Chapter 40 (a) The struggle between enlightenment and superstition

Ⅰ.Negative attitude towards faith Skeptical consciousness, as well as theoretical and practical idealist consciousness, their various forms of negation, compared with the negation of pure knowledge and the enlightenment that spreads pure knowledge, are only inferior forms. Negative attitude; for pure perception is born from the [spiritual] entity, which knows the pure self of consciousness as the absolute, and it contends with the pure consciousness of the absolute essence of all reality. —Although belief and insight are one and the same pure consciousness, they are opposed to each other in terms of form. For belief, the essence is thought rather than concept, so it is a thing that is completely opposite to self-consciousness, while for pure insight Essence is the ego [subject]; therefore, their relation to each other is such that each is the absolute negation of the other. —In the case of two opposites, all content belongs to faith, because in the quiet thinking element of faith, every moment wins its continuous existence; —while pure insight, at first, has no content and can rather be It is simply the disappearance of content; but, through its negating movement of its negation, it will realize itself and acquire a content. ①

① Here Hegel supplements what he said in the previous section; belief is the only thought with content, and insight is the only negative thought; he now points out that the meaning of development lies in: knowledge will acquire a content, Something affirmative (philosophy of the eighteenth century) was about to emerge. - translator 1. The dissemination of pure knowledge Pure insight knows that faith is the very opposite of itself, of reason and truth.Just as for it, belief in general is a hodgepodge of superstition, prejudice, and error, consciousness, which grasps this content, further organizes itself into a realm of error, in which , the false perception is, on the one hand, the immediate, naive, unreflective general mass of consciousness (all gemeine Masse), but on the other hand, it contains in itself a self-reflection or The moment of self-consciousness, this latter moment of self-reflection, fools the direct, naive insight of the former as a hidden insight and malice that persists for its own sake.The masses thus fall prey to the deceitfulness of a priesthood which does nothing but gratify its jealousy and other selfishnesses which vainly seek to monopolize knowledge forever, and which, at the same time, joins with the despotism. Conspiracy, collusion.And despotism, as the non-conceptual composite unity of the Real Realm and the Ideal Realm - a grotesque thing full of contradictions - looms over the bad perceptions of the masses and the bad intentions of the priests, and despises them still further. , uniting the two in itself, taking advantage of the folly and confusion of the people, and the deceitfulness of the clergy, to reap the benefits of others, realize his peaceful rule, and satisfy its selfish desires and arbitrariness; but, at the same time, it also expresses From the same stupidity of insight, it is also superstition and error.

Enlightenment is not indiscriminate against these three enemies; for since its essence is pure insight, since it is universal in and for itself, its true relation to its adversary is such that , in which it deals [only] with the same that is common to both sides.As for the aspect of individuality which is isolated from the universal consciousness, it is its opposite and cannot be touched directly.The will, therefore, of both the deceitful priesthood and the oppressive tyrant, is not the immediate object of its actions; Willless insight is rather the concept of rational self-consciousness, which is not yet formed as a concept in the crowd, although it exists concretely in the crowd.But when pure insight rescues this honest insight, with its naive nature, from prejudice and error, it robs it of its deceitful reality and power from the hands of malice; The conceptless consciousness of the masses is its base and material, — being-for-itself generally has simple consciousness as its substance.

Now there are two aspects to the relation between pure perception and the innocent consciousness of the Absolute Essence. It develops naturally in the simple elements of its own thought, gives them continuous existence, and lets them appear only as its being-in-itself, only as objects, while denying its being-for-itself in this being-in-itself. —As long as, according to the first aspect, belief is a pure self-consciousness in itself for pure opinion, and so long as it is a pure self-consciousness only for itself, then in the concept of belief In pure insight, not false insight, the element of self-realization is found.

From this point of view, since the two parties in the relationship are essentially the same thing, since the relationship of pure perception takes place through and in the same element, the communication between them is a direct communication. , and their giving and receiving is an unimpeded communication.No matter what other wedges may be driven into consciousness, it is always a simplicity in which everything dissolves, is forgotten, becomes innocence, and this simplicity is therefore essential to the concept. It is absolutely easy to absorb and accept.Thus, the transmission of pure insight may be likened to the stealthy diffusion or transmission of a scent through unimpeded air.It is a penetrating contagion, contagion is not noticed in advance as something opposed to the indifferent element it is intended to infect, and so it cannot be prevented.It is not conscious until the contagion has spread, it is not noticed by the consciousness that was indifferent to it at first.For what this consciousness first received into itself was, of course, the simple essence of self-identity and identity with consciousness, but at the same time it was the simplicity of negativity which had returned to itself, [because] this simplicity was later also According to its own nature [negativity] develops into the opposite or opposite, and this brings consciousness back to the original way in which this opposite was; such simplicity is the concept, which is the simple knowledge which knows At the same time, it knows its counterpart, but the counterpart it knows is the counterpart that has been sublated within itself.

Therefore, when pure insight is an object of consciousness, when it is known to consciousness, it has already spread; to fight against it shows that the contagion has taken place; aggravates the disease, because the disease has infected the very marrow of the spiritual life, that is to say, has damaged the consciousness in its own conception, or invaded the pure essence itself of consciousness; the power of.Because the disease is in the essence itself, some of its sporadic manifestations that have not been concentrated can be overcome, and the superficial symptoms can be suppressed and not appear so serious.This is the best case for it, since it need not now waste its strength in vain, nor show that it is not worth according to its nature,-when it is with the belief in symptoms and individual attacks. This is what happens when the content of the subject is opposed to its relation to external reality.And now, as an invisible and unnoticed spirit, quietly permeating the noble parts everywhere, and then thoroughly grasping all the entrails and all the limbs of the completely unconscious god, "in a sunny day In the morning, he gave his companion a slight push with his elbow, and hey! Crash! The idol fell to the ground." ①—On a fine morning, the blood was gone even at noon that day, for the infection of the disease had penetrated all the organs of spiritual life; by this time only the memory retained the dead form of the former mental form, It has become a past history, and no one knows how; so the new serpent of wisdom, brought up for worship, painlessly sheds a layer of withered old skin.

① "Lamore's Nephew": "The kingdom of nature quietly consolidates itself, my kingdom of the Trinity, and the gates of hell can do nothing against this Trinity. Verily, it is the Father, and the Father produces good , goodness is the Son, and the Son begets Beauty, and Beauty is the Holy Spirit. This Gentile God (God) sits humbly beside the native idol on the altar. It gains more and more place, and on a fine morning it uses The elbow gave its companion a slight nudge, and Xili! Crash! The idol fell to the ground."——Editor's note by Hoffmeister. (This passage of Diderot originally described the results of the Jesuits' propaganda and preaching to the unbelievers, but here, on the contrary, Hegel uses it as a metaphor for the Christian faith itself. See "Lamore's Nephew", Commercial Press Edition, p. 274.——Translator)

2.Insight Against Faith But this silent activity, which the spirit conceals from its action, in the simple inwardness of its own substance, is but one aspect of the realization of pure insight.The diffusion of pure insight does not consist merely in the like meeting the same; its realization is not merely an unhindered diffusion.On the contrary, the essential act of negation is also essentially a developed, self-distinctive movement which, as a conscious act, must lay out its individual moments in a specific and visible reality, It must be expressed as a violent struggle between the two armies against each other.

We must therefore see how pure perception and pure intention deal negatively with the opponents they encounter against themselves. —Pure perception and pure intention in a negative attitude, since their concept is all essentiality and not something other than itself, can only be itself a negation of itself.Therefore, as insight, it becomes the negation of pure insight, it becomes untruth and irrationality, and as intention, it becomes the negation of pure intention, it becomes lie and impure purpose. Pure insight is involved in this contradiction because it enters into a dispute and thinks itself against something else (or something else). —It thinks so only because its essence, as absolute negativity, consists in containing something else within itself.Absolute concepts are categories;

It means that knowledge and the object of knowledge are the same thing.Therefore, what pure perception says is other or other, what it says is false or false, is nothing but itself; it can only punish that which is itself.That which is irrational it has no truth, in other words, that which is not grasped by concepts, does not exist; therefore, when reason speaks of an other than itself, what it really says is only itself; so here it does not jump out of itself. —This struggle with the other therefore implies in itself that its struggle is also its realization.For realization is precisely the movement of developing moments and receiving them back; a part of this movement is the distinction in which the understanding perception establishes itself as an object; When it is in the [object] link, it alienates itself.As pure insight, it has no content; its actualization consists in this: it becomes its own content, since, since it is the self-consciousness of the category, nothing else can become its content.However, because it only recognizes the object it sees in the other party at first, it only thinks it is the object, but does not know that it is itself, so it misidentifies itself in the other party and ignores itself.The full realization of pure perception, therefore, means that it recognizes that what it at first took to be an object is its own content.But then the result of pure perception (completed development) will be neither a reconstruction or recovery of the errors it opposes, nor merely its original concepts, but a perception that recognizes its own The absolute negative is its inherent reality, its own self, or its conception of knowing itself. —The quality of Enlightenment's struggle against errors, that is, against itself in error and condemning what it asserts in error, is for Ours, [as recognized by those of us who examine the movement], or rather, the situation is at home with Enlightenment itself and its struggles.

But the first aspect of the Enlightenment struggle, that is, that it becomes impure and becomes an object through the negation of its own identical purity, is for faith, [which is recognized by faith Arrived]; Faith then considers Enlightenment to be a lie, irrationality, and bad intentions, just as Enlightenment considers Faith to be falsehood and prejudice. —As far as its content is concerned, enlightenment is at first a contentless insight, from which the content of enlightenment seems to be something external; When it comes to the content of this form, the content is still a specific existence that is completely independent of enlightenment, and it is still something in belief. 3.Insight is a misunderstanding of itself Enlightenment, therefore, understands its own object first and generally as pure insight, and, being ignorant of itself, declares this object false.In insight itself consciousness understands an object in such a way that the object becomes the essence of consciousness, or becomes an object penetrated by consciousness, in which consciousness preserves itself, keeps itself for itself. itself, maintains itself as what appears to itself, and also creates or produces this object, since consciousness is the movement of this object.The Enlightenment rightly proclaims faith as just such a consciousness, for it says of faith that what is absolutely essential to faith is a being of faith's own consciousness, faith's own thought, It is a thing created by consciousness. ① The Enlightenment then declares that belief is a fallacy, and that what belief says about what Enlightenment itself is is sheer nonsense. — Enlightenment, though it thinks it is telling belief something new, does not say anything new; for the object of belief is precisely , which is precisely the belief in the pure nature of its own consciousness, so that this consciousness does not place itself in its object as if it had been denied and lost, but on the contrary, it rather trusts its object very much. That is to say, it thinks itself precisely as this consciousness, or as self-consciousness, in its object.When I trust a person, the certainty [or certainty] of the person I trust in himself is my certainty or certainty in myself; I recognize in it my being-for-me, I recognize , he recognizes my being for me and that my being for me is his purpose and essence.But trust is faith, because the consciousness of faith relates itself directly to its object, and thus intuits that it is one with its object, that it is in its object. —Furthermore, since that in which I know myself is an object for me, in this object I am at the same time for me another self-consciousness, specifically , is a self-consciousness which has alienated itself in this object, which has cast off its own particular individuality, or rather, which has escaped its naturalness and contingency, but which, on the one hand, continues to be Self-consciousness, while on the other hand it is in the same object, is an essential consciousness like pure perception. —The concept of seeing does not only mean that consciousness recognizes itself in the object it sees and has itself in the object directly (without leaving the thing thought and returning to itself) ; and it also implies that consciousness also knows itself as mediating movement, and that it is also acting or producing, and because of this, this unity of conscious self and object in thought is for it (consciousness ] of [in other words, this unity that consciousness knows]. —Precisely this consciousness is faith; obedience and action are a necessary moment in which certainty (certainty) of being in the Absolute Essence can arise.This act of belief does not seem, it is true, to be the kind of action by which the Absolute Essence itself arises.But the absolute essence of faith; in essence, it is not the abstract essence beyond the consciousness of belief; on the contrary, it is the spirit of the [religious] community, which is the unity of abstract essence and self-consciousness. [When we say] that the absolute essence of belief is the spirit of the community, we mean here that the action of the community is an essential moment; this spirit becomes spiritual only through the productive activity of consciousness,—or Rather, it is not produced without consciousness; for, although this production is very essential, it is not in essence the only ground of (absolute) essence after all, it is only a moment. The (absolute) essence is both in-itself and for-itself at the same time. ① See Feuerbach's views on God in "The Essence of Christianity". - translator On the other hand, the concept of pure knowledge considers itself to be something other than its own object; for it is this negative determination which constitutes the object.In this way, pure insight expresses the essence of belief in another way. It says that the essence of belief is an alien thing that does not belong to self-consciousness itself. It seemed to be a freak that had been secretly stuffed into its stomach.But enlightenment is a complete fool here; faith experiences that enlightenment is such a speech that it has no idea what it says, and when it speaks of the deceit of the monks and the delusion of the masses it does not understand that. What's the matter.According to this term of enlightenment, it is as if something foreign and something else were smuggled into consciousness as an essence through a trick of the magician preacher, while at the same time it means that this something It is an essence of consciousness, which it believes in, trusts in, and seeks to make agreeable to itself; that is to say, the Enlightenment declares that it regards this as its pure essence as well as its individual and universal Individuality, and it is through its own action that it combines itself with its essence to produce this unity.In a word, it is the most intrinsic nature of consciousness that Enlightenment directly declares itself to be an alien thing that does not belong to consciousness itself. —— How, then, can it speak of deceit and deception?Since what it says about belief itself is the opposite of what it thinks it is about belief, it might as well present itself to belief as a conscious lie.Since consciousness is directly certain of itself in its truth, since consciousness possesses itself in its object, in other words, both discovers and produces itself, how can it be done in this case? Will there be deception and confusion?There is no distinction, not even in words. —The general question, whether it is possible to deceive or deceive a people, has been asked, and the answer to this question should be that the question is nonsense; for a people cannot be deceived in such a matter. —Substituting brass for gold, counterfeit coins for real money, can deceive a few, and a defeated battle can be deceitful of a great victory, and the like. Lies about sensuous things and individual events can be believed for a long time; but in knowledge of essences, where consciousness has an immediate certainty of itself, deceitful thought is perfectly acceptable. There is no room for existence. ① In 1778, the Berlin Academy of Sciences proposed a reward for answering questions raised by Frederic the Great. ——Original Editor Ⅱ.Principles of Enlightenment Let us now go a step further and see how faith is enlightened [mistakenly] regarded in its various stages of consciousness--the above-mentioned views only deal with belief-consciousness in general.These moments are: first, pure thought, or, as an object, the absolute essence in and for itself; secondly, the relation of the belief-consciousness to the absolute essence as a relation of knowledge, the ground of its belief, and finally, The consciousness of faith is related to this absolute essence in its action or in its worship.Just as pure insight misunderstands and negates itself in belief in general, so in these moments of belief its approach is equally perverted. 1.The Enlightenment's Inversion of Faith Pure insight takes a negative attitude towards the absolute nature of belief consciousness.This essence is pure thinking, and pure thinking is posited in itself as an object, or as an essence; In other words, it is an objective form, but this objective form is only an empty form①; the self-existence of thinking has a determination of what is presented as a representation.But since pure perception is pure consciousness on the part of the ego (or subject) existing for itself, this other appears to pure consciousness as a negation of self-consciousness.As for this negation, it can of course also be taken either as the pure being-in-itself of thinking or as the being of sensuous certainty (experientially).But since this negation is at the same time for the self, its object, and this self as self has an object, a real consciousness, the pure perception of its own proper object is itself a kind of sense-certainty. , the ordinary things that exist.This object of pure knowledge is presented to pure knowledge in the form of the representation of belief.Pure insight curses the appearance of belief, and curses its own object in this appearance.But its injustice towards belief is expressed in its attitude towards the object of belief, since the object of belief is its own object.So when it talks about faith, it says that the absolute essence of faith is a stone, a piece of wood, which has eyes but cannot see, or a piece of steamed bread, a piece of dough, which originally grew in the field and was transformed by man. The image is then thrown back into the field—or, in some other way, faith anthropomorphizes the (absolute) essence, makes it objective and representable. ① According to the previous section, the (absolute) essence is presented before belief as an object. Although this object is an empty form, knowledge only considers this objective form, and since knowledge itself is the real self , in the eyes of the real self, the objective form can only be a perceptual existence.So insight sees the essence of belief only in sensuous things like stones, bread, idols, and the like. - translator Enlightenment, which claims to be purity, here takes both the eternal life (immortality) and the divine spirit (Holy Spirit) that the spirit thinks are a real and impermanent thing, and it is a kind of perceptual certainty. Contaminated by ideas of value, which are not at all possessed by the faith [consciousness] of prayer and worship, and which are therefore purely falsely planted on it by Enlightenment. ——The things that faith worships are neither stones, wood, or steamed buns, let alone other perceptual things in a limited time.If the Enlightenment feels that it should be said that the object of faith is after all such things as stones, wood, and steamed buns, or even such things in itself and really, then faith, on the one hand, is certainly not ignorant of this, but It considers this, too, to be something other than its adoration, while on the other hand its object in itself is not a stone, etc., at all; its object in itself is pure thought. essence. The second link is the relationship between belief as a knowledge-active or knowing (Wissenden) consciousness and this absolute essence.Faith, as a pure consciousness with thinking activity, is directly related to this essence.But this pure consciousness (or belief) is likewise an indirect (mediated) relation of certainty to truth; and such an indirect relation constitutes the ground of belief.Thus, in the eyes of the Enlightenment, this ground becomes a contingent knowledge of contingent events.But the ground of knowledge is the universal with knowledge, and as far as this universal with knowledge is really meant, the ground of knowledge is the Absolute Spirit, when it is abstract and pure consciousness or thinking itself When it is only the Absolute Essence, but when it is self-awareness it is knowledge about oneself.Pure insight also regards this universal thing with knowledge activities, that is, the simple spirit that knows itself, as a negation of self-consciousness.It is true that pure insight itself is pure and mediated thinking, or that it mediates its own thinking, it is pure knowledge; but since it is such a pure insight, pure knowledge, that is, it is also If it does not know itself, in other words, it does not know that pure perception is this pure, mediated movement, and this purely mediated movement appears to it, like those in which all is itself. The same thing appears not to be itself but to be something else.Thus, when it realizes itself, it develops this moment which is essential to it; but this moment seems to it to belong to faith, and since this moment has The determinacy of something else is like a contingent knowledge of actual historical facts in the popular sense.So here it makes a fiction about religious belief, for example, nonsense that the certainty of religious belief is based on some individual historical witnesses, and as historical witnesses, they can provide people with certainty about their content Not to the extent that the newspaper news gives people certainty about any event;—for example, the nonsense that the certainty of religious belief also depends on the accidental preservation of these testimonies, on the one hand the preservation of documents. On the other hand, the accuracy and faithfulness of the repeated copying, and finally, the correct understanding of the meaning of these dead words are all accidental.But in fact faith does not want to pin its certainty on such historical testimonies and accidental conditions; faith, in its certainty, is a pure and natural relation to its absolute object, it is about the absolute A pure knowledge of the object which does not allow words, documents, scribes, etc. to mix into its consciousness of the absolute essence, and does not allow itself to be mediated by such things.This consciousness is rather the self-mediated ground of its knowledge; it is the spirit itself, and the spirit witnesses itself both from the depths of the individual consciousness and through the universal expression of all men to it. Believe and witness for yourself.If faith really wants to base its content on the basis of historical facts, as the Enlightenment says, or, to put it mildly, to provide a proof, as if this is the point, then it has already been fooled by the Enlightenment; and Its efforts to justify itself or strengthen itself in this way are but witnesses that it has been infected by enlightenment. Now, there is still a third link that we have to examine, that is, the relationship between consciousness and the absolute essence in action.This kind of action consists in sublating the particularity of the individual or the natural way of being-for-itself. Through sublation, the individual generates certainty and is convinced that he is a pure self-consciousness after the action, that is to say, that he is a self-consciousness. An individual consciousness that exists for itself is one with the Absolute Essence. —Because in the action the purposiveness and the purpose are distinguished, and since pure knowledge treats this action in a negative manner, just as it negates itself in other moments, pure knowledge, from the purposive Viewed from the side of sex, it must appear foolish and irrational, since in it the union of opinion and intention, the unity of end and means, becomes something else, even its opposite,— —But from the point of view of purpose, it necessarily takes bad things, enjoyment, and possession as ends, and thus shows itself to be the most impure intention, because the pure intention, as other, is also an impure intention. Therefore, from the perspective of purposiveness, we find that the individual with faith obtains a nobler consciousness of getting rid of the shackles of natural enjoyment because he truly abandons natural enjoyment, and he proves his understanding of nature through practical actions. Contempt for pleasure is not a lie but is sincere, and so on, which the Enlightenment considers foolish and unwise--similarly, by giving up its property, the individual of faith escapes from its monopoly as an individual to the exclusion of all others. The determination of an absolutely individual individual of one's own property is also foolish to the Enlightenment; for the Enlightenment, such an action of the individual shows that it does not really take its liberation seriously, but rather that it detaches itself. That is, beyond the natural necessity of individuating itself, and in so absolutely individuating its own being-for-itself, denying that other individuals are the same as itself. —Pure sense considers both cases to be neither fit for purpose nor right. —It considers it inappropriate to deny enjoyment, to forsake possession of property, in order to show that one is free from enjoyment and possession; Fool. —It also considers it unjust to throw away a meal without exchanging buttered eggs for money, or money for buttered eggs, but, on the contrary, without giving away such things for nothing; Meals, etc., are an end in themselves, and in doing so it actually declares itself to be a very impure intention, since it regards enjoyment and possession as entirely essential.Moreover, as a pure insight, it maintains the necessity of detachment from natural beings and from the lust for them; but it considers it foolish and illegitimate to demonstrate this detachment by practical action. .In other words, this kind of pure insight is really a deception. It flaunts and advocates a kind of inner detachment, while at the same time it thinks that doing so seriously, and actually practicing this detachment to prove its truth, is a kind of deception. is redundant, stupid, even improper. —— It can therefore be said that it denies itself both as pure perception and as pure intention, because it denies action which is directly purposive, and as pure intention because it denies to justify itself as free from the intention to achieve individual ends. 2. The Affirmative Proposition of Enlightenment This is how enlightenment makes faith see itself.Enlightenment behaves so badly because it derives a negative reality precisely from its relation to an other, or expresses itself as its own opposite; but pure insight and pure intention necessarily To obtain this relation [of it to an other].Because that's what they do. —This realization appears to be primarily a negative reality.Perhaps its positive reality is better; let us then see what its positive reality looks like. ——如果说一切偏见和迷信都已排除掉了，那么不免要问：现在下一步是什么呢？启蒙不传播偏见和迷信，它究竟传播了什么样的真理呢？ ——其实这个肯定性的内容它早在它排除谬误时就已经说出来了，因为它自己的那个异化同样也就是它的肯定性实在。 ——在那对信仰而言即是绝对精神的东西那里，它把它从中所发现到的规定都理解为木头、石头等等，理解为一种个别的现实事物；由于它以这个方式把绝对精神的一切规定性亦即一切内容一般地都理解为一种有限性，理解为人的本质和人的表象，于是在它看来绝对本质就成了一种真空，任何规定、任何宾词都附加不上去。假如附加什么规定、宾词到这上面来，那将是根本不可原谅的事；而恰恰由于这种附加，于是产生出了大量的迷信。理性，纯粹识见，本身当然不是空虚的，因为它自身的否定物就是它的对象，它的内容；相反，它倒是内容丰富的，但是它之丰富，只是富于个别性和限制性；它表现它有眼光有见识的地方，就在于它既不让个别性限制性这类东西归属于绝对本质，也不把它们附加到绝对本质上来，而因为这样，所以它懂得如何把它自己和它的有限性财富都安排到它们应有的位置上，懂得如何尊严地对待绝对。 与这个空虚的本质相对立而作为启蒙的肯定性真理的第二环节的，是那属于意识和一切存在而被排除于一个绝对本质之外的个别性一般，也就是说，是绝对的自在而又自为的存在。现在，那就其最初的现实而言本是感性确定性和意见的意识，在遍历了它的全部经验路程以后又返回到了它最初出发的这个地方来，重新成了一种关于它自己的纯粹否定物的知识，或者说，成了一种关于那些与它的自为存在截然对立的感性事物亦即存在着的事物的知识。但是它在这里已不是一种直接的自然的意识，而是为它自己而变成这样一个意识的了。当初，它由于它自己的发展实现而陷入于各种纠纷之中不能自拔，现在，让纯粹识见把自己导回于它的最初形态，因而它已经取得了经验，深知这最初的形态是发展的结果了。这种感性确定性，因以识见为根据，知道一切其他意识形态亦即感性确定性的一切彼岸都是等于零的虚无，就不再是意见，而是绝对真理了。所有超脱了感性确定性的那些意识形态所共有的这种虚无性，真正说来，仅只是这种真理的一个消极的证明，除此而外它是别无所能的，因为感性确定性自己的肯定性真理，正就是作为对象的并且确切说来作为他在的那种概念本身的无中介的〔直接的〕自为存在；—— 〔概念本身的无中介的自为存在，作为他在，或者说以他在的形式出现，其所以说是肯定性真理，乃是因为：〕它之存在着，别的现实事物之在它以外，以及它象这些现实事物一样处于它自己的自然的存在之中时就是自在自为的或者说是绝对的，如此等等，对于任何一个意识而言都是绝对确定无疑的。 最后，启蒙的第三个真理环节是诸个别本质对绝对本质的关系，也就是说，第一和第二两个环节之间的关系。识见，作为同一物或无限物的纯粹识见，也越出于差别物亦即有限的现实以外；换句话说，也越出于作为单纯他在的它自己以外。单纯他在的彼岸，在它看来就是空虚，于是它就把感性的现实跟空虚联接起关系来。不过，并不是关系双方都作为内容而进入于这个关系的规定之中：因为一方是空虚，因而只是由于另一方即感性现实的那一方的缘故关系才有内容。 但是，由于在关系的规定中自在这一方也参与其事，所以关系的形式是可以任意形成的；因为形式是自在否定物，从而是自身的反对物；它既是有也是无；它既是自在也是对方，或者换个说法也一样，现实与作为彼岸的自在的关系既是对现实的一个否定也是对现实的一个设定〔或肯定〕。有限的现实于是真正可以说就是通常人们使用的那种东西了。因此，现在感性事物与作为自在的绝对，发生了肯定的关系，而且感性的现实本身就是自在的；它由绝对创造着，养育着，照护着。可是同时，它也与作为对方、作为它的非存在的绝对发生着否定的关系，在这种关系中，它不是自在的，而是为一个他物的。如果说在前一个意识形态中，对立的〔两个〕概念曾把自己规定为善和恶，那么现在相反，在纯粹识见这里，它们变成自在的存在和为一个他物的存在〔两个〕更加纯粹的抽象了。 3.有用是启蒙的基本概念 但是有限事物对自在存在的肯定关系和否定关系，这两种考察方式，事实上同样是必要的，因而一切东西都既是自在的又是为一个他物的，换句话说，都是有用的。——一切东西都献身于别的东西，都让自己为别的东西使用，都是为它们的；而现在，它们如果可以这样说的话，腰杆重新挺硬起来，虎视耽耽，使别的东西望而生畏，都是自为的或为自己的，而且转过来利用别的东西。——人是意识到了这种关系的东西，所以人的本质和人的地位就从这里产生出来了。人，就其直接性而言，作为一种自然的意识，他是自在的，好的，作为一种个别的意识，他是绝对的，而别的一切都是为他的，更确切地说，由于各环节在人这种有自我意识的动物看来都有普遍性的意义，所以一切都是为了他的愉快和欢乐而存在的，而他，就象刚从上帝手中制造出来的天之骄子，逍遥于世界之上如同游逛于一座专门为他而培植的花园里一样。——他一定也从善恶的知识之树上摘取过果实；这棵树上的果实对他有一项用处，那就是，足以使他与一切别的东西有所区别，因为他那天生善良的本性碰巧也有这样的性质：欢乐过度就对它的本性有损，或者更确切地说，他的个别性本身也包含着它的彼岸，可以越出于自己本身以外去毁灭自己。为了防止这种情况，他发现理性倒是一种有用的工具，可用以适度地约束这种逾越，或者更确切地说，可用以在逾越了规定的限度的时候维护自己本身；因为这就是意识的力量。有意识的和自在地普遍的本质，无论从繁复性上或从持续性上说，它的享乐都必须是普遍的，而不是一种有规定有限度的东西；因此，尺度的规定就在于防止享乐在繁复性和持续性上受到阻挠或限制；这就是说，尺度的规定是无尺度〔或无限度〕。——正如对于人一切都是有用的，同样，对于一切人也是有用的，而人的规定、人的使命也就在于使自己成为人群中对公共福利有用的和可用的一员。他照料自己多少，他必须也照料别人多少，而且他多么照顾别人，他也就在多么照顾自己；一只手在洗涤另一只手。但是他在哪里，哪里就是他适当的位置；他利用别人，也为别人所利用。 不同的东西互相有用的方式也不同；但所有的东西都因为它们自己的本质的缘故，也就是说，都因为是在双重方式下与绝对发生着关系的缘故而具有这种相互为用的性质，——就其以肯定方式与绝对发生关系而言，一切事物都是自在自为的，就其以否定方式与绝对发生关系而言，一切事物都是为他的。所以，与绝对本质发生关系，或者说宗教乃是一切有用之中最有用的东西；因为它是纯粹的有用本身，它是使一切事物所以站得住的东西，亦即它们的自在自为的存在，它是使一切事物所以倒下去的东西，亦即它们的为他的存在。 毫无疑问，对信仰说来，启蒙的这种肯定性结果也象它对信仰的否定性态度〔关系〕一样是极端讨厌的。这样的识见，即，认为在绝对本质中没有任何别的，有的只不过是绝对的本质、最高的存在（etresupreme）或至大的空虚，—— 这样的意图，即，认为一切事物在其直接的特定存在中都是自在的或好的，并且最后认为，个别的有意识的存在对绝对本质的关系，或者说宗教，可以由有用性概念加以表述而穷尽无遗，所有这些看法，对信仰说来，都是绝对可恶的东西。 同时，启蒙的这种独特的明智之见，在信仰看来必然又是平庸之见，甚至还是它对自己之平庸的招供；因为启蒙之所以是这种见解，就在于它对绝对本质什么也不知道，或者换个说法也一样，它对绝对本质只知道这样一种完全平凡的真理，那就是，绝对本质仅仅就是绝对的本质而已，相反，它只对有限事物有所知道，而且更确切地说，它知道有限事物是真实的东西，并且认为这种关于有限事物亦即关于真实东西的知识是最高的知识。 Ⅲ.启蒙的正当权利 信仰有权利反对启蒙，这权利是神圣的权利，是绝对自身等同或纯粹思维的权利，而且信仰认为它所受启蒙的对待是完全不公正的，没有任何权利的； 因为启蒙把它的一切环节都歪曲了，把它们歪曲成一些与它们在信仰中的真实情况大不相同的东西；而启蒙之反对信仰以及坚持其自己的真理，则只有人世的权利；因为启蒙所做的不公正的事情，所进行的颠倒和改变，乃是不平等的一种权利，这种权利是属于那与简单本质或思维相对立的自我意识的本性的。但是，既然启蒙的权利是自我意识的权利，那么启蒙就将不仅限于主张它自己也有权利，以便让两种精神权利仿佛可以互相对峙各不相下，相反，它将主张它的绝对权利，因为自我意识是概念的否定性，而这种否定性不仅是自为的，并且也是干预其对方〔意识〕的；而且由于信仰就是一种意识，所以信仰就将不能拒绝承认启蒙有它的权利。 1.思维的自身运动 因为，启蒙对待信仰意识所根据的并不是启蒙自己特有的原则，而是信仰意识本身中原有的原则。启蒙只不过把信仰意识自己的一些不自知地分散孤立着的思想联系到一起呈现给信仰意识而已；启蒙只不过使信仰意识根据自己的某一个思想环节去回想也是其自己本来就有的、但一想到这一环节就总被忘掉了的那些别的思想环节而已。启蒙通过这样的事实向信仰意识表明自己是纯粹识见：那就是，它能在某一个特定的环节上见到全体，它能找出与该环节联系着的对立面，并能使一个转化为别一个从而产生出这两个思想环节的否定性本质、概念。这样一来，启蒙在信仰看来就成了一种歪曲和谎言，因为它把信仰的诸环节的他在（Anderssein）揭示出来了；它因此好象把信仰的环节都直接搞成不同于它们在其个别性中时的某种别的东西了；但是，这种别的东西也同样是本质的，并且真正说来是信仰意识在其本身中本来就有的，只不过没曾被信仰意识想起过而被保存于什么别的地方了的；因此，这种别的东西，既不是信仰意识以外的什么异己物，也不能为信仰意识所否认。 但是，启蒙虽然提醒了信仰，使之注意其自己的那些孤立的没联系到一起的环节，但对它自己本身却也还同样是没有启开蒙昧、同样是认识不清的。它以纯粹否定的态度对待信仰，只因为它把它的内容排除于它的纯粹性之外，把它的内容当成它自身的否定物。因此，它既没有在这种否定物中、在信仰的内容之中认识自己本身，它因此也没有把它所提供的思想跟它提供出来的思想所反对的那种思想两者结合起来，联系起来。由于它没认识到，它所谴责的在信仰方面的那种东西直接就是它自己的思想，所以它自身总是处于两种〔思想〕环节的对立之中，它只承认两种环节之一，具体说，它每次都只承认那与信仰相对立的一个环节，而另外一个环节，它就使之与前一环节分离开来，恰恰象信仰的做法一样。 因此它并不统一两者从而创造出两者的统一体、概念，而勿宁是，概念在它面前出现是自为地发生出来的，换句话说，它只是发现到现成存在着的概念而已。因为，纯粹识见的实现〔运动〕，从本质上说，恰恰是这样的：首先，那以概念为本质的纯粹识见自己本身异化为一个绝对的他物，否认了自己，（因为概念的对立是绝对的），然后再从这个他物回到自己本身，也就是说，回到它的概念。——但启蒙仅只就是这个运动，它是纯粹概念的一种还没有被意识到的活动，这种活动诚然达到了它的对象，也就是说，达到了它自己本身，但是它把对象亦即它自己当成了一个他物，并且它也不认识概念的性质，即是说，它也不知道，那无差别的东西就是绝对分裂着自己的东西。——因此，纯粹识见在反对信仰时所以是一种概念势力，乃是因为它是把信仰意识中各自孤立的环节联系到一起去的运动，而由于这么一联系，信仰各环节之间的矛盾就显现出来了。纯粹识见所以能对信仰施加暴力，其绝对权利就在这里；但是，识见所以能使这种暴力成为现实，产生实效，则恰恰在于这样的事实：即，信仰意识本身即是概念，而且本身承认了纯粹识见给他找出的那个对立面。纯粹识见于是保有了它反对信仰的权利，因为它使信仰本身所必要的和信仰本身所已有的东西在信仰那里成了有效准的东西。 2.对信仰的诸论点的批判 首先，启蒙坚持主张概念〔这个环节〕乃是意识的一种行动；它违反着信仰的看法，坚持主张信仰的绝对本质是信仰者亦即一个自我的意识的本质，换句话说，绝对本质是由意识创造出来的。在信仰意识看来，它的绝对本质固然对它而言是自在的东西，同时却不是一个什么异己的东西，如果说是自在的但又是异己的东西，那就仿佛说，这东西却是在那里，而人们却不知道是怎么样和从哪来进来的；事实上勿宁是，它所信任就在于发现它自己作为这一个〔特殊的〕个人的意识即在绝对本质之中，而它所以要顺从和礼拜，就在于要通过它的行动使绝对本质成为它的绝对本质。关于这一点，真正说来，启蒙只是对信仰提醒一下而已，因为信仰曾毫不含糊地宣称绝对本质的自在〔存在〕是在意识的行动的彼岸。——但是，启蒙即使针对着信仰的片面性提出了一个与信仰在这里所思维的唯一环节——与存在正相对立的环节——信仰的行动，但它本身既然同样没有把它的思想结合到一起，那么它就是在孤立信仰的行动这个环节，而把信仰的自在宣布为仅只是意识的一个产品。但是，被孤立了的，与自在相对立的行动，是一种偶然的行动，而且，它，作为一种起表象作用的行动，是虚构—— 表象的一种产生〔活动〕，而表象都不是自在的东西；这些就是启蒙对信仰内容的看法。——但是反过来，纯粹意见同样也说反面的话；比如说，当它强调概念本身所具有的那种他在环节时，它声称信仰的本质是一种与意识无干的、在意识之彼岸的、为意识所不认识的异己的本质。就信仰来说，情况也是这样，一方面，信仰信任它的本质，并因信任它的本质而取得对它自身的确信，另一方面，在它看来，它的本质的通路是不可探索的，它的本质的存在是不可达到的。 其次，启蒙所以坚持认为它有权利反对信仰意识，其根据又在这里，即，当它把信仰意识所崇拜的对象看作石头和木头之类的一种有限的拟人的规定性时，信仰意识自己对这个看法也是接受的，承认的。因为，由于信仰意识是这样一种分裂为二的意识，它既有一个现实的彼岸又有这个彼岸的一个纯粹的此岸，所以事实上信仰意识本身对它所崇拜的对象也抱有这种感性事物的看法，即是说，也认为这是自在而自为地有效准的东西；不过信仰意识并没有把关于自在而自为存在着的东西的两种看法，亦即有时认为是纯粹本质而有时又认为是一个普通的感性事物这两种看法，结合到一起。——甚至连它自己的纯粹意识也不免受这后一种看法的影响；因为，由于它的超感性世界里没有概念，所以它这超感性世界的诸差别就是一系列独立的形态，而它们的活动就是一种不期然而然的偶发事件，换句话说，超感性世界的诸差别都只是属于表象方面的东西，它们本身都具有着感性存在的样态①。——至于启蒙呢，在它这一方面也是一样，它同样把现实孤立为一种被精神遗弃了的本质，把规定性孤立为一种固定不移的有限物，仿佛既不是本质的精神活动中的一个环节，又不是无，也不是一种什么自在自为地存在着的东西，而勿宁是一种消逝着的东西。 ①这里谈到，信仰意识把"圣父"、"圣子"、"圣灵"想象为三个截然不同的境界，使它们都具有表象的样态；于是精神的必然性降为事件的偶然性。——译注 显而易见，知识的根据方面的情况也是这样。信仰意识自己承认着一种偶然的知识；因为，它与偶然性事物保有关系，而且在它看来绝对本质自身就是一种表象化了的普通现实；这样，信仰意识就也是一种在自己本身中没有真理的确定性〔确信〕，而且它就坦率招认自己是这样一种处于那确信着自己并证实着自己的精神之此岸的、非本质的意识。不过，信仰意识在它关于绝对本质的直接的精神性的知识中，把这个环节忘掉了。——但是，启蒙固然记住了这个环节，却又只想到偶然知识而忘掉了他物，——启蒙只想到那通过一个异己的第三者参与而发生的中介过程，而忘掉了这样一个中介过程：在这个中介过程里，直接的东西本身就是它自己借以与他物亦即与自己本身发生中介的那个第三者。 最后，就对于信仰〔意识〕的行动的看法来说，启蒙认为，舍弃享受和牺牲财产是既不公正而又不合目的的。 —— 在信仰的行动的不公正性问题上，启蒙是和信仰意识意见一致的，一致之处就在于，信仰意识本身也承认占有财产、保持财产和享受财产这个现实；信仰意识在保卫其财产时越是坚决和顽强，在放弃其享受时也就越是粗野和狠心，因为它放弃财产享受的这个宗教行动，关涉着这个现实的彼岸，能够替它换取在那现实之彼岸的自由。牺牲自然欲望和放弃享受的这种礼拜〔行动〕，由于现实与彼岸的对立，事实上就没有任何真理性；保存是与牺牲双双并存着的；这样的牺牲只不过是一种姿态，它只在一个很小的部分里完成了真正的牺牲，因而事实上只是作了象征性的牺牲。 在信仰的行动的合目的性问题上，启蒙认为，抛弃一笔财产以便让自己感觉到并向别人显示出自己一概摆脱了财产，戒绝一种享受以便让自己感觉到并向别人表示出自己一概超脱了享受，这乃是笨拙的、不合目的的做法。信仰意识本身把绝对的行动当成一种普遍的行动；在它看来，不仅对它的绝对本质亦即对它的对象的行为，显然是一种普遍的行为，就连个别的意识也应表明自己完完全全摆脱了它的感性本质。但是，对一笔个别的财产的舍弃或者对一种个别的享受的戒绝，却并不是这样的普遍的行为。而且由于在行为里，目的是一种普遍的东西，而实行是一种个别的东西，所以在意识看来，行为从本质上说总不能不包含着目的与实行这两者的不协调、不对应；而因为这个缘故，这种行为就表明自己是一种没经意识参加过或过问过的行为了，更进一步说，这种行为真正说来是太朴素以至根本不能算是一种行为了；为了证明自己并不贪求口腹之乐而进行绝食，为了证明自己并不沈湎于其他肉体快乐而象奥里根①一样废除一切肉体的享受，这实在是太朴素、太天真了。行为本身表明自己是一种外在的和个别的行动；但贪欲则有内在的根源，是一种普遍的东西；贪欲的乐趣既不会随同寻乐工具的消逝而消逝，也不会因戒绝了个别欲求而消逝。 ①奥里根（Origenes，185-254）是早期的天主教神学家。 - translator 但是启蒙一方面呢，它现在把内在的东西、非现实东西孤立起来以与现实性相对立，正如它以前在信仰的直观和虔诚方面把事物性、外在性孤立起来以与信仰的内在性相对立那样。它把本质之点放在意图上、思想上，并且因此认为，旨在解脱自然目的的具体实行，是不必要的；相反，这种内在性本身是形式性的东西，它要在自然冲动中才能得到实现，而自然冲动所以被认为是正当的，正因为它们都是内在的，正因为它们都属于普遍的存在，都属于自然。 3.信仰变为空无内容 启蒙于是对信仰有了不可抗拒的支配力，因为，在信仰本身中就存在着种种支持启蒙使之现实有效的环节。如果我们仔细考察这种力量的后效，则我们看到，它对信仰所采取的反对行为好象是在分裂着信心（或信任Vertrauen）与直接确定性之间美满的统一，好象是在以感性现实的低级思想沾污着信仰的精神性的意识，好象是在以理智的、自身意志的和实践的虚骄破坏着信仰因谦卑而取得的宁静的和安全的心情。然而事实上启蒙给信仰带来的并不是这些，而勿宁说，启蒙是在扬弃着信仰本身中原来存在的那种无思想的或者更确切地说无概念的割裂状态。信仰意识使用的是双重的衡量尺度，它有两种眼睛，两种耳朵，两种口舌和语言，它使一切表象都成为双重的，却并不把这种双重性的东西进行对照。换句话说，信仰是生活在两种知觉中，一种是纯然生活于无概念的思想中的意识的昏睡着的知觉，另一种是单纯生活于感性现实中的意识的觉醒的知觉，而且信仰在这两种知觉中分别过着互不相干的各自的生活。——启蒙以感性世界的表象来启发那个天堂世界，给天堂世界展示出信仰所不能否认的这个有限〔世界〕；信仰之所以无法否认，乃是因为信仰是一种自我意识，因而是这样一种统一体：上述两种表象同属于这个统一体，而且两者在这统一体里是结合在一起两不分离的；其所以两不分离，则是因为它们都隶属于信仰所过渡而成的那同一个不可分割的简单的自我。 这样一来，信仰就丧失了充实着它的元素的那种内容，并沉沦为这样一种精神状态，在此状态下，精神只在其自身中进行着沉闷的编织〔活动〕。信仰已被排除出它自己的王国，或者说，这个王国已被抢劫走了，因为，觉醒的意识已把这个王国的一切区别和扩展都抢劫到自己这里来，将其一切部分都当成大地〔人世〕的财产索取回来，归还给了大地。但是，信仰并没有因此而感到满意，因为经过这样的启发之后，它发觉，到处呈现出来的都只是个别的本质，以至于能对精神有所激发的，就只是无本质的现实和丧失了精神的有限事物了。——由于信仰已没有内容而又不能甘居于这种空虚之中，换句话说，由于它超越这个即是它唯一内容的有限世界之后所找到的只是空虚，所以它就成了一个纯粹的眷望，它的真理就成了一个不复容有任何适当内容存在其中的空虚的彼岸，因为一切一切都已另作安排使用了。——这样，信仰事实上就变成了与启蒙同样的东西，即是说，变成了使自在存在着的有限事物与那不曾认识也不可能认识因而不具任何宾词的绝对发生关系的意识；其不同处只在于，启蒙是满足了的启蒙，而信仰则是没有满足的启蒙。不过启蒙是否能继续心满意足下去，马上就将从它自己身上发现出来；那因失掉了它的精神世界而忧伤抑郁的精神所怀抱的眷望之情，仍然潜伏在背后。甚至启蒙自己身上就有着没有满足的眷望这一污点，这个污点，——在启蒙的空虚的绝对本质那里，表现为一种纯粹的对象，——在超过启蒙的个别本质以趋赴空虚彼岸的超越中，表现为一种行动和运动，——在有用事物的无我性（Selbst losigkeit）中，表现为一种有内容的对象。启蒙将要消除这个污点；而只要仔细考察一下被启蒙视为真理的那种肯定性结果，我们就会看到，这个污点自在地已经取消掉，扬弃掉了。