Chapter 11 Further definition and division of the concept of logic

§79 Logical thought has three aspects in terms of form: (a) the abstract or intellectual (intellectual) aspect, (b) the dialectical or negative rational aspect, (c) the speculative or affirmative rational aspect . [Explanation] These three aspects do not constitute the three parts of logic, but the links of every logical reality, that is, the links of every concept or every truth in general.They may all be placed in the first stage, that of the understanding, and if so, they are considered to be isolated from each other, so that their truth cannot be seen. The stipulations and departmental divisions of logic that we have proposed here can only be described as preconceived and historical narratives at this stage.

§80 (a) As far as thought is the understanding, it insists on fixed determinations and the distinctions between determinations.to confront the opponent.Intellectual thinking treats every finite abstraction as something subsisting or existing in itself. Note: When we speak of thinking in general or, more precisely, of concepts, we usually have in mind only intellectual activities.To be sure, thinking is undoubtedly above all intellectual thinking.But thought is not just stagnant at the stage of understanding, and concepts are not just rules of understanding.The activity of the understanding in general may be said to consist in giving a universal form to its content.But the universality established by the understanding is an abstract universality which is so persistently opposed to the particular that it becomes at the same time a particular in itself.The intellect, being separate and abstract towards its objects, is therefore the opposite of immediate intuitions and sensations, which deal only with concrete content and remain always in concreteness.

Many of the attacks on the mind, which are oft repeated, may be said to have to do with the opposition between reason and feeling, and most of these attacks on the mind are nothing more than claims that the mind is too stubborn and one-sided, and which, if carried out consistently, would lead to harmful consequences. devastating consequences.These attacks, if their content is justified, can be answered in the first place by saying that they do not involve thinking in general, much less rational thinking, but only intellectual abstract thinking.But one more point must be added, that is, in any case, we must first recognize the rights and advantages of rational thinking. Generally speaking, whether in the theoretical or practical sphere, without reason, there will be no firmness and determination.

First of all, in terms of cognition, cognition begins with understanding the current object and obtaining its specific distinction.In the study of nature, for example, we must distinguish between matter, force, kind, etc., and isolate each kind, and fix its properties.Here thinking proceeds as the analytical intellect, and the law of the understanding is the law of identity, the mere relation of itself.It is through this law of identity that the process of cognition can first advance from one category to another.For example, in mathematics, quantity is the category that is emphasized to the exclusion of its other properties.So, in geometry, we compare one figure with another to emphasize their identity.Similarly, in other spheres of knowledge, such as in jurisprudence, studies are mainly carried out on the basis of the law of identity.In jurisprudence, we deduce from one special jurisprudence to another special jurisprudence, and this inference is also carried out according to the law of identity.

Reason is important in theory, but it is also essential in practice.Character is the element of conduct, and a man of character is a man of reason.Because he has a definite goal in mind, and he is unswerving in order to achieve his goal.A man who aspires to achieve great things must, as Goethe said, know how to limit himself.On the contrary, those who want to do everything, in fact, can do nothing, and ultimately fail.There is an extraordinary amount of interesting things in the world: Spanish poetry, chemistry, politics, music are all interesting, and if someone is interested in these things, we must not say that he is wrong.But if a person wants to achieve something in a specific environment, he must concentrate on one thing and not disperse his energy in many aspects.Similarly, no matter what kind of occupation, the main thing is to use reason to engage in it.For example, judges must focus on the law and judge cases according to the law, without hesitation due to considerations of one kind or another, and without looking left and right for forgiveness.In addition, intellect is a major ingredient in education.An educated person will never be satisfied with chaotic and vague impressions, he must strive to grasp the phenomenon and obtain its fixed definiteness.An uneducated person, on the other hand, is always wandering, and takes great trouble to understand what he is discussing, and to bring himself to focus on the particular point under discussion.

According to the previous discussion, generally speaking, logical thinking is not only a subjective activity, but a very universal thing, so it can be regarded as an objective thing at the same time.This expression now finds a proper application or illustration in the intellect, which signifies the first form of logical truth.Intellect here is roughly equivalent to what we mean by divine benevolence, in so far as divine benevolence is understood as endowing finite things with existence or continued existence.For example, in the natural world, we can realize that God's benevolence lies in providing all different kinds of animals and plants with everything necessary to maintain their existence and enhance their life.God treats humans equally.Regardless of the individual or the entire nation, all the things needed for the maintenance and development of human beings, partly such as the current immediate environment, climate, soil properties and production, etc., partly such as human endowments and talents, etc., all come from gift of God.Such rationality can be said to be manifested in all fields of the objective world.And whether an object is perfect or not depends entirely on whether it satisfies the principles of reason.A state, for example, is incomplete if it has not yet achieved a clear distinction between rank and occupation, and if the political and administrative functions, which differ in nature, have not developed special institutions to To be governed, like the organisms of highly developed animals, there are special mechanisms to perform functions such as sensation, movement, and digestion.

From the foregoing discussion, we also see that intellect is equally indispensable in those spheres of activity which, according to common ideas, are considered furthest from the intellect, as in the spheres of art, religion, and philosophy.The more irrational these departments become, the more flawed they will be.In art, for example, those qualitatively different forms of beauty are strictly distinguished and clearly formulated, all of which are intellectual activities.Even with every work of art, the intellectual activity is the same.The perfection of a playful poem, therefore, consists in the thorough depiction of the purity and regularity of the characters of the different plays, and in the clear and exact expression of the different aims and interests which lead them to act as they do.Next, let us consider the field of religion.The superiority of Greek mythology over Nordic mythology (except for other differences in subject matter and understanding) is mainly due to the fact that each god in Greek mythology has a very clear statue-like depiction, while the gods in Nordic mythology, are blurred and confused with each other.Finally, as far as philosophy is concerned, after the above discussion, it seems that reason is indispensable for philosophy, and it seems that there is no need for special discussion.In philosophy, it is of the utmost importance that every thought must be grasped with sufficient precision, and that vagueness and uncertainty must never be tolerated.

Furthermore, it is often said that reason should not be too extreme.This is also true.For the intellect is not the ultimate, but rather the finite, and the exertion of the intellect, if it reaches its climax, must be transformed into its opposite.Young people always like to ride in abstract concepts, on the contrary, people with life experience will never allow to be trapped in abstract either-or, but keep themselves in concrete things. (b) At the dialectical stage, these limited determinations raise themselves and pass over to their opposites. [Explanation] (1) Skepticism is formed when the principle of dialectics is applied in isolation and alone by the understanding, especially when it is applied in this way to the concepts of science.Skepticism, as a result of the use of dialectics, involves mere negation.

(2) Dialectics is usually regarded as an external technique, which confuses certain concepts through subjective arbitrariness and brings the illusion of contradiction to these concepts.Therefore, instead of taking these regulations as real, they take this vain illusion and intellectual abstraction as real.Dialectics is often regarded as a subjective and willful art of back and forth.This kind of argument is born of wit, lacking real content, and merely covering up the emptiness of its content with simple wit. —But in its proper determination, dialectics is the proper and true nature of the determination of the understanding and of finite things in general.Reflection first goes beyond the isolated stipulation, connects it, puts it in relationship with other stipulations, but still maintains the isolated validity of that stipulation.On the contrary, dialectics is an immanente transcendence (immanente Hinausgehen), through which the one-sidedness and limited nature of the concept of understanding is expressed, that is, the self-negativity of the concept of understanding.Nothing that is finite does not sublate itself.Dialectics thus constitutes the driving soul of scientific progress.It is only through the principles of dialectics that the content of science achieves inner connection and necessity, and only in dialectics does it generally contain a real transcendence of the finite, and not only an external transcendence of the finite.

Note 1: It is extremely important to correctly understand and master dialectics.Dialectics is the driving principle of all movements, all life, and all undertakings in the real world. Likewise, dialectics is the soul of all true scientific cognition within the sphere of knowledge.From the perspective of ordinary consciousness, it seems that it is only a fair and appropriate way not to stay rigidly in the abstract intellectual rules.Just like according to the proverb "Leben und leben las-sen" (Leben und leben las-sen), it seems that there is a cycle for living one's own life and letting others live. Of course we admit the former, but we also have to admit the latter.But in fact, when we look closely, all finite things are not only limited by the outside, but also sublated by their own nature, and transition to their own opposite due to their own activities.So, for example, when people say that man is mortal, they seem to think that the reason why man is mortal is only based on external circumstances. According to this view, man has two characteristics: life and death.But the real view of the matter should be that life itself bears the seed of death.Everything that is finite is self-contradictory, and because of its self-contradiction it sublates itself.

And dialectics must not be confused with mere sophistry.The essence of sophistry is to look at things in isolation, and to regard their one-sided and abstract regulations as reliable, as long as such regulations can bring about the interests of individuals under the special circumstances at that time. For example, the means by which I exist and I should have it is arguably a major motive of my actions.But it would be sophistry if I singled out the principle of my personal welfare to the exclusion of others, and therefore inferred that I could steal from others, or sell my country, in order to maintain my existence.In the same way, in behavior, I must maintain my subjective freedom, which means that in everything I do, I use my opinion and my self-confidence as a main principle.But to justify all my free actions on this principle alone would fall into sophistry and would overturn all ethical principles.Dialectics is essentially different from this kind of behavior, because the starting point of dialectics is to conduct an objective inspection of the existence and process of things themselves, so as to reveal the limitation of one-sided intellectual determination. Moreover, dialectics is nothing new in philosophy.In ancient times, Plato was known as the inventor of dialectics.This is indeed true in so far as it refers to the first appearance of dialectics in the philosophy of Plato in the form of a free science, that is, in an objective form.Dialectics in the hands of Socrates, consistent with the general character of his philosophical exploration, still has a strong subjective color, which is called ironic humor (die lronie).Socrates often used his dialectics to attack the ordinary consciousness of ordinary people, especially the Sophists.When he talked with others, he always adopted an attitude of humility, as if he wanted to seek some deeper enlightenment from others on the issues discussed at that time.According to this disposition, he asks the other person various questions, which lead the people he talks to the opposite of what they originally thought they were right.For example, when the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates used a series of questions to make the famous wise man Protagoras himself admit that all learning is just memory.In his stricter, purely philosophical dialogues, Plato uses dialectics to point out the finiteness of all fixed intellectual determinations.For example, in "Parmanidespo", he deduced the many from one, but still pointed out that the reason why the many are many is that the complex can only be defined as one.Plato deals with dialectics mostly in this grandiose way.In modern times, the chief exponent is Kant, who again drew attention to dialectics and restored it to its honorable place.He pointed out that dialectics is through the play of rational contradiction (antinomy) which we have mentioned above (§48).In his discussion of rational contradictions, he is not merely revealing the back and forth arguments of the two sides, or commenting on the subjective arguments of the two sides; but what he is dealing with, rather, is to point out that every abstract concept of the understanding, if taken alone From the perspective of its own nature, how it will immediately transform into its opposite. However often the intellect strives against dialectics, we must not think that dialectics, or the principle of the progress of contradictions, is confined to the philosophical consciousness.Rather, it is a law that pervades other levels of consciousness and ordinary experience.Everything that surrounds us can be considered an example of dialectics.We know that all finite things are not fixed and ultimate, but rather change and pass away.And the change and disappearance of finite things is nothing but the dialectics of finite things.The finite thing, originally taking other things as itself, is forced to exceed the present existence due to internal contradictions, and thus transformed into its opposite.We have said before (§80) that the intellect may be conceived to contain the benevolence of the ordinary idea called God.We can now say that dialectics, in the same objective sense, is roughly equivalent to the power of God, as the common notion calls it.When we say, "All things (that is to say, all finite things) are doomed to be free from contradiction," we do see that contradiction is a universal and irresistible force before which no one, however superficially Nothing that is stable and solid can last forever.Although the category of power is insufficient to exhaust the profundity of the concept of divine essence or God, there is no doubt that power is a major link in any religious consciousness. In addition, all special domains and special forms of the natural world and the spiritual world are not subject to the domination of dialectics.For example, in celestial motion, a planet is now here, but it is potentially another.By its own motion, it exists in another place.In the same way, the elements of physics also progress in contradiction, and the process of climate change can also be said to be the expression of its inner contradiction.The principle of the same contradiction is the basic principle that constitutes all other natural phenomena, and because of the inner contradiction, nature is forced to transcend itself at the same time.In so far as dialectic is manifested in the spiritual world, especially in the sphere of law and morality, we need only remember that it is common experience to show that, if a thing or an action is taken to an extreme, it always turns into its opposite.This dialectic is also recognized in many ways in popular proverbs.For example in Summum jus Summa injuria (to the just to the unjust) In a proverb, it means that abstract justice, if persisted to its extreme, will turn into injustice.Similarly, in political life, everyone knows that extreme anarchism and extreme despotism can be transformed into each other.In moral consciousness, especially in personal cultivation, the awareness of this dialectic is expressed in many well-known proverbs: "Too arrogant will break", "Too sharp will be lacking", etc.There are also their dialectics in the emotional, physical, and spiritual.The most familiar examples, such as extreme pain and extreme pleasure, can transition into each other.The mood is full of joy, and tears of joy will flow.The deepest melancholy is often revealed by a wry smile. Note 2: Skepticism should not be regarded as a doctrine of mere skepticism.The skeptic, too, has his absolute certainty of the falsity of all finite things.A mere skeptic still holds out the hope that his doubts will eventually be resolved, and that between two particular points of view with which he is hesitating, there will always be a firm and true conclusion.True skepticism, on the other hand, is a complete and complete skepticism of what the intellect holds firmly.Because of this, the state of mind induced by radical doubt (or despair) is one of unshakable stability and inner tranquility.This is the noble skepticism of antiquity, as stated in the writings of Sextus Empiricus.In late Roman times this skepticism was systematized by the Stoics and Epicureans as a supplement to their dogmatic systems.This ancient noble skepticism must not be confused with the modern skepticism mentioned above (§39).The latter is the skepticism which on the one hand precedes critical philosophy and on the other hand comes out of critical philosophy. Its purpose is only to deny the truth and certainty of supersensible things, and to point out that the facts of the senses and the data presented by the current sense are what we have to keep. Even today, skepticism is often regarded as an irresistible enemy of the search for all positive knowledge, and therefore of philosophy whose task it is to investigate positive knowledge.But it must be pointed out that in fact, only the limited thinking of abstract reason is afraid of skepticism and cannot resist skepticism.Philosophy, on the contrary, includes skepticism as a moment within itself—this is the dialectical phase of philosophy.But philosophy cannot, like skepticism, stop at the negative results of dialectics.Skepticism fails to recognize its own true result; it insists that the result of doubt is mere abstract negation.Since dialectics takes negation as its result, negation as a result can at least be said to be affirmative at the same time. For the affirmation contains in itself the negation from which it proceeds, and sublates its other (negation) within itself, without which it would not exist.But this basic feature of sublating negation and including affirmation in negation has the third form of logical truth, that is, the form of speculation or the form of affirming reason. §82 (c) The speculative stage or the stage of affirmative reason recognizes the unity of opposites in their determination, or the affirmation they contain in their dissolution and transition. [Explanation] (1) Dialectics has a positive result because it has definite content, or because its real result is not empty, abstract nothingness, but the negation of certain determinations, and these negated determinations also contain In the result, because the result is indeed a result, not the immediate nothingness. (2) From this it follows that the result is rational, though only intellectual and abstract, but at the same time concrete, since it is not a simple unity of form, but a unity of differentiated determinations.Therefore, philosophy has nothing to do with purely abstract concepts or formal thoughts, and what philosophy is concerned with is only concrete thoughts. (3) Speculative logic contains pure intellectual logic, and the latter can be extracted from the former.We only need to get rid of the dialectical and rational elements in speculative logic to obtain intellectual logic.Thus we have common logic, which is merely a factual record of various thought-forms or formulas juxtaposed together as if they were something infinite. Note: As far as its content is concerned, reason is not only the unique property of philosophy, but it should be said that reason is common to everyone.No matter at what stage of cultural or spiritual development, reason is always to be found in the human heart.Therefore, since ancient times, human beings have been called rational beings, which is indeed very reasonable.Appreciating rational objects in the general way of experience leads at first to nothing but prejudices and assumptions; and the character of rational things, according to the preceding discussion (§45), is generally an unconditional thing, and therefore a determination that contains itself. sexuality within itself.In this sense, when man knows God, and knows that God is the absolute self-determining existence, he already knows the object of reason before all things.In the same way a citizen's knowledge of his country and of its laws may be said to be his knowledge of the laws of reason, which he voluntarily restrains his individual will to follow, as long as he considers them to be unconditional and universally valid. they.In the same sense, the knowledge and will of a child may be said to be rational if he knows the will of his parents and takes it as his will. Furthermore, speculative truth is nothing but the law of reason after thought (which, of course, refers to the law of affirmative reason).In daily life, the word "思议" is often used to express speculation or suspense. This usage is very vague, and at the same time it is only used in a secondary sense of the word.This is how it is used, for example, when one speaks of marriage speculation or business speculation (Han-dels-spekulation).But this everyday usage can mean at most two things: on the one hand, speculative or suspense means that what is immediately presented to us should be surpassed; Subjective, but we must not let it remain so, but must realize it, or transform it into objectivity. What was said a while ago about Ideas may well apply to the common usage of the word speculative.What needs to be added here is that many people who claim to be learned, when they talk about "speculation", even expressly regard it as a purely subjective meaning.They always think that a certain theory about the phenomenon or relationship of nature or mind may be good and true in terms of pure speculation or speculation, but it does not correspond to experience. Unacceptable.With regard to this view, we may say that speculative truth, in its true sense, is neither primarily nor definitively merely subjective, but explicitly includes and supersedes the subjective and objective principles insisted on by the understanding. Opposition thus proves itself to be complete and concrete truth.Therefore, the truth of speculation must not be expressed by one-sided propositions.For example, we say that the absolute is the unity of subjectivity and objectivity.This is true, but it is still one-sided, because here we only talk about the unity of the absolute, and only focus on the unity of the absolute, while ignoring the fact that in the absolute, the subjective and the objective are not only the same, but also exist. difference. Speculative truth, here can also be slightly reminded, its meaning is quite similar to the so-called mysticism in religious consciousness and religious doctrine.But at present, when it comes to mysticism, everyone always regards it as the same meaning as magical, mysterious and incredible.Because each person's thinking path and previous educational background are different, they will have different evaluations of the mysticism they understand.Most pious and religious people believe that it is true, but open-minded people think it is superstition and illusion.On this point we shall first point out that mystical truths are mysterious only to an understanding whose principle is abstract identity; and that mystical truths, which are synonymous with speculative truths, are the concrete unity of such determinations. , these determinations are true to the understanding only insofar as they are separate and opposed.If those who admit mystical truths as true, likewise allow them to be treated as purely miraculous and mysterious, and thus let only the intellectual side run wild, thinking also has for them only the meaning of positing abstract identities. .Therefore, according to them, in order to reach the truth, thinking must be abandoned, or, as it is commonly said, reason must be shut up.But we have seen that abstract intellectual thinking is not something unshakable and ultimate, but is in the process of constantly manifesting itself as sublating itself and passing into its opposite.On the contrary, the speculative truth of reason consists in containing the opposites within itself as two ideal moments.Therefore, all rational truths can be called mysterious at the same time, but this only means that such truths are beyond the scope of understanding, but this by no means means that rational truths are completely beyond the reach and grasp of thinking. §83 Logic can be divided into three parts: 1.ontology. 2.essentialism. 3.Conceptualism and idealism. That is to say, logic as a theory of thought can be divided into three parts as follows: 1.The doctrine of the immediacy of thought—the concept in itself or latent. 2.The doctrine of the reflexivity or indirectness of thought--the concept of being-for-itself and semblance. 3.The doctrine of the return of thought to itself and the developed self-subsistence of thought - the concept of being for itself. Note: The subheadings of Logic here presented, like all previous discussions of the nature of thinking, may be regarded as mere prefigurations.Its proof or explanation cannot be advanced until the nature of thinking itself has been developed in detail. For in philosophy to prove is to show how an object is so because of its own nature.The three main phases of thought or logical ideas presented here can be seen in relation to each other in this way: only the concept is truth, or rather the concept is the truth of being and essence, if the two are maintained in their In isolation, it can never be considered truth. —Existence, since it is only the immediate, and essence, since it is at first only the indirect, once isolated, neither can be said to be truth.At this point, some people may ask such a question, in this case, why start from the stage of unreality instead of directly from the stage of truth?We may answer that truth, being truth, must prove itself to be truth, and that this verification, so far within the scope of logic alone, consists in proving that the concept is the mediation by which it relates itself to itself, and thus to itself. Proof of concept and at the same time genuine immediacy.The real and concrete form of the relationship between the three stages in the logical idea proposed here can be expressed as follows: God is truth, and we want to know him as he is, as the absolute spirit, only if we recognize at the same time what he created. The world, nature and finite spirit, are unreal when they are separated and distinguished from God.