reply　to　the　criticism　is　that　philosophical　knowledge　is
undoubtedly　distinct　in　kind　from　the　mode　of　knowledge　best　known　in　common
life；　as　well　as　from　that　which　reigns　in　the　other　sciences。　But　if　to　have　no
notion　merely　means　that　we　cannot　represent　in　imagination　the　oneness　of
Being　and　Nought；　the　statement　is　far　from　being　true；　for　everyone　has
countless　ways　of　envisaging　this　unity。　To　say　that　we　have　no　such　conception
can　only　mean　that　in　none　of　these　images　do　we　recognise　the　notion　in
question；　and　that　we　are　not　aware　that　they　exemplify　it。　The　readiest　example
of　it　is　Becoming。　Everyone　has　a　mental　idea　of　Becoming；　and　will　even　allow
that　it　is　one　idea：　he　will　further　allow　that；　when　it　is　analysed；　it　involves　the
attribute　of　Being；　and　also　what　is　the　very　reverse　of　Being；　viz。；　Nothing：　and
that　these　two　attributes　lie　undivided　in　the　one　idea：　so　that　Becoming　is　the
unity　of　Being　and　Nothing。　Another　tolerably　plain　example　is　a　Beginning。　In　its
beginning；　the　thing　is　not　yet；　but　it　is　more　than　merely　nothing；　for　its　Being　is
already　in　the　beginning。　Beginning　is　itself　a　case　of　Becoming；　only　the　former
term　is　employed　with　an　eye　to　the　further　advance。　If　we　were　to　adopt　logic　to
the　more　usual　method　of　the　sciences；　we　might　start　with　the　representation　of　a
Beginning　as　abstractly　thought；　or　with　Beginning　as　such；　and　then　analyse　this
representation；　and　perhaps　people　would　more　readily　admit；　as　a　result　of　this
analysis；　that　Being　and　Nothing　present　themselves　as　undivided　in　unity。　

（4）　It　remains　to　note　that　such　phrases　as　'Being　and　Nothing　are　the　same'。；　or
'The　unity　of　Being　and　Nothing'　…　like　all　other　such　unities；　that　of　subject　and
object；　and　others　…　give　rise　to　reasonable　objection。　They　misrepresent　the　facts
by　giving　an　exclusive　prominence　to　the　unity　and　leaving　the　difference　which
undoubtedly　exists　in　it　（because　it　is　Being　and　Nothing；　for　example；　the　unity　of
which　is　declared）　without　any　express　mention　or　notice。　It　accordingly　seems　as
if　diversity　had　been　unduly　put　out　of　court　and　neglected。　The　fact　is；　no
speculative　principle　can　be　correctly　expressed　by　any　such　propositional　form；
for　the　unity　has　to　be　conceived　in　the　diversity；　which　is　all　the　while　present
and　explicit。　

'To　become'　is　the　true　expression　for　the　resultant　of　'to　be'　and　'not　to　be'；　it　i