shorter logic-第52章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


learn　in　the　predicate。　What　the　subject　may　be　in　other　respects；　as　a　concrete
thing；　is　no　concern　of　this　judgment。　（Cf。　§　31。）　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　169n

To　define　the　subject　as　that　of　which　something　is　said；　and　the　predicate　as　what　is　said　about　it；
is　mere　trifling。　It　gives　no　information　about　the　distinction　between　the　two。　In　point　of　thought；
the　subject　is　primarily　the　individual；　and　the　predicate　the　universal。　As　the　judgment　receives
further　development；　the　subject　ceases　to　be　merely　the　immediate　individual；　and　the　predicate
merely　the　abstract　universal：　the　former　acquires　the　additional　significations　of　particular　and
universal；　the　latter　the　additional　significations　of　particular　and　individual。　Thus　while　the　same
names　are　given　to　the　two　terms　of　the　judgment；　their　meaning　passes　through　a　series　of
changes。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　170

We　now　go　closer　into　the　speciality　of　subject　and　predicate。　The　subject　as
negative　self…relation　（§§　163；　166）　is　the　stable　sub…stratum　in　which　the
predicate　has　its　subsistence　and　where　it　is　ideally　present。　The　predicate；　as　the
phrase　is；　inheres　in　the　subject。　Further；　as　the　subject　is　in　general　and
immediately　concrete；　the　specific　connotation　of　the　predicate　is　only　one　of　the
numerous　characters　of　the　subject。　Thus　the　subject　is　ampler　and　wider　than
the　predicate。　

Conversely；　the　predicate　as　universal　is　self…subsistent；　and　indifferent　whether
this　subject　is　or　not。　The　predicate　outflanks　the　subject；　subsuming　it　under
itself：　and　hence　on　its　side　is　wider　than　the　subject。　The　specific　content　of　the
predicate　（§　19）　alone　constitutes　the　identity　of　the　two。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　The　Judgment　（continued）　…The　Syllogism



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Transition　to　the　Object

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　193

This　'realisation'　of　the　Notion　…　a　realisation　in　which　the　universal　is　this　one
totality　withdrawn　back　into　itself　（of　which　different　members　are　no　less　the
whole；　and　which　has　given　itself　a　character　of　'immediate'　unity　by　merging　the
mediation）　…　this　realisation　of　the　notion　is　the　Object。
This　transition　from　the　Subject；　the　notion　in　general；　and　especially　the
syllogism；　to　the　Object；　may；　at　the　first　glance；　appear　strange；　particularly　if　we
look　only　at　the　Syllogism　of　Understanding；　and　suppose　syllogising　to　be　only
an　act　of　consciousness；　。。。　whether　our　usual　conception　of　what　is　called　an
'object'　approximately　corresponds　to　the　object　as　here　described。　By　'object'　is
commonly　understood　not　an　abstract　being；　or　an　existing　thing　merely；　or　any
sort　of　actuality；　but　something　independent；　concrete；　and　self…complete；　this
completeness　being　the　totality　of　the　notion。　That　the　object　is　also　an　object　to
us　and　is　external　to　something　else；　will　be　more　precisely　seen　when　it　puts　itself
in　contrast　with　the　subjective。　At　present；　as　that　into　which　the　notion　has
passed　from　its　mediation；　it　is　only　immediate　object　and　nothing　more；　just　as
the　notion　is　not　describable　as　subjective；　previous　to　the　subsequent　contrast
with　objectivity。　？　

Further；　the　Object　in　general　is　the　one　total；　in　itself　still　unspecified；　the
Objective　World　as　a　whole；　God；　the　Absolute　Object。　The　object；　however；　has
also　difference　attaching　to　it：　it　falls　into　pieces；　indefinite　in　their　multiplicity
（making　an　objective　world）；　and　each　of　these　individualised　parts　is　also　an
object；　an　intrinsically　concrete；　complete；　and　independent　existence。　

Objectivity　has　been　compared　with　being；　existence；　and　actuality；　and　so　too　the
transition　to　existence　and　actuality　（not　to　being；　for　it　is　the　primary　and　quite
abstract　immediate）　may　be　compared　with　the　transition　to　objectivity。　The
ground　from　which　existence　proceeds；　and　the　reflective　correlation　which　is
merged　in　actuality；　are　nothing　but　the　as　yet　imperfectly　realised　notion。　They
are　only　abstract　aspects　of　it　—　the　ground　being　its　merely　essence…bred　unity；
and　the　correlation　only　the　connection　of　real　sides　which　are　supposed　to　have
only　self…reflected　being。　The　notion　is　the　unity　of　the　two；　and　the　object　is　not
a　merely　essence…like；　but　inherently　universal　unity；　not　only　containing　real
distinctions；　but　containing　them　as　totalities　in　itself。　

It　is　evident　that　in　all　these　transitions　there　is　a　further　purpose　than　merely　to
show　the　indissoluble　connection　between　the　notion　or　thought　and　being。　It　has
been　more　than　once　remarked　that　being　is　nothing　more　than　simple
self…relation；　and　this　meagre　category　is　certainly　implied　in　the　notion；　or　even　in
thought。　But　the；　meaning　of　these　transitions　is　not　to　accept　characteristics　or
categories；　as　only　implied　—　a　fault　which　mars　even　the　Ontological　argument
for　God's　existence；　when　it　is　stated　that　being　is　one　among　realities。　What　such
a　transition　does；　is　to　take　the　notion；　as　it　ought　to　be　primarily　characterised
per　se　as　a　notion；　with　which　this　remote　abstraction　of　being；　or　even　of
objectivity；　has　as　yet　nothing　to　do；　and　looking　at　its　specific　character　as　a
notional　character　alone；　to　see　when　and　whether　it　passes　over　into　a　form
which　is　different　from　the　character　as　it　belongs　to　the　notion　and　appears　in　it。　

If　the　Object；　the　product　of　this　transition；　be　brought　into　relation　with　the
notion；　which；　so　far　as　its　special　form　is　concerned；　has　vanished　in　it；　we　may
give　a　correct　expression　to　the　result；　by　saying　that　notion　（or；　if　it　be　preferred；
subjectivity）　and　object　are　implicitly　the　same。　But　it　is　equally　correct　to　say
that　they　are　different。　In　short；　the　two　modes　of　expression　are　equally　correct
and　incorrect。　The　true　state　of　the　case　can　be　presented　in　no　expressions　of
this　find。　The　'implicit'　is　an　abstraction；　still　more　partial　and　inadequate　than　the
notion　itself；　of　which　the　inadequacy　is　on　the　whole　suspended；　by　suspending
itself　to　the　object　with　its　opposite　inadequacy。　Hence　that　implicitness　also
must；　by　its　negation；　give　itself　the　character　of　explicitness。　As　in　every　case；
speculative　identity　is　not　the　above…mentioned　triviality　of　an　implicit　identity　of
subject　and　object。　This　has　been　said　often　enough。　Yet　it　could　not　be　too　often
repeated；　if　the　intention　were　really　to　put　an　end　to　the　stale　and　purely
malicious　misconception　in　regard　to　this　identity　—　of　which　however　there　can
be　no　reasonable　expectation。　

Looking　at　that　unity　in　a　quite　general　way；　and　raising　no　objection　to　the
one…sided　form　of　its　implicitness；　we　find　it　as　the　well…known　presupposition　of
the　ontological　proof　for　the　existence　of　God。　There　it　appears　as　supreme
perfection。　Anselm；　in　whom　the　notable　suggestion　of　this　proof　first　occurs；　no
doubt　originally　restricted　himself　to　the　question　whether　a　certain　content　was　in
our　thinking　only。　His　words　are　briefly　these：　〃Certainly　that；　than　which　nothing
greater　can　be　thought；　cannot　be　in　the　intellect　alone。　For　even　if　it　is　in　the
intellect　alone；　it　can　also　be　thought　to　exist　in　fact：　and　that　is　greater。　If　then
that；　than　which　nothing　greater　can　be　thought；　is　in　the　intellect　alone；　then　the
very　thing；　which　is　greater　than　anything　which　can　be　thought；　can　be　exceeded
in　thought。　But　certainly　this　is　impossible〃。　The　same　unity　received　a　more
objective　expression　in　Descartes；　Spinoza；　and　others：　while　the　theory　of
immediate　certitude　or　faith　presents　it；　on　the　contrary；　in　somewhat　the　same
subjective　aspect　as　Anselm。　These　Intuitionalists　hold　that　in　our　consciousness
the　attribute　of　being　is　indissolubly　associated　with　the　conception　of　God。　The
theory　of　faith　brings　even　the　conception　of　external　finite　things　under　the　same
inseparable　nexus　between　the　consciousness　and　the　being　of　them；　on　the
ground　that　perception　presents　them　conjoined　with　the　attribute　of　existence：
and　in　so　saying；　it　is　no　doubt　correct。　It　would　be　utterly　absurd；　however；　to
suppose　that　the　association　in　consciousness　between　existence　and　our
conception　of　finite　things　is　of　the　same　description　as　the　association　between
existence　and　the　conception　of　God。　To　do　so　would　be　to　forget　that　finite
things　are　changeable　and　transient；　i。e。　that　existence　is　associated　with　them　for
a　season；　but　that　the　association　is　neither　eternal　nor　inseparable。　Speaking　in
the　phraseology　of　the　categories　before　us；　we　may　say　that；　to　call　a　thing　finite；
means　that　its　objective　existence　is　not　in　harmony　with　the　thought　of　it；　with　its
universal　calling；　its　kind；　and　its　end。　Anselm；　consequently；　neglecting　any　such
conjunction　as　occurs　in　finite　things；　has　with　good　reason　pronounced　that　only
to　be　the　Perfect　which　exists　not　merely　in　a　subjective；　but　also　in　an　objective
mode。　It　does　no　good　to　put　on　airs　against　the　Ontological　proof；　as　it　is　called；
and　against　Anselm　thus　defining　the　Perfect。　The　argument　is　one　latent　in　every
unsophisticated　mind；　and　it　recurs　in　every　philosophy；　even　against　its　wish　and
without　its　knowledge　—　as　may　be　seen　in　the　theory　of　immediate　belief。　

The　real　fault　in　the　argumentation　of　Anselm　is　one　which　is　chargeable　on
Descartes　and　Spinoza；　as　well　as　on　the　theory　of　immediate　knowledge。　It　is
this。　This　unity　which　is　enunciated　as　the　supreme　perfection　or；　it　may　be；
subjectively；　as　the　true　knowledge；　is　presupposed；　i。e。　it　is　assumed　only　as
potential。　This　identity；　abstract　as　it　thus　appears；　between　the　two　categories
may　be　at　once　met　and　opposed　by　their　diversity；　and　this　was　the　very　answer
given　to　Anselm　long　ago。　In　short；　the　conception　and　existence　of　the　finite　is
set　in　antagonism　to　the　infinite；　for；　as　previously　remarked；　the　finite　possesses
objectivity　of　such　a　kind　as　is　at　once　incongruous　with　and　different　from　the
end　or　aim；　its　essence　and　notion。　Or；　the　finite　is　such　a　conception　and　in　such
a　way　subjective；　that　it　does　not　involve　existence。　This　objection　and　this
antithesis　are　got　over；　only　by　showing　the　finite　to　be　untrue　and　these
categories　in　their　separation　to　be　inadequate　and　null。　Their　identity　is　thus　seen
to　be　one　into　which　they　spontaneously　pass　over；　and　in　which　they　are
reconciled。　




Third　Subdivision　of　The　Logic；　The　Doctrine　of　the　Notion
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　B。　THE　OBJECT



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Development　of　the　Object
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Mechanism　…　Chemism　…　Teleology



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　194

The　Object　is　immediate　being；　because　insensible　to　difference；　which　in　it　has
suspended　itself。　It　is；　further；　a　totality　in　itself；　while　at　the　same　time　（as　this
identity　is　only　the　implicit　identity　of　its　dynamic　elements）　it　is　equally
indifferent　to　its　immediate　unity。　It　thus　breaks　up　into　distinct　parts；　each　of
which　is　itself　the　totality。　Hence　the　object　is　the　absolute　contradiction　between
a　complete　independence　of　the　multiplicity；　and　the　equally　complete
non…independence　of　the　different　pieces。　

The　definition；　which　states　that　the