Chapter 13 A. Quality (Die QualitaBt) Ⅰ. Existence (Sein)

§86 The reason why pure being or being is regarded as the beginning of logic is because pure being is not only pure thought, but also pure immediacy without determination, and the initial beginning cannot be any indirect thing, nor can it be something that has been further developed. stipulated things. [Explanation] As long as we can simply realize the meaning contained in the nature of the beginning, all doubts and accusations that can be raised against using abstract and empty being or being as the beginning of logic will disappear.Being or being can be defined as "I am I", as absolute indifference or identity, etc.These forms, or others of the same kind, may be regarded as necessarily the first point of departure, whenever the necessity is felt to begin with absolute certainty, that is, with self-certainty, or with a definition or intuition of absolute truth.But since each of these forms involves mediation, it cannot be a true first beginning.Because intermediary includes the process of progressing from the first to the second, starting from one thing to other different things.If it is true that "I am I," or even intellectual intuition, is considered only the first beginning, then it is merely present in this mere immediacy.Conversely, if pure being is no longer abstract directness, but "being" including indirectness, it is pure thinking or pure intuition.

If we declare that Being or Being is a predicate of the Absolute, then we get the first definition of the Absolute, namely: "The Absolute is Being".This is the first definition put forward by Chunquan (in thought), the most abstract and empty.This is the definition put forward by the Eleatic school, and it is also the most famous definition, which regards God as the sum of all reality.In short, on this view we have to remove the limitations within each reality, in order to show that God alone is the real of all realities, the highest reality.If reality already includes reflection, Jacobi says so directly when he says that Spinoza's God is the principle of being in all finite beings.

Note 1: At the beginning of thinking, there is nothing but pure non-determination thinking, because the "one" and "other" are already contained in the determination; but at the beginning, we have no "other".Our thought of indetermination here is a kind of immediacy, not mediated indetermination; The most primitive non-prescriptive.This is what we mean by "have".This kind of "being" cannot be moved, intuitive, or represented, but a kind of pure thinking, and thus this kind of pure thinking is the beginning of logic.Essence is also a non-determined thing, but the essence is the non-determination that has sublated the stipulation and included it in itself through the process of mediation.

Note 2: In the history of philosophy, the different stages of the Logical Idea appear as successive philosophical systems, each of which is based on a particular definition of the Absolute.Just as the development of logical ideas progresses from abstraction to concreteness, so in the history of philosophy, the earliest systems are often the most abstract, and therefore the poorest.Therefore, the relationship between the early philosophical system and the later philosophical system is roughly equivalent to the relationship between the logical ideas of the previous stage and the logical ideas of the later stage. That is to say, the early system is superseded by the later system and included in itself. within.This kind of view shows the phenomenon that is often misunderstood in the history of philosophy-the true meaning of one philosophical system being overthrown by another philosophical system, or the former philosophical system being overthrown by a later philosophical system.Whenever the overthrow of a philosophical system is mentioned, it is often taken in an abstract, negative sense, that the philosophy being overthrown has no effect, is set aside, and is basically finished.If this were the case, then the study of the history of philosophy must be regarded as a very tedious work, because it would show only how all the philosophical systems in the course of time were overthrown one by one.While we should admit that all philosophies have been overthrown, we must at the same time insist that no philosophy has been overthrown, or even that no philosophy can be overthrown.

There are two explanations for this: first, every philosophy worthy of the name of philosophy generally has ideas as its content; second, every philosophical system can be regarded as a special stage or link in the development of ideas.So to overthrow a philosophy means only to go beyond the limits of that philosophy and to reduce a particular principle of that philosophy to a link in a more complete system.The main content of the history of philosophy, therefore, is not concerned with the past, but with what is eternal and what is really present.And the results of the history of philosophy are not to be compared with an exhibition of the erroneous relics of human intellectual activity, but only with a temple of images of the gods.These gods are the successive stages in the dialectical development of the Idea.The history of philosophy therefore always has the duty to point out exactly how the historical development of philosophical content coincides with the dialectical development of purely logical ideas on the one hand, and how they differ on the other.But the first thing to be mentioned here is that the beginning of logic is the beginning of the real history of philosophy.We know that the history of philosophy begins with the Eleatic school, or rather, with the philosophy of Parmenides.Because Parmenides regards "absolute" as "being", he said:

"Only 'yes' exists, 'nothing' does not".This must be regarded as the real starting point of philosophy, because philosophy is generally a thinking activity of knowing, but here for the first time, pure thinking is grasped, and pure thinking itself is the object of knowledge. It is true that human beings have been thinking since the beginning, because only thinking can make people different from animals, but it took thousands of years before human beings realized the purity of thinking, and at the same time understood pure thinking as a real objective object.The Eleatic school is famous for its brave thinkers.But this superficial admiration is often accompanied by the remark that these philosophers are too extreme, for they admit that only "being" is true, and deny the truth of all other objects in consciousness. sex.It is of course right to say that we should not always stagnate at the stage of simple "being".But think that other contents in our consciousness seem to be beside and outside of "being", or equate "being" with something else, saying that there is "being", some other Things also "have", then it is too lacking in thought.The real relationship should be like this: Being as being is not a fixed thing, nor is it an ultimate thing, but has a dialectical nature and needs to transition to its opposite. The other side of "yes" is, to put it bluntly, nothing.To sum up, "Being" is the first pure thought, no matter it starts from any other category (such as from I am I, from absolute indifference, or from God himself), it is only an appearance, not a Start with a thought: and this kind of starting point is still only "existent" in terms of its thought content.

§87 But this pure being is pure abstraction, and is therefore an absolute negation.This kind of negation, directly speaking, is nothing. [Explanation] (1) From this, the second definition of absolute is deduced: Absolute is nothing.In fact, this definition implies nothing more than: the thing itself is an indeterminate thing, completely without form and therefore devoid of content.In other words, God is only the highest essence and nothing else.For this is tantamount to saying that God is still only the same negativity.The nothingness that Buddhists regard as the universal principle, ultimate purpose, and final destination of all things is the same abstraction.

(2) If this opposition in immediacy is expressed as the opposition of being and nothing, and thus this opposition is false, it seems so surprising that one cannot help but try to fix "being". properties to prevent it from transitioning to "None".In order to achieve this goal, our reflective function naturally thinks of seeking a definite definition for "being" in order to distinguish "being" from "nothing". For example, we regard "existence" as the unchanging thing in the ever-changing, as the material that can withstand infinite regulations, etc., or even think "existence" as any individual existence, any feeling or mind. Accidental stuff.But all these further and more specific regulations on "you" are enough to make "you" lose its direct and pure being at the beginning just mentioned.Only in terms of "being" as pure indetermination, "being" is nothing—an ineffable thing; its difference from "nothing" is only a difference in pure reference.

All this is said only for the purpose of making one realize that these first categories are empty abstractions, and that both being and nothing are equally empty as each other.We want to seek a fixed meaning in "being", or in both "being" and "nothing", that is, to further develop "being" and "nothing" and give them The real, that is, the inevitability of concrete meaning.This progression is logical deduction, or the thought process that is expounded in logical order.The reflective function that can discover a deeper meaning in "being" and "nothing" is the logical thinking that develops this meaning (but not accidentally but necessarily).Therefore, "being" and "nothing" gain a deeper meaning, which can only be regarded as a more precise definition and a more real definition of the absolute.Therefore, such a definition is no longer just an empty abstraction like "being" and "nothing", but rather a concrete thing in which both "being" and "nothing" are just its links. The highest form of "nothing," so far as it is an independent principle, is "freedom."Although this freedom is a kind of negation, because it penetrates to its highest limit, it is itself a kind of affirmation, even an absolute affirmation.

Note: "Yes" and "Nothing" should be different at first. In other words, the difference between the two is only potential at first, and has not really been brought into play.Generally speaking, the so-called difference must include two things, each of which has a certainty that the other does not have.But "being" is purely non-determined, and "nothing" is also non-prescriptive.Therefore, the difference between the two is only a difference in reference, or a completely abstract difference, and this difference is at the same time no difference.Among the things that differentiate the two species, there will always be common ground that includes both sides.For example, as far as two different "kinds" of things are concerned, the kind is the common point between the two kinds of things.According to the same principle, we say that there are natural existence and spiritual existence, and here, "existence" is the common ground between the two.Conversely, the difference between "being" and "nothing" is the difference without a common basis.Therefore, it can be said that there is no difference between the two, because the absence of a basis is the common stipulation of both.If someone says that since both "being" and "nothing" are thoughts, then thought is the common basis of both, then those who say this ignore that "being" is not a special, specific rather than a thought that is completely undetermined and therefore indistinguishable from nothing. —Although people can represent "being" as absolute wealth, and "nothing" as absolute poverty.But if we try to look at the whole world, we say that there is everything in this world, and there is nothing outside it, so we erase all specific things, so what we get is only absolute nothingness, not absolute nothingness. rich.The same criticism can be applied to the definition of God as a mere being.This definition and the definition of the Buddhists, that is, consider God as "nothing", and thus deduce that in order to become one with God, man must destroy himself. On the surface, it seems to be opposite, but in fact it is based on the same reason.

§88 If nothing is this self-equal immediacy, conversely, being is exactly the same thing.Therefore, the truth of "existence" and "nonexistence" is the unity of the two.This unity is Das Werden. [Explanation] (1) The proposition that there is or is nothing seems so bizarre and contradictory from the point of view of appearance or reason, and one may even think that the intention of this statement is simply a joke.To admit that this is true is, in fact, the hardest thing the mind can do.For "being" and "nothing" are fundamentally opposed in their entire immediacy.That is to say, neither of the two terms sets any stipulation sufficient to cover its connection with the other.But as pointed out in the previous section, the two also contain a common requirement (that is, no regulation).From this point of view, deducing the unity of "being" and "nothing" is entirely analytic.The whole process of general philosophical deduction is also like this.The process of philosophical deduction, if there is any method or inevitability, is nothing more than the explicit development of the principles contained in concepts.Saying "being" and "nothing" is the same, and saying "being" and "nothing" is also absolutely the same, one is not the other, both are equally correct.But since the distinction between being and nothing is here still undetermined, since they are equally immediate, their distinction is, in truth, ineffable, but merely a distinction of signification. (2) It doesn’t take a lot of wit to make fun of the proposition that “what is is not what is” or draw out some unreasonable reasons and mistake them for the conclusions derived from the application of this proposition. Effect.For example, the opponent of this proposition can say, If there is no difference between being and nothing, then my house, my property, the air I breathe, the city I live in, the sun, the law, the spirit, God, whatever they exist ( exists) or does not exist (none), it is all the same.Some of the people who raised objections in the above examples proceeded from their own special purpose and the personal interests of a certain thing, and asked what difference it made to him whether there was something that was beneficial to him or not.In fact, the teaching of philosophy is precisely to liberate man from infinite finite ends and personal desires, and to make him feel that it makes no difference to him whether those things exist or not.However, generally speaking, as soon as a substantial content is mentioned, a connection is thus established with other existences, purposes, etc., and in this connection, other existences, purposes, etc. become the prerequisites for functioning, At this time, it is possible to judge whether the existence or non-existence of a specific content is the same based on these premises.In this way the empty distinction of being and nothing is replaced by a distinction full of content. ——But others explain the main purpose, the absolute existence and the idea with the simple categories of being and non-being.But this specific object is not only existence or non-existence, but also has some other richer content.Empty abstractions like being and nothing--these are the emptiest concepts, because they are only first categories--simply fail to express correctly the nature of such objects.Truth with real content goes far beyond these abstractions and their opposites.Whenever people use the concept of being and nothing to explain a concrete thing, it will cause the mistake that they often make because they don’t think, thinking that there is something else in our mind besides the simple abstract being and nothing mentioned now. the appearance of something. (3) Some people may say this: We cannot form a unified concept of being and nothing.But it should be noted that the concept of the unity of being and nothing has been clarified in the previous sections, and there is nothing else to say.If you want to grasp the nature of unity, you must understand the reasons mentioned in the previous sections.Perhaps the concept understood by the opponents is wider than the real concept contains.The concept he mentioned roughly refers to a more complex and richer consciousness, a representation.He thinks that such a concept can be expressed as a concrete instance, which is also familiar in the ordinary use of thought.As long as "not being able to form concepts" simply means not being used to clinging to abstract ideas without mixing them with sensations, or not being used to grasping speculative truths, then it suffices to say that philosophical knowledge is different from the knowledge we are familiar with in daily life and other sciences. There are indeed different types of knowledge, and it can be explained clearly.But if "not being able to form concepts" simply means that we cannot imagine or represent the unity of being and nothing, then this is in fact not reliable, since it is rather said that each person has an infinite number of representations of the unity of being and nothing.To say that we have no representation of unity of existence can only mean that we cannot recognize the concept of unity from any representation of unity of existence, nor do we know that these representations represent an example of the concept of unity of existence.The closest example sufficient to represent the presence or absence of unity is change (Das Werden).Everyone has an appearance of change, and everyone can even admit that change is an appearance.He can further admit that, if analyzed, the representation of change contains the determination of being, and at the same time contains the determination of nothing, which is opposite to being; and these two determinations are inseparable in the representation of change.Therefore, change is the unity of being and nothing. —Another equally shallow example is the idea of ​​beginning.When a thing begins, it has not yet been realized, but it is not pure nothing, but has already contained its existence or existence.Beginning itself is also change, but "beginning" also includes the meaning of moving forward. —In order to conform to the usual course of science, one can let logic start from the idea of ​​the "beginning" of pure thought, that is, the "beginning itself", and analyze the idea of ​​the "beginning" .As a result of this analysis, people may be more likely to accept the theory that being and nothing are an inseparable unity. (4) Another point to be noted is that the statement "being and nothing are the same", or "the unity of being and non-being", and other similar unity, such as the unity of subject and object, are objectionable and quite controversial. reason.Because this statement is biased and inappropriate in that it emphasizes the unity too much, and there is still a difference between the two (because the unity that this statement intends to posit, for example, the unity of being and nothing), does not recognize and recognize it at the same time. Express it.So it seems too inappropriate to ignore the difference, not take the difference into account.In fact, the principle of speculation cannot be correctly expressed in this propositional form.For unity must be understood through difference; in other words, unity must be understood both in present and in postulated difference.Change is the true expression of the result of being and nothingness, as the unity of being and nothingness.Change is not only the unity of being and nothingness, but also inner restlessness—this unity is not only a self-connection without movement, but also a self-opposition because it contains the difference between "being" and "nothingness". my own. —Conversely, Dasein is this unity, or the change in the form of this unity.Therefore, determination is one-sided and limited.In steadiness, the opposition between being and nothing seems to disappear, but in fact, the opposition is only implicitly included in the unity, but not explicitly set in the unity. (5) The transition from being to nothing and from nothing to being is the principle of change. The opposite of this principle is pantheism, that is, the principle of material eternity that "nothing cannot be born, and being cannot be changed into nothing".The ancient philosophers had seen that the simple truth, the principle that "nothing cannot be made into being, and being cannot be made into nothing," would in fact negate change.For what a thing comes from and what it will become are the same thing.This proposition is nothing but an abstract principle of identity expressed in the intellect.But it seems strange that we now also hear the principles "Nothing cannot be created, and being cannot be made into nothing" propagated with complete freedom, without being aware that these principles form the basis of pantheism, and without knowing that Ancient philosophers have developed these principles to the fullest. Note: Change is the first concrete thought, and therefore the first concept, whereas being and nothing are empty abstractions.So when we talk about the concept of "being", our so-called "being" can only refer to "change", not "being", because "being" is just an empty "nothing"; nor can it refer to "nothing", because "Nothing" is just an empty "being".Therefore, there is "nothing" in "being", and "being" in "nothing"; but being able to maintain its own "being" in "nothing" is change.In the unity of change, we cannot erase the difference between being and nothing, because without the difference, we will return to the abstract "being".Variation simply "has" (Gesetztsein) in accordance with its "assumed existence" of truth. We often hear that thinking (思想) is opposed to being (有).Regarding this statement, we must first ask how to understand existence or "being"?If we adopt the definition of Being that reflection gives, we can only say that Being is purely identical and positive.Now if we try to consider thinking, we will not be blind, and thinking is at least purely identical with itself. Therefore being and thinking both have the same determination.But this identity of being and thinking cannot be said in its concrete sense. We cannot therefore say that a stone is a kind of being and is the same as a thinking person.A concrete thing is always different from an abstract specification itself.When we say "existence" we are not talking about concrete things, because "existence" is a purely abstract thing.Moreover, the question of the existence of God, which is itself an infinitely concrete being, does not make much sense as it is stated here. Change is both the first concrete category of thought and at the same time the first real category of thought.In the history of philosophy, Heraclitus' system is roughly equivalent to this level of logical ideas.When Heraclitus said: "Everything is in flux", he has stated that change is the basic rule of everything.On the contrary, the people of the Eleatic school, as mentioned above, regard "being", the hard and static "being" as the only truth.In response to the principles of the Eleatic school, Heraclitus then went on to say: "Being is not more than not being".This sentence has expressed the negativity of the abstract "being" and the identity contained in the change of "being" and the equally untenable abstract "nothing".From here we can also get examples of one philosophical system being really overthrown by another philosophical system.The real overthrow of a philosophical system consists in revealing the contradictions contained in the principles of the system, and in reducing the principles to ideal moments constituted in a higher concrete form of the Idea.But on a further level, change itself is still a highly impoverished category, which must be further deepened and enriched.In life, for example, we get a category in which change deepens itself.Life is change, but the concept of change cannot exhaust the meaning of life.In higher forms we also see changes in the spirit.The spirit is also a change, but it is richer and fuller than the purely logical change.The links that constitute the unity of spirit are not simple abstract concepts of being and nothing, but logical ideas and natural systems.