[7th Paragraph]
In our time, the notion that freedom of thinking and of the spirit in general proves itself only through deviation from, and even hostility toward, what is publicly recognized, has been most firmly rooted in relation to the state; accordingly, a philosophy of the state especially seems to have the essential task of also inventing and giving a theory, and specifically a new and particular one. When one sees this notion and the activity corresponding to it, one would think that no state or constitution had ever existed or were presently present in the world, but as if one must start entirely from the beginning now—and this now lasts forever—and as if the ethical world had only waited for such a current thinking-out, fathoming, and grounding. Regarding nature, it is admitted that philosophy is to recognize it as it is, that the philosopher’s stone lies somewhere, but within nature itself, that it is rational in itself, and that knowledge has to explore and grasp through comprehension this actual reason present within it—not the configurations and contingencies showing themselves on the surface, but its eternal harmony, but as its immanent law and essence. The ethical world by contrast, the state—it, the reason as it actualizes itself in the element of self-consciousness—is not to enjoy the happiness of being the reason which has in fact in this element brought itself to power and authority, maintains itself therein, and dwells within it.2) The spiritual universe is rather to be abandoned to chance and caprice; it is to be godforsaken, so that according to this atheism of the ethical world, the true lies outside of it, and at the same time, because reason is also supposed to be in it, the true is merely a problem. In this, however, lies the justification, indeed the obligation, for every thinking to take its run—yet not to seek the philosopher’s stone, for through the philosophizing of our time the search is spared, and everyone is certain, just as they stand and walk, to have this stone in their power. Now, it certainly happens that those who live in this actuality of the state and find their knowledge and will satisfied therein—and there are many of them, indeed more than they suppose and know, for at bottom they are all—at least those who consciously have their satisfaction in the state, laugh at those runs and assurances and take them for a game that is sometimes more humorous or earnest, delightful or dangerous, but always empty. That restless activity of reflection and vanity, as well as the reception and encounter it experiences, would be a matter for itself, developing in its own way; but it is philosophy in general that has been placed in manifold contempt and discredit by that activity. The worst of the contempts is that, as said, everyone is convinced that they are capable of knowing about and passing judgment on philosophy in general just as they stand and walk. To no other art or science is this final contempt shown: to believe that one possesses it straight away.
2) *Addition. There are two kinds of laws: laws of nature and laws of right. The laws of nature are simply there and are valid as they are: they suffer no diminishment, although one can offend against them in individual cases. To know what the law of nature is, we must get to know it, for these laws are right; only our representations of them can be false. The measure of these laws is outside of us, and our recognizing adds nothing to them, does not further them: only our knowledge of them can expand. The knowledge of right is partly the same, partly not. We learn the laws just as they are simply there; so the citizen has them more or less, and the positive jurist stops no less at what is given. But the difference is that in the case of laws of right, the spirit of observation arises and the very diversity of laws draws attention to the fact that they are not absolute. The laws of right are posited, originating from men. With this, the inner voice can necessarily enter into conflict or align itself. Man does not stop at what is present, but maintains that he has the standard within himself of what is right; he can be subject to the necessity and force of external authority, but never like the necessity of nature, for his interior always tells him how it should be, and in himself he finds the confirmation or lack thereof of what is valid. In nature, the highest truth is that a law simply is; in the laws of right, the matter is not valid because it is, but everyone demands that it should correspond to his own criterion. Here, then, a conflict is possible between what is and what ought to be, between right existing in and for itself, which remains unchanged, and the caprice of determining what is to count as right. Such separation and such struggle are found only on the ground of the spirit, and because the privilege of the spirit thus seems to lead to discord and misery, one is frequently referred back to the observation of nature from the caprice of life and is supposed to take a pattern from it. Precisely in these oppositions, however, between right existing in and for itself and that which caprice asserts as right, lies the need to learn to recognize right thoroughly. His reason must meet man in right; he must therefore observe the rationality of right, and this is the matter of our science, in contrast to positive jurisprudence, which often has to do only with contradictions. The present world has an even more urgent need for this, for in olden times there was still respect and reverence for existing law; but now the cultivation of the time has taken another turn, and thought has placed itself at the head of everything that is to be valid. Theories set themselves against what is present and wish to appear as inherently correct and necessary. Now it becomes a more specific need to recognize and comprehend the thoughts of right. Since thought has elevated itself to the essential form, one must also seek to grasp right as thought. This seems to open the door to random opinions if thought is to come over right; but true thought is not an opinion about the matter, but the concept of the matter itself. The concept of the matter does not come to us by nature. Everyone has fingers, can have brushes and paints, but that does not make him a painter. It is the same with thinking. The thought of right is not something that everyone has straight away, but correct thinking is the knowing and recognizing of the matter, and our knowledge should therefore be scientific.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.