shorter logic-第5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！


fact。　

The　several　modes　of　feeling；　perception；　desire；　and　will；　so　far　as　we　are　aware
of　them；　are　in　general　called　ideas　（mental　representations）：　and　it　may　be
roughly　said　that　philosophy　puts　thoughts；　categories；　or；　in　more　precise
language；　adequate　notions；　in　the　place　of　the　generalised　images　we　ordinarily
call　ideas。　Mental　impressions　such　as　these　may　be　regarded　as　the　metaphors　of
thoughts　and　notions。　But　to　have　these　figurate　conceptions　does　not　imply　that
we　appreciate　their　intellectual　significance；　the　thoughts　and　rational　notions　to
which　they　correspond。　Conversely；　it　is　one　thing　to　have　thoughts　and　intelligent
notions；　and　another　to　know　what　impressions；　perceptions；　and　feelings
correspond　to　them。　

This　difference　will　to　some　extent　explain　what　people　call　the　unintelligibility　of
philosophy。　Their　difficulty　lies　partly　in　an　incapacity　…　which　in　itself　is　nothing
but　want　of　habit　…　for　abstract　thinking；　i。e。　in　an　inability　to　get　hold　of　pure
thoughts　and　move　about　in　them。　In　our　ordinary　state　of　mind；　the　thoughts　are
clothed　upon　and　made　one　with　the　sensuous　or　spiritual　material　of　the　hour；
and　in　reflection；　meditation；　and　general　reasoning；　we　introduce　a　blend　of
thoughts　into　feelings；　percepts；　and　mental　images。　（Thus；　in　propositions　where
the　subject…matter　is　due　to　the　senses　…　e。g。　'This　leaf　is　green'　…　we　have　such
categories　introduced；　as　being　and　individuality。）　But　it　is　a　very　different　thing　to
make　the　thoughts　pure　and　simple　our　object。　

But　their　complaint　that　philosophy　is　unintelligible　is　as　much　due　to　another
reason；　and　that　is　an　impatient　wish　to　have　before　them　as　a　mental　picture　that
which　is　in　the　mind　as　a　thought　or　notion。　When　people　are　asked　to　apprehend
some　notion；　they　often　complain　that　they　do　not　know　what　they　have　to　think。
But　the　fact　is　that　in　a　notion　there　is　nothing　further　to　be　thought　than　the
notion　itself。　What　the　phrase　reveals　is　a　hankering　after　an　image　with　which　we
are　already　familiar。　The　mind；　denied　the　use　of　its　familiar　ideas；　feels　the
ground　where　it　once　stood　firm　and　at　home　taken　away　from　beneath　it；　and；
when　transported　into　the　region　of　pure　thought；　cannot　tell　where　in　the　world　it
is。　

One　consequence　of　this　weakness　is　that　authors；　preachers；　and　orators　are
found　most　intelligible；　when　they　speak　of　things　which　their　readers　or　hearers
already　know　by　rote　…　things　which　the　latter　are　conversant　with；　and　which
require　no　explanation。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§4

The　philosopher　then　has　to　reckon　with　popular　modes　of　thought；　and　with　the
objects　of　religion。　In　dealing　with　the　ordinary　modes　of　mind；　he　will　first　of　all；
as　we　saw；　have　to　prove　and　almost　to　awaken　the　need　for　his　peculiar　method
of　knowledge。　In　dealing　with　the　objects　of　religion；　and　with　truth　as　a　whole；
he　will　have　to　show　that　philosophy　is　capable　of　apprehending　them　from　its
own　resources；　and　should　a　difference　from　religious　conceptions　come　to　light；
he　will　have　to　justify　the　points　in　which　it　diverges。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§5

To　give　the　reader　a　preliminary　explanation　of　the　distinction　thus　made；　and　to
let　him　see　at　the　same　moment　that　the　real　import　of　our　consciousness　is
retained；　and　even　for　the　first　time　put　in　its　proper　light；　when　translated　into　the
form　of　thought　and　the　notion　of　reason；　it　may　be　well　to　recall　another　of　these
old　unreasoned　beliefs。　And　that　is　the　conviction　that　to　get　at　the　truth　of　any
object　or　event；　even　of　feelings；　perceptions；　opinions；　and　mental　ideas；　we
must　think　it　over。　Now　in　any　case　to　think　things　over　is　at　least　to　transform
feelings；　ordinary　ideas；　etc。　into　thoughts。　

Nature　has　given　every　one　a　faculty　of　thought。　But　thought　is　all　that　philosophy
claims　as　the　form　proper　to　her　business：　and　thus　the　inadequate　view　which
ignores　the　distinction　stated　in　§3　leads　to　a　new　delusion；　the　reverse　of　the
complaint　previously　mentioned　about　the　unintelligibility　of　philosophy。　In　other
words；　this　science　must　often　submit　to　the　slight　of　hearing　even　people　who
have　never　taken　any　trouble　with　it　talking　as　if　they　thoroughly　understood　all
about　it。　With　no　preparation　beyond　an　ordinary　education　they　do　not　hesitate；
especially　under　the　influence　of　religious　sentiment；　to　philosophise　and　to
criticise　philosophy。　Everybody　allows　that　to　know　any　other　science　you　must
have　first　studied　it；　and　that　you　can　only　claim　to　express　a　judgement　upon　it　in
virtue　of　such　knowledge。　Everybody　allows　that　to　make　a　shoe　you　must　have
learned　and　practised　the　craft　of　the　shoemaker；　though　every　man　has　a　model
in　his　own　foot；　and　possesses　in　his　hands　the　natural　endowments　for　the
operations　required。　For　philosophy　alone；　it　seems　to　be　imagined；　such　study；
care；　and　application　are　not　in　the　least　requisite。　

This　comfortable　view　of　what　is　required　for　a　philosopher　has　recently　received
corroboration　through　the　theory　of　immediate　or　intuitive　knowledge。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§6

So　much　for　the　form　of　philosophical　knowledge。　It　is　no　less　desirable；　on　the
other　hand；　that　philosophy　should　understand　that　its　content　is　no　other　than
actuality；　that　core　of　truth　which；　originally　produced　and　producing　itself　within
the　precincts　of　the　mental　life；　has　become　the　world；　the　inward　and　outward
world；　of　consciousness。　At　first　we　become　aware　of　these　contents　in　what　we
call　Experience。　But　even　Experience；　as　it　surveys　the　wide　range　of　inward　and
outward　existence；　has　sense　enough　to　distinguish　the　mere　appearance；　which　is
transient　and　meaningless；　from　what　in　itself　really　deserves　the　name　of
actuality。　As　it　is　only　in　form　that　philosophy　is　distinguished　from　other　modes
of　attaining　an　acquaintance　with　this　same　sum　of　being；　it　must　necessarily　be　in
harmony　with　actuality　and　experience。　In　fact；　this　harmony　may　be　viewed　as　at
least　an　extrinsic　means　of　testing　the　truth　of　a　philosophy。　Similarly　it　may　be
held　the　highest　and　final　aim　of　philosophic　science　to　bring　about；　through　the
ascertainment　of　this　harmony；　a　reconciliation　of　the　self…conscious　reason　with
the　reason　which　is　in　the　world　…　in　other　words；　with　actuality。　

In　the　Preface　to　my　Philosophy　of　Right；　p。　xxvii；　are　found　the　propositions：　

　　　　　What　is　reasonable　is　actual　
　　　　　and　
　　　　　What　is　actual　is　reasonable。　


These　simple　statements　have　given　rise　to　expressions　of　surprise　and　hostility；
even　in　quarters　where　it　would　be　reckoned　an　insult　to　presume　absence　of
philosophy；　and　still　more　of　religion。　Religion　at　least　need　not　be　brought　in
evidence；　its　doctrines　of　the　divine　governments　of　the　world　affirm　these
propositions　too　decidedly。　For　their　philosophic　sense；　we　must　presuppose
intelligence　enough　to　know；　not　only　that　God　is　actual；　that　He　is　the　supreme
actuality；　that　He　alone　is　truly　actual；　but　also；　as　regards　the　logical　bearings　of
the　question；　that　existence　is　in　part　mere　appearance；　and　o