| || |
- Th e being
d e s C h r i s t e n t h u m s.
- First chapter
Th e W e s of Th e M e n c h e n
in general .
The religion is based on that significant differences of man from the animal - the animals have no Religion. The older, uncritical zoographers probably ascribed to the elephant, among other praiseworthy qualities, the virtue of religiosity; only the religion of the elephants belongs in the realm of fables. Cuvier, one of the greatest connoisseurs of the animal world, based on his own observations, does not place the elephant on a higher intellectual level than the dog.
But what is this essential difference between man and animals? The simplest and most general, also the most popular answer to this question is: awareness - but consciousness in the strict sense; for consciousness in the sense of self-feeling, sensual power of distinction, perception and even judgment of external things according to certain obvious characteristics, such consciousness cannot be denied to animals. Consciousness in the strictest sense is only there where a being is genus, his Entity Subject is. The animal is certainly itself as an individual - that is why it has a sense of self - but not as an object as a species - that is why it is lacking the Consciousness which its name from Knowledge derives. Where there is consciousness, there is a capacity for science. Science is that Consciousness of the species. In life we associate with individuals, in science with species. But only a being to whom its own species, its essence is the object, can make other things or beings into objects according to their essential nature.
The animal, therefore, has only a simple life, the human being has a twofold life: in the animal the inner life is one with the outer life - the human being has an inner life and outer life. The inner life of man is life in relation to his species, his essence. Man thinks, i.e. he converses, he speaks with yourself. The animal cannot perform a species function without another individual besides him; but man can do the generic function of thinking and speaking - for thinking and speaking are true Generic functions - do without another. Man is himself at the same time I and you; he can put himself in the place of the other, precisely because his subject is his species, his essence, not just his individuality.
The essence of man as distinguished from animals is not only the ground, but also the object of religion. But religion is the consciousness of the infinite; it is and cannot be anything other than man's consciousness of his, and not finite, limited, but infinite Essence. A really finite essence does not have that remotest idea, let alone one Awareness of a infinite beings, because the Limit of essence is also that Barrier of consciousness. The consciousness of the caterpillar, whose life and nature is restricted to a certain plant species, does not extend beyond this restricted area either; it certainly distinguishes this plant from other plants, but it does not know any more. That is why we do not call such a limited, but infallible, infallible consciousness precisely because of its limitations, not consciousness, but instinct. Awareness in the strict or proper sense and Consciousness of the infinite is inseparable; limited Consciousness is no Awareness; consciousness is essentially of an all-encompassing, infinite nature. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the Infinity of consciousness. Or: in the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious is the Infinity is the object of being.
But what is the essence of man of which he is conscious, or what constitutes the species, the real humanity in man? 1) The reason, the will, the heart. A perfect person has the power of thinking, the power of will, the power of the heart. The power of thinking is the light of knowledge, the power of will is the energy of character, the power of the heart is love. Reason, love, willpower are Perfections, are the highest forces, are these absolute beings of man as man and the purpose of his existence. Man is in order to know, in order to love, in order to will. But what is the purpose of reason? Reason. Of the love? love. Of will? the free will. We know in order to know, love in order to love, want in order to want, i. H. to be free. True Being is thinking, loving, willing being. Only what is true, perfect, divine for its own sake is. But such is love, such is reason, such is will. The divine trinity in man above for the individual there is the unity of reason, love and will. Reason (imagination, fantasy, imagination, opinion), will, love or heart are not forces that a person has - for he is nothing without them, he is what he is, only through them - they are, as being Being which he neither Has, still makes, substantiating elements that make him animating, determining, ruling powers - divine, absolute powersthat he cannot oppose. 2)
How could the soulful man resist feeling, the lover to love, the reasonable man to reason? Who hasn't experienced the crushing power of sound? But what is the power of sounds but the power of feelings? Music is the language of feeling - sound is the loud feeling, the feeling that is communicated. Who would not have experienced or at least heard of the power of love? Who is stronger? love or the individual person? Does man have love, or does not love rather have man? If love moves a person to go to death with joy for the beloved, is this death-conquering power his own individual power or rather the power of love? And who, who has ever truly thought, would not have experienced the power of thinking, the admittedly silent, noiseless power of thinking? If you sink into deep thought, forgetting yourself and what is around you, do you control reason or are you not controlled and devoured by it? Isn't scientific enthusiasm the most beautiful triumph that reason celebrates over you? Isn't the power of the instinct for knowledge one absolutely irresistible, all-conquering power? And if you suppress a passion, break a habit, in short, achieve a victory over yourself, this victorious power is your own personal power, intended for yourself, or rather the will energy, the power of morality, which forcibly overcomes yours and fill you with indignation towards yourself and your individual weaknesses? 3)
Man is nothing without an object. Great, exemplary people - those people who reveal the essence of man to us, confirmed this sentence through their lives. They just had a ruling basic passion: the realization of the end which was the essential object of their activity. But the object on which a subject essential, necessary is nothing else than that own, but representational Essence of this subject. If the same object is a common object to several individuals of the same kind but different in kind, then it is, at least so, how he is the object of these individuals according to their diversity, their own but objective essence.
Thus the sun is the common object of the planets, but just as it is the object of Mercury, Venus, Saturn, and Uranus, it is not an object of the earth. Every planet has its own sun. The sun, which and how it illuminates and warms Uranus, has no physical (only an astronomical, scientific) existence for the earth; and the sun not only appears differently, it is also really one on Uranus other Sun than on earth. The relation of the earth to the sun is therefore at the same time a relation of the earth to itself or to its own being, for the measure of the size and strength of the light in which the sun is an object is the measure of the distance, which is the peculiar one The nature of the earth. Every planet therefore has in its sun the mirror of its own being.
In the object, therefore, the person becomes conscious of himself: that is the consciousness of the object Self-confidence of the human. You recognize the human being from the object; on him appears His essence to you: the object is his obvious Beings, be true, objectives I. And this is by no means only true of the spiritual, but also of the sensual Objects. Even the most distant objects because and how far they are objects to him, revelations of human nature. The moon, the sun, and the stars also call people the & # 915; & # 957; & # 8182; & # 952; & # 953; & # 963; & # 945; & # 965; & # 964; & # 8057; & # 957 ;, Know yourself, too. That he sees her and sees her as he sees her is a testimony to his own being. The animal is only seized by the ray of light necessary for life, while the human being is also gripped by the indifferent ray of the most distant star. Only man has pure, intellectual, uninterested joys and affects - only man celebrates theoretical feasts. The eye that looks at the starry sky, that one useful and harmless When one sees light which has nothing in common with the earth and its needs, sees in this light its own essence, its own origin. The eye is heavenly. That is why man rises above the earth only with the eye; therefore begins the theory looking to the sky. The first Philosophers were astronomers. Heaven reminds man of his destiny, of the fact that he is not only destined to act, but also to contemplate.
The absolute beingswho is God of man his own being. The power of the Subject over him is therefore the Power of his own being. Such is the power of Subject of feeling the power of feeling, the power of Subject the power of reason reason itself, the power of Subject of will the power of Willing. Man, whose essence is determined by tone, is dominated by feeling, at least the feeling which finds its corresponding element in tone. But not the tone for itself, only the content-rich, meaningful and soulful tone has power over the feeling. The feeling is only given by the feeling, i.e. H. by oneself, determines its own being. So too will the will, so too is reason. Whatever object we therefore become conscious of: we always become conscious of our own being at the same time; we can't do anything Other do without ourselves to operate. And because wanting, feeling, and thinking are perfections, beings, realities, it is impossible that we with reason Reason, with feeling the feeling, with will the will as one bounded, finite, d. i. void Feel or perceive power. That is to say, finitude and nothingness are one; Finiteness is just a euphemism for nothingness. Finiteness is that metaphysical, the theoretical, Nullity of pathological, practical Expression. What that I finally understand, is void the heart. But it is impossible for us to become conscious of will, of feeling, of reason as finite forces, because every perfection, every force and being is immediate verification and Affirmation of itself is. One cannot love, cannot will, cannot think without perceiving these activities as perfections, cannot perceive that one is a loving, willing, thinking being without one above them infinite joy to feel. Consciousness is the being-object of a being; hence nothing special, nothing different from the being that is conscious of itself. How else could it be aware of it? It is therefore impossible to become aware of a perfection as an imperfection, impossible to feel as to feel limited, impossible to think of thinking as limited.
Awareness is Self-activity, self-affirmation, self-love, joy in one's own perfection. Consciousness is the characteristic mark of a perfect being; Consciousness is only in a saturated, perfect being. Even human vanity confirms this truth. Man looks in the mirror; he takes pleasure in his figure. This pleasure is a necessary, involuntary consequence of perfection, of the beauty of its figure. The beautiful figure is satisfied in itself, it necessarily has a joy in itself, it necessarily reflects itself in itself. It is vanity only when a person ignores his own individual figure, but not when he admires the human figure. He should admire them; he cannot imagine a more beautiful or sublime figure than the human 4). However, every being loves himself, his being and should love it. His is a good. "Everything," says Bacon, "that which is worthy of being is also worthy of knowledge." Everything that is has value, is a being of distinction; therefore affirmed, it asserts itself. But the highest form of self-affirmation the Form, which is itself a distinction, a perfection, a happiness, a good, is consciousness.
Every limitation of reason, or of the nature of man in general, is based on a delusion, an error. Even the human can and should individual - this is where it differs from the animal - to feel and recognize itself as limited; but it can only become conscious of its limits, its finitude, because the perfection, the infinity of the species is an object to it, be it as an object of feeling or conscience or thinking consciousness. Do it anyway his Barriers to Limits of the genusso this rests on the delusion that it considers itself to be one with the species - a delusion which is intimately connected with the love of comfort, indolence, vanity, and selfishness of the individual. A barrier that I simply call my Barrier knows, humbled, ashamed and worried me. So in order to free myself from this feeling of shame, from this restlessness, I do this Limits of my individuality to limits of human nature myself. What is incomprehensible to me is also incomprehensible to others; what should i worry about? it's not my fault; it's not my mind; it depends on the understanding of the species itself. But it is madness, ridiculous and at the same time outrageous madness, what the nature of the human being, the essence of the species which the absolute beings of the individual is to be determined as finite, as limited. Every being is enough for itself. No being can, i.e. H. to deny its essence; no being is limited to itself. Rather, every being is in itself and for themselves infinite, has its God, its highest being in yourself. Every barrier of a being exists only for one other Essence except and above him. The life of the ephemeral is extraordinarily short in comparison with longer-lived animals; but nevertheless this short life is as long for them as it is for others a life of years. The leaf on which the caterpillar lives is a world, an infinite space.
What makes a being what is itThat is just his talent, his fortune, his wealth, his jewelry. How would it be possible to perceive one's being as non-being, one's wealth as lack, one's talent as inability? If the plants had eyes, taste, and judgment - every plant would declare its flower to be the most beautiful; for their understanding, their taste, would reach no further than their producing essential force. What the productive essential force produces as the highest, that must also be confirmed by its taste and its power of judgment as the highest. What the essence affirms, can the mind, the taste, the judgment don't deny it; otherwise the understanding, the power of judgment, would no longer be the understanding, the power of judgment of this particular being, but of some other being. The measure of the being is also the measure of the understanding. If the essence is limited, then the feeling and the understanding are also limited. But to a limited being, his limited understanding is no limit; rather, it is perfectly happy and satisfied with it; it feels it, it praises and praises it as a glorious, divine power; and the limited mind in turn praises the limited being whose mind it is. Both fit together perfectly; how can they fall apart with each other? The mind is a being's field of vision. Your being extends as far as you can see, and vice versa. The animal's eye reaches no further than its need, and its essence no further than its need. And so far Your essence, so far yours goes unlimited self-esteem, so far you are god. The dichotomy between understanding and essence, between the power of thought and the power of production in human consciousness is, on the one hand, only individual, without general meaning, and, on the other hand, only an apparent one. Whoever recognizes his bad poems as bad is because in its Knowledge, also in his essence not so limited as he who approves of his bad poems in his mind.
You think You consequently the infinite, so you think and confirm them infinity of Mindfulness; if you feel the infinite, you feel and confirm it Infinity of feeling. The object reason is that representational reason, the object of feeling that representational feeling. If you have no sense, no feeling for music, you will hear no more in the most beautiful music than in the wind that rushes past your ears than in the brook that rushes past your feet. So what takes hold of you when the tone takes hold of you? What do you hear in it? What other than the voice of your own heart? That is why the feeling speaks only to the feeling, that is why the feeling is only to the feeling, i. H. self-understandable - because the object of feeling itself is only feeling. The music is a monologue of feeling. But even the dialogue of philosophy is in truth only a monologue of reason: the thought speaks only to the thought. The color brilliance of the crystals enchants the senses; reason is only interested in the laws of crystallonomy. Reason is only the rational object. 5)
Hence everything that in the sense of superhuman speculation and religion only has the meaning of Derived, of Subjectives or Human, of Means, of Organ has, that has the meaning of the truth in the sense of the Original, of Divine, of Essence, of Object itself. Is z. B. the feeling that essential Organ of religion, that's how it expresses Essence of God nothing else than that Essence of feeling. The true but hidden meaning of the speech: "Feeling is the organ of the divine" is: Feeling is that Noblest, Most excellent, d. H. Divine in man. How could you perceive the divine through feeling if the feeling was not itself of a divine nature? The divine is only known through the divine, "God only through himself". The divine being which perceives feeling is in fact nothing but that delighted and bewitched by himself Essence of feeling - that blissfully drunk, blissful feeling.
This is already evident from the fact that where feeling is made the organ of the infinite, the subjective essence of religion, that object it loses its objective value. Thus, ever since feeling was made the chief thing of religion, the otherwise sacred content of Christianity has become indifferent. Even if the object is still valued from the standpoint of feeling, it has this value only for the sake of feeling, which perhaps only for accidental reasons is connected with it; if another object aroused the same feelings, it would be just as welcome. But the object of feeling only becomes indifferent because, once feeling is expressed as the subjective essence of religion, so is it objective beings the same, even if it is not as such, at least directly, pronounced becomes. Direct, I say; for this is admitted indirectly by the fact that the feeling as such For religious explained, so the Difference between peculiarly religious and irreligious or at least not religious emotions canceled becomes - a necessary consequence from the point of view where only feeling is valid for the organ of the divine. Because why other than because of its essence, its nature, do you make feeling the organ of the infinite, the divine being? But isn't the nature of feeling in general also the nature of every special feeling, its object now being which one it wants? So what makes this feeling religious? the certain one object? Not at all, because this object is even only a religious oneif he is not an object of cold mind or memory but rather of feeling is. So what? the nature of feeling, in which every feeling, regardless of object, has a part. So feeling is canonized simply because it is feeling; the reason of his religiosity is the nature of feeling, lies in himself. But this does not mean that feeling is the absolute, as the divine itself pronounced? If the feeling by yourself good, religious, d. H. is holy, divine, the feeling does not have its God in yourself?
But if you nevertheless fix an object of feeling, but at the same time your feeling truly want to interpret without putting something strange into it with your reflection, what is left for you to distinguish between your individual feelings and between the general essence, the nature of feeling, as to separate the essence of feeling from the disturbing, contaminating influences to which in You, the conditioned individual, feel bound? What you can therefore only objectify, express as the infinite, determine as its essence, that is only the nature of feeling. You have no other destination for God here than this: God is pure, unlimited, free feeling. Every other god that you set here is a god that has been forced upon your feelings from the outside. The feeling is atheistic in the sense of the orthodox faith, as which the religion is linked to an external object; it denies you representational God - it is oneself God. The Negation of the feeling only is that from the standpoint of feeling Denial of God. You are just too cowardly or too limited to admit in words what your feelings are secretly affirming. Bound to external considerations, unable to grasp the soul size of the feeling, you are frightened of this religious atheism Of your heart and destroy them in this horror unit Your feeling with yourselfby imagining an objective being different from feeling and so necessarily throwing yourself back into the old questions and doubts: whether a god is or is not? - Questions and doubts that have disappeared, even impossible, where feeling is determined as the essence of religion. Feeling is your most intimate and yet at the same time an independent power that is different from you, it is in to you above You: it is your own being, but that is you as and like another being seizes, in short, yours God So how do you want to distinguish another objective being from this being in you? how beyond your feeling?
The feeling has only been highlighted here as an example. It has the same connection with every other power, faculty, potency, reality, activity - the name is indifferent - which one is that essential organ of an object. What subjectively or on the part of the human being, the meaning of being, that also has objective or on the part of the object, the meaning of the essence. Man simply cannot be over true being out. He may well imagine individuals of another, allegedly higher kind through the imagination, but he can never abstract from his species, his essence; the essential determinations which he gives to these other individuals are always determinations drawn from his own being - determinations in which he in truth only depicts and objectifies himself. Certainly there are other thinking beings on the celestial bodies besides man; but by accepting such beings we do not change our point of view - we enrich it only quantitatively, not qualitatively; for as well as the same laws of motion there, the same laws of feeling and thinking apply there as well as here. In fact, we in no way animate the stars to the point of being there other Beings as we, but only to that more such or similar beings as we are. 6)
The spiritless materialist says: “Man is different from animals just by consciousness, he is an animal, but With Consciousness », so he does not consider that in a being that awakens to consciousness there is a qualitative change of the whole being is going on. Incidentally, what has been said is by no means intended to diminish the nature of animals. This is not the place to go deeper.
Toute opinion est assez forte pour se faire exposer au prix de la vie. Montaigne.
Whether this distinction between the individual - a, of course, all abstract words, a highly indeterminate, ambiguous, misleading word - and love, reason, and will is one based in nature or not, that is the whole subject of this work indifferent. Religion withdraws the forces, properties, and essential determinations of man from man and adores them as independent beings - irrespective of whether it makes each individual one for itself, as in polytheism, or, as in monotheism, all of them in a Beings summarized - so this distinction must also be made in the explanation and tracing back of these divine beings to humans. Incidentally, it is not only dictated by the object, it is also linguistically and what is one, logically founded, because man distinguishes yourself of his mind, his head, his heart, as if he were something without them.
"Man is the most beautiful thing for man." (Cic., De nat. Deo., Lib. I.) And this is not a sign of limitation, because he also finds other beings apart from himself beautiful; he also takes delight in the beauty of the animal forms, in the beauty of the plant forms, in the beauty of nature in general. But only the absolute, the perfect form can enjoy the forms of other beings without envy.
"The mind is sensitive only to the mind and what flows from it." Reimarus (True. Of natural religion, IV. Abth. § 8.).
For example, says Christ. Huygens in his Cosmotheoros, lib. I .: «It is probable that the enjoyment of music and mathematics is not limited to us humans alone, but to still several Being extends. " That just means: the quality is the same; same sense of music, of science; only the number of those who enjoy it should be unlimited.