Chapter 3 Volume 1 Doubt-2

I'm going to spend a little more time on this to clarify and fully understand what my claim consists of. For the whole success or failure of my future discussions may well depend on my clear awareness of this point in my thinking process. I began to ask why and on what grounds the determinations of objects are at this very moment exactly what they are now.So now, without further proof, nor inquiry, I may assume that it is self-evident, immediately true, and infallible, as it is, as I still perceive it, and always will would be perceived; I say, and I assume that they have a cause, that they exist, have reality, not because of themselves, but because of something outside of them.I find their existence insufficient to account for their own existence, and I feel compelled to postulate another existence for their own sake.But why should I find the presence of these traits or provisions insufficient?Why should I treat it as an incomplete existence?What is there in it that makes me feel inadequate?This is undoubtedly due to: firstly, these characters are by no means independent, they are only things that belong to another being; A character always assumes such a thing that adopts and bears a character. In academic language, it assumes the substrate of such characters.Secondly, to say that such a substrate has a definite character means that the change of the substrate is in a state of silence, and the change of the substrate is in a state of suspension.If I imagine it in a state of change, it has no certainty any longer, but passes from one state to another opposite state through uncertainty.The deterministic state of things is therefore the state and expression of a mere passivity; this mere passivity is an incomplete existence.It requires an activity corresponding to this passivity; from this activity passivity can be explained, through and by means of which it can be conceived; or, as we usually say , this activity contains the ground of this passivity.

It is by no means, therefore, that I have conceived, and had to conceive, that the different successive determinations of nature could themselves produce each other; It is another character which does not belong to itself, which is not contained in it.A character neither produces itself nor produces something else than itself. What I conceive, and must conceive, in order to understand the gradual occurrence and alternation of those determinations, is an active, object-specific force constituting the true essence of the object. But how do I conceive of this power?What is its nature?How does it behave?It can only appear in such a way that, under certain conditions, this power by itself and for itself produces certain results and nothing else, and this is absolutely true and absolutely infallible.

The principle of agency, of generation and change in and for itself, exists purely within itself, it is indeed force, and does not exist outside of itself; this force is not moved or set in motion, but self-motivated.It is precisely this characteristic.The cause of developing itself in a definite way is partly within itself, because it is this power and no other, and partly is outside itself, in the external conditions under which it develops itself.To bring about a change, it is necessary to combine two aspects, that is, the internal determination of force by itself and the external determination of force by external conditions.The point is this: first, that the external conditions, the static existence and persistence of things, never give rise to any change, since these conditions contain the opposite of all change, that is, the static persistence; Generally speaking, it is a thoroughly determined force, but its certainty is accomplished by the external conditions on which it develops itself. —I can only conceive of a power; but that power exists for me only when I feel it at work.A force without action, though it can be a force, rather than a static thing, is utterly inconceivable.Every action, however, is definite; for action is only a reflection, another aspect of the action itself.

Therefore, the forces at work are determined in the activity.And the cause of this certainty lies partly in power itself, since it can only be conceived as something special, continuing for itself; partly outside power, since its own determination can only be Conceived as constrained prescriptiveness. A flower grows from the ground, and I deduce from this that there is a developing force in nature.But I think there is such a power of development only because I see the existence of this flower or other flowers, of plants or animals in general.I can describe this power only by the action of a force which seems to me to be nothing but that which causes this action, which produces flowers, plants, animals, and organisms in general.I would further affirm that if a flower grows in this place, and it grows the definite flower, it can only be because everything necessary for the flower to grow is present here. condition.But this combination of all the conditions which enable the flower to grow, I still cannot explain the reality of this flower; There is, say, a power that produces flowers; for an other force of nature might produce something quite different under the same conditions.Thus I have the following view of the universe.

If I see everything as a whole, as a unified nature, there is only one unified force; if I see everything as a single thing, there are many forces, which according to their inner laws Developing, manifesting in all possible forms they can embody.All objects in nature are nothing but forces which assume certain determinations.The expression of every individual force of nature is determined, i.e., becomes what it is, partly by virtue of its inner nature, partly by its own past All other manifestations of the forces of nature to which it is connected: but it is connected with everything, because nature is an interconnected whole.Every individual force of nature is irresistibly determined by all this; so long as it is what it is according to its inner essence, so long as it expresses itself under these circumstances, its manifestation must have what it produces. That result, and it can never be any different from what it is.

Nature, at every moment of its duration, is an interconnected whole; every part of nature must be at every moment what it is, because all the rest are what they are; and if you do not By all the parts of the immeasurable whole change—perhaps imperceptible to your eyes—something, and you will never be able to move a single grain of sand.But every moment of this continuance depends upon all past moments, and will determine all future moments; and if you disagree with conceiving the whole infinite past as different from what it was, take the whole The infinite future is conceived differently from what it will be, and you can never conceive the position of any grain of sand differently than it is now in the present instant.If you like, you can experiment with this grain of flying sand you see.Suppose the grain of sand goes a few steps further into the hinterland, then the wind that blows the grain of sand from the sea must be stronger than it actually has been.The previous climate which determined this wind and its force must then have been different from what it used to be, and the more previous climate which determined this previous climate; A completely different property of the body is obtained from the atmospheric temperature that actually existed, which has an effect on the temperature, and the temperature has an effect on this property.This temperature undoubtedly has the most decisive influence on the fertility and barrenness of the land, and thus indirectly and directly on the longevity of human life.How do you know--since we have no access to the inner core of nature, so here is nothing more than to point out the possibilities--one of your ancestors Wouldn't it have died from starvation or heat before producing your immediate family?If so, you would not exist at all, and everything you do now or try to do in the future would be nullified by a grain of sand in another place.

Myself, and all that I call mine, is a link in this chain of strict necessity.There was a time—I was told by those who survived, and I think I must admit that there was a time, though I have no direct knowledge of it—that there was a moment when I did not exist. moment, when I began to exist.At that time I only existed for other things, not yet for myself.Since then, my self-awareness has gradually developed, and I have discovered that I have certain talents and talents, needs and desires within myself.I am a definite being born at a certain time. I did not generate myself.It is absurd to say that, in order for myself to exist, I exist before I exist.I come into being through another force outside me.Yet by what power can I be produced but by the universal forces of nature?Because I am part of nature.The time in which I began to exist and the attributes I have been born with are determined by this universal force of nature; and in all the forms these basic attributes I have been born with have taken, and will continue to be during the period of my future existence. All forms of expression are determined by this same force of nature.It is impossible for someone else to be produced in my place; it is also impossible for this being produced from now on to be neither as it is nor as it will be at any moment of its existence.

Consciousness always accompanies my various states, and some of them, thoughts, resolutions, etc., appear to be states of a simple consciousness.This circumstance does not hinder my reasoning.Plants need to grow regularly, animals need to move with purpose, and human beings need to think. This is the mission entrusted to them by nature.Why should I withdraw my doubts and deny that human thinking is as much an expression of a primordial force of nature as the movement of animals and the growth of plants?Nothing but wonder can prevent me from doing this; thinking is indeed a natural process, higher and more artistic than the growth of plants or the peculiar movements of animals, but how can I allow such emotions to affect a person? What about a calm discussion?Of course, I cannot explain how such a force of nature can produce thought, but can I better explain how it causes the development of plants and the movement of animals?Deduce thinking from the simple combination of matter-of course I will not do such a stupid thing, but can I explain the formation of the simplest moss from matter?These primordial forces of nature are generally inexplicable and unexplainable, because only by means of them can everything that can be explained be explained.It must be admitted directly that thinking exists as a forming force of nature.Thinking exists in nature, because thinking creatures occur and develop according to natural laws.It can be seen that thinking exists through nature.There are primitive forces of thought in nature, just as there are primitive forces of formation.

This original thinking power in the universe advances and develops in all possible determinations it can assume, just as other original forces of nature advance and assume all possible forms.I am, like the plant, a special determination of the power of development; like the animal, I am a special determination of the power of peculiar movement; besides this, I am a special determination of the power of thought.These three fundamental forces combined into one force, combined into a harmonious development, characterize my race, just as the vegetable race is characterized by the fact that the plant is only a determination of the developing power.

Form, characteristic movement, and thought are not interdependent in me, but independent; so I conceive in this way my own and surrounding forms and movements, because they are so; or vice versa. Say, they came into being the way they did, precisely because I conceived them that way.Form, characteristic movement, and thought, however, are mostly directly the harmonious development of the same power, the manifestation of which must become an inner harmonious essence of my species, which we may call the forming power of man.Absolutely there arises in me a thought, absolutely the form corresponding to this thought, and equally absolutely the movement corresponding to both.I am not who I am because I think or wish; nor do I think or wish because I am.

But both I am and I think are absolute; both are in harmony with each other from a higher ground. Just as those original natural forces are indeed something independent, with their own internal laws and purposes, as long as this force governs itself and is not subject to some external force that dominates itself. Oppressions, their external realities, must indeed persist for a period of time, delineating a certain range of variation.That which disappears as soon as it arises is, of course, not the expression of a fundamental force, but the result of a combination of forces.The plant, as a special provision of the developing force in nature, develops from its first germination to the ripening of the seed under its own control.Man, as a special determination of the union of all the forces in nature, also develops from birth to old age, under his own domination.From this comes the continuation of plant and human life and the different determinations of this life. Since I am a member of my species, this form, this characteristic movement, this thought, this continuation of all essential properties in non-essential changes, belong to mine.However, before I began to exist, the natural forces that formed man had already manifested in various external conditions and circumstances.It is this external circumstance which determines the particular manner in which this power is now at work, and it is on this particular manner that such an individual of my kind has just come into existence.The same circumstances never return, for in that case the whole of nature would return, two natures would appear instead of one.Therefore, the same individual who once existed can never be recreated.Furthermore, during the time of my existence, the forces of nature which formed man were manifested under all possible circumstances at that time.None of these combinations of circumstances would be exactly like those in which I exist, or the whole world would be divided into two identical and separate worlds.No two identical individuals can exist at the same time.It is therefore already determined what I, the particular being, must be; the law by which I am mine has been universally discovered.I am what the force of nature that forms man - which was what it was and is what it is outside of me, and has this particular relation to other opposing forces of nature - can become.Because this power itself cannot have any basis to limit itself, so whatever it can become, it must become.I am what I am because in this connection of the whole of nature there can be only one such being, and absolutely no other being.A wise man, fully penetrating into the inner mysteries of nature, will, from what he knows of a single man, say exactly who have been and will be; and through a man he knows all realistic people.This relation of me to the whole of nature is what determines what I was, what I am, and what I will be.The wise man, from any possible moment of my existence, will infer without error what I was before this moment, and what I will be after this moment.I absolutely must be all that I am now, I must absolutely be all that I will be, and I can never be otherwise. Although I am most deeply aware of myself as an independent and free being in the many occasions of my life, this awareness can be fully explained on the basis of the basic principles identified above and can be fully reconciled with the conclusions just drawn. .My immediate consciousness, my true perception, does not go beyond myself and my determinations, I know myself only directly; That's the way I've just pushed out the primordial forces of nature, which in no way belong to my sphere of perception.But the ego, which I call my ego, my personality, is not the natural force that makes man itself, but only an expression of that force.I am conscious only of this manifestation of myself as myself, and not of a force deduced from the mere necessity of explaining myself.But this representation, in its actual existence, is indeed something arising from an original and independent power, and must be found to be such in consciousness.Thus, I find myself a separate creature.It is for this reason that I feel myself free in the occasions of my life if they are the expression of an independent power which I personally enjoy; The circumstances contained, but the circumstances created by the situation - a combination, I can not even do things that I can do in my own strength, I will feel that I am bound and limited; if this personal strength is due to Another opposite force prevails, and I even have to express myself in violation of my own inherent laws, and I feel that I am being coerced. If a tree is given consciousness, and allowed to grow freely, to grow branches, to produce leaves, buds, flowers, and fruits peculiar to its species, then the tree will not be And just belonging to the species, being this individual of the species, feels itself truly conditioned; it feels itself free, because in all its manifestations it merely does what its nature requires. and it does not want to do anything else, for it can only desire what its nature requires.But if its growth is checked by bad weather, by lack of nutrition, or by other causes, it feels itself limited and hindered, because the impulses really contained in its nature are not gratified.If its free-stretching branches are tied to a rail, and a branch of another tree is forcibly grafted onto it, it feels itself compelled to engage in an activity; its branches still grow, of course, but the It does not grow in the direction that the forces at its disposal will take; it still bears fruit, of course, but not the fruit its original nature required.In immediate self-consciousness I feel myself free; by contemplating the whole of nature I find freedom impossible; the former must be subordinate to the latter, since the former can only be explained by the latter. How much has this system of doctrine satisfied my intellect! What order, what solid connections, what clear outlines has it introduced into my whole system of knowledge! It is a strange thing that is difficult to understand when it is connected with existence: consciousness already exists in nature, and it is itself a necessary regulation of nature.Nature develops gradually upwards in a definite order of its creation.In inorganic matter it is a simple being: in organic matter it withdraws upon itself in order to act on itself from within, in particular it gives form to itself in plants, sets itself in motion in animals; This superlative.In the most perfect productions of nature it returns to itself in order to contemplate itself and examine itself, that is to say, in man it seems to double itself, from mere being to a union of consciousness and being.From this connection it is easy to explain how I must know my own being and its determination.My being and my knowledge have a common ground, my essence in general.The being in me, precisely because it is my being, cannot but at the same time know itself.Likewise, it is understandable that I am aware of physical objects other than myself.The forces which constitute my personality by their manifestations, the forces of development, of my own movements, of thinking within me, are not all of these forces existing in nature, but only certain parts of them; they The reason why it is only this part is that there are many other beings besides me. The latter can be measured by the former, and what limits me can be measured by limiting activities.Since I am not this or that which belongs after all to the connection of the whole being, this or that must be outside me; this is how the natural power of thinking within me draws inferences and measures.I am immediately aware of my limitation, because it belongs to me, and only through it do I generally exist; the consciousness of that which limits me, that is, of that which is not myself, is What is mediated by the former is derived from the former. Therefore, the false influence and effect of external things on me can be ignored at all.Some people think that through these influences and functions, external things will inject me with a kind of knowledge about external things. In fact, this kind of knowledge does not exist in the external things themselves, and it is impossible to flow out of them.The reason why I admit that there is something outside of me is not outside of me but in myself, in the limitations of my inherent personality.Because of this limitation, the natural power of thinking in me looks beyond itself, looking at itself as a whole, although each one starts from a peculiar point of view. In the same way a conception of a thinking creature like myself arises in my mind.The ego, or the natural power of thinking within me, has thoughts which, as a special determination of nature, are thought to have developed from the thinking power itself, and other thoughts which are thought not to have arisen from this A force developed by itself.The same is true of the situation.The former is of course my personal and unique contribution to the general field of thought in nature; the latter is merely deduced from the former and, as such, must have occurred in this field of thought. But since they are only inferred, they are not in me, but in other thinking beings; and from this I deduce that there are other thinking beings outside of me.In short, nature is fully aware of itself in me, but only in this way: it begins with my individual consciousness, and proceeds from this consciousness to the universal consciousness, explained by the laws of causality.That is to say, nature contemplates the conditions under which only such forms, such movements and such thoughts, which constitute my personality, are possible.The law of causality is a point of transition from what is particular within me to what is universal outside me; the distinguishing feature of the two classes of knowledge is that the former is intuition, the latter inference.