Chapter 27 B. Phenomena III. Relationships (Das VerhaBltnis)

§135 (α) The immediate relation is that of the whole to the part; the content is the whole, and is composed of the (formal) parts, of its own opposite.These sections are distinct from each other and are independent of each other.But they are parts only in so far as they have the same relation to one another, or insofar as they combine to form a whole.But in combination is the antithesis and negation of parts. Note: Essential relations are the particular and wholly universal ways in which things express themselves.Everything that exists exists in relation, and this relation is the true nature of every being.What actually exists is therefore not abstract and isolated, but only within an other.It is self-relation only because it is related to other in an other; and relation is the unity of self-relation and other-relation.

As long as the concept [name] of this relation of whole and part does not correspond to its reality [actuality], the relation is untrue.The concept of the whole necessarily includes the parts.But if the whole is understood in terms of the parts contained in the concept of the whole, and the whole is divided into many parts, the whole ceases to be a whole.There are indeed many things in such a relation, but for this very reason they are only low and do not really exist.Here, it must be remembered in general that the word "untrue" in philosophical discussions does not mean that untrue things do not exist.A bad government, a sick body, may always be there.But these things are not real, because their concept [name] and their reality [substance] do not correspond to each other.

The relation of the whole to the part, as an immediate relation, is very easily understood by the reflective intellect, and it is for this reason that the reflective intellect often takes it as an immediate relation whenever in fact we seek a deeper relation. satisfy.For example, the faculties and members of a living organism are not to be regarded as mere parts of that organism, for they are members and organs only in their unity, to which they are connected. Yes, by no means irrelevant.Only in the hands of the anatomist are these faculties and limbs mere mechanical parts.But in that case, too, the anatomist would no longer be dealing with a living body but with a corpse.This is not to say that scientists should not have this kind of decomposition work. It just means that if we want to truly understand the life of organisms, it is not enough to rely solely on the external mechanical relationship between the living body and its parts. —It would be far from enough to apply this external mechanical relationship to the study of the spirit and the higher forms of the spiritual world.Although no one in psychology has ever explicitly mentioned the part of the soul or the part of the mind, yet those who approach this science in purely intellectual abstraction cannot help but base themselves on the same idea of ​​limited relations.It is this external, mechanical relational point of view which they take at least when they enumerate and describe the various forms of mental activity, and resolve them in isolation into certain so-called special forces and properties.

§136 (β) The only and identical thing in the above-mentioned relation of the whole to the part, the self-relation present in that relation, is therefore a direct negative self-relationship, and, so to speak, a self-relationship. The process of mediation in which what is uniquely identical (that is, self-relation) is irrelevant to difference.But since this self-relationship is a negative self-relationship, it rejects the difference formed by itself as a reflection of itself.And posits itself as existing in the reflection of the other, and, in turn, brings this reflection of the other back into self-relation and indifference.This develops into force and force performance.

[Explanation] The relationship between the whole and the part is direct, therefore it is a meaningless (mechanical) relationship, and it is a process of transforming self-identity into difference.In this process of transformation the whole passes into the part, and the part into the whole, and on the one hand, its opposition to the other is forgotten, since each aspect, whether in its entirety or in particular, is regarded as its own. independent existence. In other words, if the part is recognized as subsisting in the whole, and the whole is constituted by the parts, we will at one moment consider the whole as subsisting and at another time as subsisting, and each will recognize its other as subsisting. for not important.The superficiality of mechanical relations generally consists in the fact that the parts are independent of each other, and the part is independent of the whole.

This kind of boring abstract relationship between two sides can also be recursive to infinity.Such is the relation of the infinite progression of the divisibility of matter.A thing is recognized as the whole at a certain time, so we proceed to define a part, and this determination is immediately forgotten, but the part is recognized as the whole, and then the work of defining the part occurs again, and so on to infinity.But if this infinite recursive process is regarded as a negative thing—it is a negative thing—then it is the self-connection of the negation in the relationship between the two parties, it is force, a self-existing self the same whole.At the same time it sublates its inner being and expresses itself outside, which is the expression of force.In turn, the manifestation of this force disappears and returns to force.

Although force has this recursive infinity, it is also finite.For the content (of the force), or the one and the same of the force and its expression, is first of all only potentially this identity; since each of the two aspects of the relation is not yet itself a concrete identity of the relation, Not all.So they are distinct from each other, and their relation is also a finite relation.Force, therefore, needs external inducements, it works blindly, and because of this lack of form, the content is also limited and accidental.Its content and form have no real identity, and it is not yet a concept and purpose defined by itself. ——

This distinction is of high importance, but not easy to understand.It will be defined in more detail later, when the concept of purpose itself is discussed.If this distinction is neglected, it will cause confusion and mistakenly believe that God is a power. Herder's view of God is particularly guilty of this problem. It is often said that the nature of force itself is not known, but only its manifestations are known.It should be noted that, on the one hand, the entire determination of the content of a force is exactly the same thing as the determination of the content of its expression; therefore it is only an empty tautology to explain a phenomenon with a force.So what is generally thought to be unknowable is nothing but the empty form of self-reflection through which alone a force is distinguished from its expression, and which is likewise something familiar.

This form adds nothing to the content and laws that can only be known from appearances.It is also everywhere affirmed that the use of this form says nothing about the nature of force; and we therefore really cannot see why the form of force was introduced into science in the first place.But on the other hand, the nature of force is, of course, something that is not yet known, because, however necessarily bound together in itself, however limited, its content is, its determinate It must be mediated by something other than it, to be connected together - all of which we still lack understanding.

Note 1: Compared with the direct relationship between the whole and the parts, the relationship between force and the exertion of force can be regarded as an infinite relationship.Because in the relationship between force and the exertion of force, the identity of the two sides is clearly established, but in the relationship between the whole and the part, the identity of the two sides is only potential.Although the whole is composed of parts, once the whole is divided into parts, it loses its wholeness.But the power of force depends entirely on its exertion, and only through exertion can the force return to itself, and the exertion of force is also the force itself.But on closer inspection, this relationship is still limited, and its limitation lies in its intermediary existence.Just as the relationship between the whole and the part is limited because of its immediacy.The most obvious proof of the limitation of the intermediary relationship between force and the exertion of force is that every force is conditioned and requires something other than itself to maintain its existence.For example, magnetism, as we all know, requires iron to work.Other properties of iron, such as color, specific gravity, or relation to acid, have nothing to do with the relation of iron to magnetism.Likewise, other forces must always be conditioned and mediated by something other than itself.In addition, the limitation of force also shows that force needs external induction to be exerted.And the thing that induces force itself is still the exertion of force, and the exertion of this force also needs induction.What we get in this way is either the infinite recursion that repeats, or the interaction between the induced force and the induced force.In any case, we cannot get the absolute beginning of the movement, that is, the national power is not like the final cause, and there is no content to determine its own power.The content of a force is a given given, so that when the force is exerted, its effectiveness, as it is commonly said, is blind.From here the difference between abstract exertion of force and purposeful action can be understood.

Note 2: The oft-repeated assertion that force itself is not known, but only its exertion, must be dismissed as unfounded.Because the reason why force is force is that it exerts outward, and the law we get from the full exertion of force is at the same time the understanding of force itself.But from the statement that force itself is unknowable, it has correctly predicted that the relationship between force and the exertion of force is only a limited relationship.From the perspective of the various manifestations of force, at first they seem to be only a plurality of indeterminate things, and from the perspective of each individual development of force, it seems that it is only an accidental activation.Until we reduce this multiplicity to its inner unity, and give it the name of "force", and recognize its governing law in that seemingly accidental development, we can realize its necessity. .But the various forces are still multiplicity in themselves, and appear as a mere multiplicity of each other, as if by accident.Thus in empirical physics we speak of gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc., and in empirical psychology we speak of memory, imagination, willpower, and other psychic forces.The need to reduce these different forces to a unified whole arose again, and this need would not be satisfied even if we could reduce these various forces to a common original force.Because this primitive power is actually just an empty abstract thing, just like the abstract thing-in-itself, without content.Moreover, the relationship between force and its exertion is still an intermediary (interdependent) relationship in essence.To think of force as primordial and independent would contradict the concept or definition of force. On the basis of this discussion of the nature of force, we may conceivably admit that the existing world is the expression of divine force, but we object to considering God as a mere force, since force is only a subordinate finite category. .During the Renaissance, many natural philosophers traced the phenomena of nature to a force underlying them.This statement was denounced as atheism by the church at that time, not for nothing.Probably the church thought that if the movement of celestial bodies was considered to be due to gravitation, and the growth of plants to be due to vigor, etc., then no cultivation should be governed by providence, and God could only be reduced to a leisurely observer of the operation of various natural forces. It is true that many natural scientists, especially Newton, when they explained natural phenomena by abstract categories of forces, expressly assured that their theories would in no way prejudice the honor of God as the Creator and Master of the world.But the logical consequence of this method of explaining nature with the idea of ​​force is this: the abstract intellect deduces from it, clings to each individual force itself, and insists on this finite force as the ultimate. , Contrary to this limited world composed of independent forces and qualities, we have to use abstract infinity to define God, saying that he is an unknowable, supreme, and far-away existence.This is the standpoint of materialism and modern Enlightenment thinking. Their views on God are limited to superficially acknowledging the existence of God, while ignoring the reason why God exists.So in this debate, church and religious thought is in a sense on the right side.For neither the finite intellectual mode of thought can give man sufficient satisfaction for the knowledge of the truths of the forms of nature, nor of the spiritual world.But on the other hand, we cannot ignore that experience has reasons to strive for a thinking understanding of the existing world and its content in all aspects, and to seek a deeper understanding than just abstractly believing that God is the creator and master of the world. wisdom.When the religious consciousness, supported by the authority of the church, tells us that God created the world by his omnipotent will, directed the planets in their orbits, and endowed all beings with existence and happiness, the question "Why?" remains unanswered. .Answering this why question generally constitutes the common task of science, empirical science, and philosophical science.When the religious consciousness refuses to admit that philosophy of science has the right to answer this question, and rejects the question why philosophy of science raises this question, and excuses it by saying that the divine mystery is inconceivable, its position is still the same as that mentioned above. The position of purely abstract Enlightenment thought is exactly the same.Moreover, this kind of excuse is contrary to the clear command of Christianity to seek to know God in spirit and truth. I am afraid it is just an arbitrary arbitrariness. . §137 Force is a totality in itself that is negatively related to itself, and because it is such a totality, it constantly repels itself and expresses itself.But this "reflection of other things", which is also "reflection of itself", (equivalent to the distinction between the whole and the part mentioned in the previous two sections) is therefore the manifestation of force, which is also the means by which force returns to its power. mediation process.The expression of force itself is the sublation of the difference between the two sides that appears in this relationship, and the establishment of the identity that constitutes the content of force in itself.Therefore, the truth of force and its expression is only distinguished as a relationship between the inner and the outer. §138 Inside (γ) is the ground, and the ground is the mere form of an aspect of appearance and relation.In other words, inner is the empty form of "self-reflection".The opposite of "inside" is outside, which is a kind of existence, which is also a form of relation, but it is the form of another aspect of relation with the empty determination of "reflecting other things".The identity of the inside and the outside is the enriched identity, the content, the unity of self-reflection and other-reflection established in the movement of force.Inside and outside are the same wholeness, and this unity has wholeness as its content. §139 It can be seen from this that, first, the outside and the inside are the same content.Whatever is inside, so is the outside.On the contrary, what is outwardly of all things is also what is inwardly.There is nothing that is manifested by phenomena that is not in essence.What is not in the essence will not be manifested in the outside. §140 Second, but as far as the two formal regulations are concerned, the inside and the outside are still diametrically opposed, even completely opposite.The inner signifies the abstract self-identity, the outer the simple multiplicity or reality.But as two moments of a form, inner and outer are essentially the same, so that what is at first posited only in one abstraction is at once only posited in the other. of.Therefore, whatever is only inside is also only outside, and whatever is only outside is also inside. [Explanation] The common mistake of reflection is to regard essence as a purely internal thing.If we simply take this view of essence, we can also say that this view itself is a purely external view, and the essence regarded in this way is only an empty, external abstraction. A poet said: Without the spirit of creation, it soaks into the heart of nature; He is extremely lucky who only needs to know its appearance. We must even say that whoever defines the essence of nature as what is inside knows only the shell of nature. —Because generally in being or even in mere sensory perception the concept is the mere immanence, so at this stage the concept is only something external to being, a subjective being or being without reality. thinking. —Whether in nature or in the spiritual world, as long as concepts, purposes or laws are only inner latents or pure possibilities, then they are only an external inorganic nature, the knowledge of a third person , alien power and so on. —A man has a heart only when he has an outward expression, that is to say, in his behavior (which, of course, is not only the outer appearance of his body).If he has only an inward disposition, say, only in motives and dispositions, that he is good and virtuous, and his outward conduct does not correspond to it, then his outward as well as his inward Emptiness. Note: The relationship between inside and outside, as the unity of the previous two relations, is at the same time the sublation of mere relativity and general phenomena, but as long as the intellect insists on the separation of inside and outside, they become a pair of empty forms, mutually All equally sink into nothingness.Whether in the study of the natural world or the spiritual world, a correct understanding of the relationship between the inside and the outside is of great importance. In particular, it is necessary to avoid thinking that the inside is the essence and the root, while the outside is the non-essential. Unrelated error.We often encounter this error when we are accustomed to explain the difference between spirit and nature in terms of an abstract distinction between inner and outer.As far as nature is concerned, there is no doubt that it is generally external, not only external to the spirit, but even external to itself.But what is meant here generally does not refer to abstract externality, because there is no abstract externality between heaven and earth; rather, the idea, which is the common content of nature and spirit, only obtains external expression in nature, But it is also for this reason that the Idea is only immanent, [or latent] in nature. No matter how hard the abstract intellect accustomed to the "either-or" approach opposes such a view of nature, it can still be clearly seen in other consciousnesses, especially in religious consciousness.From a religious point of view, nature is also God's revelation, no less than the spiritual world.The difference between the two is that nature has not yet realized its divine essence, while the task of spirit (especially limited spirit) is to realize its divine essence.Those who regard the essence of nature as mere immanence, and therefore beyond our reach, agree with the ancient Greek view of the gods as jealous, which was categorically refuted by Plato and Aristotle. .What God is, he will reveal, reveal, and first of all through and within nature. Furthermore, the defect or imperfection of an object is that it is only internal, and therefore at the same time only external.Or, in the same way, that it is only external and therefore at the same time only internal.For example, a child is generally a rational being as far as he is a human being, but to be honest, the child’s rationality is only internal at first, and it only manifests itself as endowment or volition.And his pure inner reason also has its pure external form, which is expressed in the will of the child's parents, in the knowledge of the teacher, and in the rational world surrounding the child.The education and training of a child consists in making him at first only in himself or potential, and therefore for him (for an adult), and also for himself.Reason, which at first was only an inner possibility for the child, is realized outwardly through education.Conversely, the same child who sees at first external authorities, such as manners, religion, science, etc., after education, will become aware of internal things inherent in himself.As with the child, so it is with the man, so long as he violates his mission, his reason and will are always chained to the state of nature.For example, a criminal's punishment is indeed imposed by external violence, but really speaking, this punishment is only the expression of his own criminal will. According to the above discussion, if a person has faults or mistakes in doing things, and he tells how good his motives and intentions are based on the distinction between internal and external, then we will know how to balance him.Indeed, there are often individual situations in life where good intentions come to naught due to harsh external circumstances, and plans with good intentions are hindered in their implementation.But generally speaking, the essential unity of inside and outside is still valid here.We must therefore say: Man's actions (outside) form his personality (inside).For those who are arrogant and self-deceitful because of their inner superiority, a famous saying in the Gospel can be cited to refute him: "Know people by the fruits of their works."This great maxim, which was originally applied to the moral and religious life, can still be applied with fruitful effect to the work of science and art.A teacher with a keen eye detects a person with a special talent among the students. He can express his opinion, saying that a certain life is the future Raphael or Mozart. Only by testing the results of the future can his words be confirmed. Unfounded.But an imbecile painter or a poor poet consoles himself by exaggerating that his heart is filled with noble ideals, and the consolation is vain.If they insist that their subjective intentions and ideals should be used as the criterion for judging their actual works, then we have legitimate reasons to reject this vain and unreasonable request.Sometimes the opposite happens.Men of good and great achievement are often judged unsympathetically on the basis of a false distinction between inner and outer.It is said that whatever is accomplished by others is only outward, while inwardly they are moved by other evil motives, such as the gratification of vanity or lust.This can be said to be a manifestation of jealousy.A jealous person cannot accomplish a great cause by himself, so he tries to underestimate the greatness of others, and belittles the greatness of others to make it equal to himself.Speaking of this, let us recall Goethe's words: "There is no other suitable way for the great merits of others except respect and love." People want to deprive others of their admirable achievements by doubting other people's motives and slandering others' hypocrisy. But it must be noted that it is true that a person can pretend to be a few things and hide many things, but he cannot cover up all his inner activities.Throughout the course of life (decursus vitae) the heart of any human being is inevitably bound to come out.So even here, we still have to say that man is nothing but a series of his actions. In modern times, especially, the so-called "pragmatic" way of writing history, that is, by mistakenly separating the inner from the outer, has often been guilty of writing about great historical figures, that is, by obliterating and distorting the real knowledge of them.Dissatisfied with telling the truth about the great deeds accomplished by the heroes of world history, and admitting that the inner contents of these heroes are also sufficient to correspond to their deeds, the pragmatic historian fantasizes that he has reason and duty to pursue the hidden The secret motives behind the publicly known feats of these characters.The historian thinks that the more he unmasks those formerly admired and respected persons, and reduces their origin and true meaning to the level of mediocrity, the better his history will be. for profound.For the purpose of this pragmatic writing of history, the study of psychology is often encouraged, because it is believed that the results of psychological research will enable us to see the real motives that govern human behavior.But the psychology mentioned here is only some partial knowledge of human emotions. It does not seek to have a universal and essential understanding of human nature, but mainly only uses special, accidental, and individualized instincts, passions, etc. as the object of observation.But such a pragmatic approach to psychology should at least give the historian who seeks the motives behind great actions a choice between substantive interests such as patriotism, justice, religious truth, etc., on the one hand, and Choose between subjective forms of interest such as vanity, lust for power, greed, etc.But pragmatic psychologists must recognize the latter type of motivation as the real driving force, because otherwise they would not be able to maintain the antithesis between inner (motivation for behavior) and outer (content of behavior).But really speaking, the inside and the outside have the same content, so, in order to oppose this pedantic cleverness, we must clearly say that if the heroes of history only rely on some subjective formal interests to guide their actions, then they The great work which they accomplished will not be accomplished.If we pay attention to the fundamental principle of the unity of internal and external, then we have to admit that great men have done what they want and have done what they want. §141 Those empty abstractions [ideas] which keep an identical content in [opposite] relations sublate themselves in immediate transition: one passes into the other.The content itself is nothing but the identity of the two opposites (§138).The abstract opposites are set up as illusions by the illusion of essence.Through the expression of force, the interior is set as "existence".But this setting is a mediation through various empty abstractions; this mediation process disappears in itself and becomes a kind of immediacy in which the inside and the outside are identical for themselves and for themselves. , the distinction between inside and outside is defined only as a postulated thing.This identity of inner and outer is reality (Wirklichkeit).