§ 12
The rise of philosophy is due to these cravings of thought. Its point of departure is Experience; including under that name both our immediate consciousness and the inductions from it. Awakened, as it were, by this stimulus, thought is vitally characterised by raising itself above the natural state of mind, above the senses and inferences from the senses into its own unadulterated element, and by assuming, accordingly, at first a stand−aloof and negative attitude towards the point from which it started. Through this state of antagonism to the phenomena of sense its first satisfaction is found in itself, in the Idea of the universal essence of these phenomena: an Idea (the Absolute, or God) which may be more or less abstract. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the sciences, based on experience, exert upon the mind a stimulus to overcome the form in which their varied contents are presented, and to elevate these contents to the rank of necessary truth. For the facts of
science have the aspect of a vast conglomerate, one thing coming side by side with another, as if they were merely given and presented −− as in short devoid of all essential or necessary connection. In consequence of this stimulus, thought is dragged out of its unrealised universality and its fancied or merely possible satisfaction, and impelled onwards to a development from itself. On one hand this development only means that thought incorporates the contents of science, in all their speciality of detail as submitted. On the other it makes these contents imitate the action of the original creative thought, and present the aspect of a free evolution determined by the logic of the fact alone.
On the relation between 'immediacy' and 'mediation' in consciousness we shall speak later, expressly and with more detail. Here it may be sufficient to premise that, though the two 'moments' or factors present themselves as distinct, still neither of them can be absent, nor can one exist apart from the other. Thus the knowledge of God, as of every supersensible reality, is in its true character an exaltation above sensations or perceptions: it consequently involves a negative attitude to the initial data of sense, and to that extent implies mediation. For to mediate is to take something as a beginning and to go onward to a second thing; so that the existence of this second thing depends on our having reached it from something else contradistinguished from it. In spite of this, the knowledge of God is no mere sequel, dependent on the empirical phase of consciousness: in fact, its independence is essentially secured through this negation and exaltation. No doubt, if we attach an unfair prominence to the fact of mediation, and represent it as implying a state of conditionedness, it may be said −− not that the remark would mean much −− that philosophy is the child of experience, and owes its rise to a posteriori fact. (As a matter of fact, thinking is always the negation of what we have immediately before us.) With as much truth however we may be said to owe eating to the means of nourishment, so long as we can have no eating without them. If we take this view, eating is certainly represented as ungrateful: it devours that to which it owes itself. Thinking, upon this view of its action, is equally ungrateful.
But there is also an a priori aspect of thought, where by a mediation, not made by anything external but by a reflection into self, we have that immediacy which is universality, the selfcomplacency of thought which is so much at home with itself that it feels an innate indifference to descend to particulars, and in that way to the development of its own nature. It is thus also with religion, which whether it be rude or elaborate, whether it be invested with scientific precision of detail or confined to the simple faith of the heart, possesses, throughout, the same intensive nature of contentment and felicity. But if thought never gets further than the universality of the Ideas, as was perforce the case in the first philosophies (when the Eleatics never got beyond Being, or Heraclitus beyond Becoming), it is justly open to the charge of formalism. Even in a more advanced phase of philosophy, we may often find a doctrine which has mastered merely certain abstract propositions or formulae, such as, 'In the absolute all is one', 'Subject and object are identical' −− and only repeating the same thing when it comes to particulars. Bearing in mind this first period of thought, the period of mere generality, we may safely say that experience is the real author of growth and advance in philosophy. For, firstly, the empirical sciences do not stop short at the mere observation of the individual features of a phenomenon. By the aid of thought, they are able to meet philosophy with materials prepared for it, in the shape of general uniformities, i.e. laws, and classifications of the phenomena. When this is done, the particular facts which they contain are ready to be received into philosophy. This, secondly, implies a certain compulsion on thought itself to proceed to these concrete specific truths. The reception into philosophy of these scientific materials, now that thought has removed
their immediacy and made them cease to be mere data, forms at the same time a development of thought out of itself. Philosophy, then, owes its development to the empirical sciences. In return it gives their contents what is so vital to them, the freedom of thought −− gives them, in short, an a priori character. These contents are now warranted necessary, and no longer depend on the evidence of facts merely, that they were so found and so experienced. The fact as experienced thus becomes an illustration and a copy of the original and completely self−supporting activity of thought.
§12
从上面所说的那种要求而兴起的哲学是以经验为出发点的，所谓经验是指直接的意识和抽象推理的意识而言。所以，这种要求就成为鼓励思维进展的刺激，而思维进展的次序，总是超出那自然的、感觉的意识，超出自感觉材料而推论的意识，而提高到思维本身纯粹不杂的要素，因此首先对经验开始的状态取一种疏远的、否定的关系。这样，在这些现象的普遍本质的理念里，思维才得到自身的满足。这理念（绝对或上帝）多少总是抽象的。反之，经验科学也给思维一种激励，使它克服将丰富的经验内容仅当作直接、现成、散漫杂多、偶然而无条理的材料的知识形式，从而把此种内容提高到必然性——这种激励使思维得以从抽象的普遍性与仅仅是可能的满足里超拨出来，进而依靠自身去发展。这种发展一方面可说是思维对经验科学的内容及其所提供的诸规定加以吸取，另一方面，使同样内容以原始自由思维的意义，只按事情本身的必然性发展出来。
〔说明〕对于直接性与间接性在意识中的关系，下面将加以明白详细的讨论。不过这里须首先促使注意的，即是直接性与间接性两环节表面上虽有区别，但两者实际上不可缺一，而且有不可分离的联系。——所以关于上帝以及其它一切超感官的东西的知识，本质上都包含有对感官的感觉或直观的一种提高。此种超感官的知识，因此对于前阶段的感觉具有一种否定的态度，这里面就可以说是包含有间接性。因为间接过程是由一个起点而进展到第二点，所以第二点的达到只是基于从一个与它正相反对的事物出发。但不能因此就说关于上帝的知识并不是独立于经验意识。其实关于上帝的知识的独立性，本质上即是通过否定感官经验与超脱感官经验而得到的。——但假如对知识的间接性加以片面的着重，把它认作制约性的条件，那末，我们便可以说（不过这种说法并没有多少意义），哲学最初起源于后天的事实，是依靠经验而产生的（其实，思维本质上就是对当前的直接经验的否定），正如人的饮食依靠食物，因为没有食物，人即无法饮食。就这种关系而论，饮食对于食物，可以说是太不知感恩了。因为饮食全靠有食物，而且全靠消灭食物。在这个意义下，思维对于感官经验也可以说是一样地不知感恩。〔因为思维所以成为思维，全靠有感官材料，而且全靠消化，否定感官材料。〕但是思维因对自身进行反思，从而自身达到经过中介的直接性，这就是思维的先天成分（dasApriorische），亦即思维的普遍性，思维一般存在它自身内。在普遍性里，思维得到自身的满足，但假如思维对于特殊性采取漠视态度，从而思维对于它自身的发展，也就采取漠视态度了。正如宗教，无论高度发达的或草昧未开的宗教，无论经过科学意识教养的或单纯内心信仰的宗教，也具有同样内在本性的满足和福祉。
如果思维停留在理念的普遍性中，有如古代哲学思想的情形（例如爱利亚学派所谓存在，和赫拉克利特所谓变易等等），自应被指斥为形式主义。即在一种比较发展的哲学思想里，我们也可以找到一些抽象的命题或公式，例如，"在绝对中一切是一"、"主客同一"等话，遇着特殊事物时，也只有重复抬出这千篇一律的公式去解释。为补救思维的这种抽象普遍性起见，我们可以在正确有据的意义下说，哲学的发展应归功于经验。因为，一方面，经验科学并不停留在个别性现象的知觉里，乃是能用思维对于材料加工整理，发现普遍的特质、类别和规律，以供哲学思考。那些特殊的内容，经过经验科学这番整理预备工夫，也可以吸收进哲学里面。另一方面，这些经验科学也包含有思维本身要进展到这些具体部门的真理的迫切要求。这些被吸收进哲学中的科学内容，由于已经过思维的加工，从而取消其顽固的直接性和与料性，同时也就是思维基于自身的一种发展。由此可见，一方面，哲学的发展实归功于经验科学，另一方面，哲学赋予科学内容以最主要的成分：思维的自由（思维的先天因素）。哲学又能赋予科学以必然性的保证，使此种内容不仅是对于经验中所发现的事实的信念，而且使经验中的事实成为原始的完全自主的思维活动的说明和摹写。 |
