XIII
The Act of Cognition
(See Exposition on Brief, Chapter 13)
R
EALITY HAS
divided itself for us into two spheres: the
spheres of experience and thought. Experience must be considered
from a twofold point of view: — First, in so far as the total
reality possesses, apart from our thinking, a form of manifestation
which must emerge in the form of experience. Secondly, in so far as
it is inherent in the character of our mind (whose essential nature
consists in contemplation: that is, in an outwardly directed
activity) that the objects to be observed must enter its field
of vision: that is, again, must be given to it in the form of
experience. It may be that this form of the given does not contain
within itself the essential nature of the thing; in which case the
thing itself requires that it shall first appear in perception (in
experience) only later to reveal its essential nature to an activity
of our mind which reaches beyond experience. Another possibility is
that the essential nature may be present in the immediately given and
that our not becoming forthwith conscious of that essential nature is
due to the second circumstance: the requirement of our mind that
everything must appear before it as experience. The second
possibility is true of thought, the former of all other reality. In
the case of thought, it is only necessary to overcome our
subjective preconceptions in order to grasp this in its
innermost essence. That which, in the case of all other reality,
rests upon the actual situation in objective perception — that
is, that the immediate form of appearance must be surmounted in
order to interpret it — rests in the case of thought only upon
a characteristic of our minds. In the former case, it is the
thing itself which gives to itself the experiential form; in the
latter, it is the organization of our mind. In the one case, we
do not possess the whole thing when we lay hold of experience; in the
other case, we do possess the whole thing.
Upon this rests
the dualism which must be surmounted by knowledge, which is cognition
by means of thinking. Man finds himself confronted by two worlds
whose interconnection he must bring about. One is experience, of
which he knows that it contains only one half of reality; the other
is thought, complete in itself, into which that external experiential
reality must flow if there is to result a satisfying world-view. If
the world were populated by mere sentient creatures, its essential
nature (its ideal content) would remain forever hidden; laws would,
of course, control the world processes, but these laws would never
become manifest. If this is to occur, there must intervene between
the law and the form of manifestation a being to whom is given both
the organs requisite to perceive that sensible form of reality
dependent upon the laws and also the capacity to perceive the
conformity to law itself. From one side the sense-world must come to
meet this being and from another side the ideal nature of this world,
and he must unite these two factors of reality by means of his own
activity.
Here it is
perfectly clear that our mind is not to be conceived as a
receptacle for the ideal world, containing the thoughts within
itself, but as an organ which perceives the
thoughts.
It is an organ of
apprehension just as are the eye and the ear. Thought is related to
our minds just as light is related to the eye, tone to the ear. It
does not occur to any one to think of color as something which stamps
itself on the eye, remaining there as if it adhered to the eye. But
in regard to the mind this is the prevailing conception. It is
supposed that a thought of each thing forms itself in the
consciousness and there remains, to be drawn forth at need. A
peculiar theory has been based upon this view as if those thoughts of
which we are at any moment unconscious were really preserved in our
minds, but were lying below the threshold of
consciousness.
These strange
opinions dissolve into nothing the moment we reflect that the ideal
world is self-determinative. What has this self-determinative content
to do with the multiplicity of consciousnesses? It will not be
supposed that this content so determines itself in
indeterminate multiplicity that one fractional content is
always independent of another! The thing is perfectly clear.
Thought-content is of such a nature that it simply requires a mental
organ for its manifestation, but that the number of beings possessed
of such an organ is a matter of indifference. Therefore, an
indefinite number of beings endowed with minds may be confronted by
the one thought-content. That is, thinking as an organ of
apprehension, perceives the thought-content of the world. There is
only one single thought-content of the world. Our consciousness is
not the capacity to produce thoughts and store them up, as is so
generally supposed, but the capacity to perceive thoughts (ideas).
Goethe expressed this strikingly in the following words: “The
Idea is eternal and single; the fact that we use the plural is
unfortunate. All things of which we become aware and of which we can
speak are only manifestations of the Idea; we utter concepts, and to
that extent the Idea itself is a concept.”
Dwelling in two worlds, the world of
the senses and the world of thoughts — the one pressing in from
below and the other shining down from above — man makes himself
master of knowledge, whereby he unites the two into an
undivided unity. From one side, external form beckons to us; from the
other side, inner being; we must unite the two into one. Here our
theory of knowledge has lifted itself above those points of view
generally adopted by similar inquiries, which never get beyond mere
formulae. From those points of view it is said that knowledge is the
elaboration of experience, without specifying what is elaborated into
experience; the matter is defined by saying that in cognition
perception flows over into thinking, or else thinking, by virtue of a
certain inner compulsion, presses forward from experience to the real
entity which is behind experience. But these are the merest formulae.
A science of knowledge that seeks to grasp cognition in its
world-important role must, first of all, postulate the ideal goal of
cognition. This goal is to give a solution to inconclusive experience
by revealing its central core. Such a theory must, in the second
place, determine what this central core is, considered as to its
content. It is thought, Idea. Third, and lastly, it must show how
this uncovering of the core is achieved. Our chapter
onThinking and
Perception explains this. Our
theory of knowledge leads to the positive conclusion that
thought is the essential nature of the world, and the individual
human thinking is the only phenomenal form of this essential nature.
A merely formal theory of knowledge cannot do this, but remains
forever barren. It possesses no opinion as to the relationship
between that which knowledge attains and the nature and fabric of the
world. And yet it is precisely in the theory of knowledge that this
relationship must be found. This science must show us where we arrive
by way of cognition; to what point every other form of knowledge
leads us.
Not otherwise than by way of a theory
of knowledge does one attain to the view that thought is the central
core of the world. For this science shows us the connection between
thought and the rest of reality. But through what other means shall
we learn in reference to thought what its relation to experience is
unless it be through that science which takes as the very object of
its inquiry just this relationship? Furthermore, how should we ever
know in regard to a certain spiritual or sensible entity that it is
the very primal force of the world if we do not investigate its
relationship to reality? If, therefore, we have to do in any manner
whatever with an inquiry as to the essential nature of a thing, this
discovery will always consist in a return to the ideal content of the
world. The sphere of this content must not be transgressed if we mean
to remain within clear characterizations and do not wish to grope
around in the indeterminate. Thought is a totality within itself,
sufficient unto itself, which cannot pass beyond itself without
entering a void. In other words, it must not, in an endeavor to
explain anything whatever, have recourse to things which are not to
be found within itself. A thing which could not be comprised within
thought would be a no-thing. All finally resolves itself into
thought; all at last finds its place within
thought.
Expressed in
reference to our individual consciousness, this means that, in order
to establish anything scientifically, we must limit ourselves rigidly
to what is given to us in consciousness; beyond this we cannot go.
When any one perceives clearly that we cannot leap over our own
consciousness without finding ourselves in the unreal, but does not
at the same time perceive that the essential nature of things is to
be met within our consciousness in the act of perceiving Ideas, he
then falls into the fallacy of talking about limitations of human
knowledge. If we cannot get beyond our consciousness, and if the
essential nature of reality is not within consciousness, then we can
never force our way through to that reality in its true
nature.
Our thought is
bound to the hither side and knows nothing of a yonder
side.
But, according to
our point of view, this opinion is nothing more than a thinking which
misunderstands itself. A limitation of knowledge would be possible
only if external experience in itself forced upon us the inquiry into
its own nature, only if it determined the question which must
be posed in its presence. But such is not the case. In thought itself
arises the need to match with experience, as it perceives this, the
essential nature of what is experienced. Thinking can have only the
most definite tendency to see in the rest of the world its own
conformity to law, but never anything of which it has not the least
information.
Another fallacy
must also be corrected at this point. It is that which considers
thought not sufficient in itself to constitute the world; as if
something else (force, will, etc.) must supervene in order to render
the world possible.
As soon, however,
as we reflect sufficiently, we see that all such factors really
amount to nothing more than abstractions drawn from the perceptual
world, and must themselves await interpretation by thought. Every
component of the World-Being other than thought would require a form
of apprehension, of cognition, other than that through thought. These
other components we should have to reach otherwise than by
means of thought. For thinking yields only thoughts. But, as soon as
we endeavor to explain the part played in the fabric of the world by
these other components, and resort to concepts for this
explanation, we fall into self-contradiction. Moreover, there
is no third part given to us in addition to sense-perception and
thought. And we cannot consider any part of the former as the core of
the world, since a closer inspection of all its constituents shows
that, as such, they do not contain its own essential nature. This can
be found nowhere save in thought.
|