THE REALITY OF
SPRITIUAL ACTIVITY (FREIHEIT)
VIII
The Factors of Life
Let us recapitulate what we have
won in the preceding chapters. The world approaches man as a multiplicity, as
a sum of single things. One of these single things, a being among beings, is
he himself. We designate this form of the world as simply given, and
insofar as we do not develop this form through conscious activity, but rather
find it before us, we call this perception. Within the world of
perception, we perceive our own self. This self-perception would simply
remain there as one perception among the many others, if there did not arise
from the midst of this self-perception something which proves itself able to
connect all perceptions, and therefore also the sum total of all other
perceptions, with that of our self. This something which arises is no longer
mere perception; it is also not, like perceptions, simply found before us. It
is brought forth through our activity. It seems at first to be bound to what
we perceive as our self. In its inner significance, however, it reaches out
beyond the self. To the single perceptions it adds ideal characterizations
which, however, relate to one another, which are founded in one whole. It
characterizes ideally what is won through self-perception in the same way as
all other perceptions, and places it as subject or “I” over
against the objects. This something is thinking, and the ideal
characterizations are concepts and ideas. Thinking manifests itself therefore
at first in the perception of the self; it is, however, not merely
subjective; for the self first designates itself as subject with the help of
thinking. This relationship to itself in thinking is a life characteristic of
our personality. Through it we lead a purely ideal existence. We feel
ourselves through it to be thinking beings. This life characteristic would
remain a purely conception (logical) one, if no other characteristics of our
self supervened. We would then be beings whose life would be limited to the
establishment of purely ideal relationships among our perceptions themselves,
and between them and ourselves. If one calls this establishing of such a
thought situation “cognizing,” and the condition of our self
attained through it “knowing,” then, if the above supposition
applies, we would have no regard ourselves as merely cognizing or knowing
beings.
This presupposition, however, does
not apply. We do not merely relate our perceptions to ourselves ideally,
through the concept, but also through feeling, as we have seen. We are
therefore not beings with a merely conceptual content to our lives. The naive
realist, in fact, sees in the life of feeling a life of the personality more
real than in the purely ideal element of knowing. And from his standpoint he
is entirely right when he explains the matter to himself in this way.
Feeling, from the subjective side, is at first exactly the same as what
perception is from the objective side. According to the basic principle of
naive realism that everything is real that can be perceived: feeling is
therefore the guarantee of the reality of one's own personality. The
monism presented here must, however, confer upon feeling the same complement
that it considers necessary for any perception, if perception is to represent
full reality. For this monism, feeling is something real but incomplete
which, in the first form in which it is given to us, does not yet contain its
second factor: the concept or idea. Therefore feeling also arises everywhere
in life, as perceiving does, before the activity of knowing. We feel
ourselves at first as existing entities; and only in the course of gradual
development do we struggle through to the point where, within our own dimly
felt existence, the concept of our self arises for us. What for us
only emerges later is, however, inseparably bound up with our feeling from
the beginning. Because of this fact the naive person falls into the belief
that in feeling, existence presents itself to him directly; in knowing, only
indirectly. The cultivation of his feeling life will therefore seem to him
more important than anything else. He will believe that he has grasped the
connection of things only when he has taken it up into his feeling. He seeks
to make not knowing, but rather feeling, into his means of knowledge. Since
feeling is something altogether individual, something equivalent to
perception, the philosopher of feeling makes a principle that has
significance only within his personality into a world principle. He seeks to
permeate the whole world with his own self. What the monism meant here
strives to grasp with the concept, this the philosopher of feeling seeks to
attain with his feeling, and sees his way of being with objects as the more
direct one.
The tendency characterized here as
the philosophy of feeling is often termed mysticism. The error of a
mystical way of viewing things based on feeling alone consists in the fact
that it wants to experience what it should know, that it wants to
transform something individual, feeling, into something universal.
Feeling is a purely individual act,
the relating of the outer world to our subject, insofar as this relationship
finds its expression in a merely subjective experiencing.
There is still another
manifestation of the human personality. The “I” lives along,
through its thinking, with the general life of the world; through thinking,
in a purely ideal (conceptual) way, it relates its perceptions to itself, and
itself to its perceptions. In feeling, the “I” experiences a
relationship of the object to itself as subject; in willing, the
opposite is the case. In willing we likewise have a perception before us,
namely that of the individual relationship of our self to what is objective.
Whatever in my willing is not a purely ideal factor is just as much a mere
object of perception as is the case with any thing in the outer world.
In spite of this, naive realism
will believe that here again it has before itself a far more real existence
than can be attained through thinking. It will see in willing an element
within which it becomes directly conscious of a happening, of bringing
something about, in contrast to thinking, which first grasps the happening in
concepts. What the “I” accomplishes through this willing
represents, for this way of viewing things, a process which is directly
experienced. In willing, the adherent of this philosophy believes that he has
really grasped world happening by one tip. While he can follow other
happenings only through perception from outside, he believes that in his
willing he experiences a real happening quite directly. The form of existence
in which his will appears to him within the self becomes for him a real
principle of reality. His own willing appears to him as a specific case of
universal world happening; and this latter appears, therefore, as universal
willing. Will becomes the world principle just as, in the mysticism of
feeling, feeling becomes the knowledge principle. This way of viewing things
is philosophy of will (thelism). Something which can only be
experienced individually is made by this philosophy into the factor
constitutive of the world.
Just as little as mysticism of
feeling can be called science, can philosophy of will be so called. For both
assert that they cannot make do with a conceptual penetration of the world.
Both demand, besides the ideal principle of existence, a real principle as
well. And this with a certain justification. But since we have, for this
so-called real principle, only our perception as a means of grasping it, so
this assertion of the mysticism of feeling and of the philosophy of will is
identical with the view that we have two sources of knowledge: that of
thinking and that of perceiving; and this latter presents itself in feeling
and will as individual experience. Since what flows from the one source, the
experiences, cannot be taken up by these world views directly into what flows
from the other source, that of thinking, these two ways of knowledge,
perceiving and thinking, continue to exist side by side without any higher
mediation. Besides the ideal principle attainable through knowing, there is
supposedly still a real principle of the world in addition, which is
experienceable but not to be grasped in thinking. In other words: mysticism
of feeling and philosophy of will are naive realism, because they subscribe
to the proposition that what is directly perceived is real. Only, with
respect to original naive realism, they commit in addition the inconsistency
of making one particular form of perception (feeling, or willing as the case
may be) into the only means of knowing existence, which they can do, after
all, only if they subscribe in general to the basic proposition that what is
perceived is real. Therefore they would also have to ascribe to outer
perception an equal cognitive value.
Philosophy of will becomes
metaphysical realism when it also transfers will into those spheres of
existence in which — unlike in one's own subject — a direct
experience of will is not possible. It assumes hypothetically a principle
outside the subject, for which subjective experience is the sole criterion of
reality. As metaphysical realism, the philosophy of will falls under the
critique, presented in the following chapter, which overcomes and
acknowledges the contradictory factor in any kind of metaphysical realm,
which is that will is a universal world happening only insofar as it relates
itself ideally to the rest of the world.
Addendum to
the Revised Edition of 1918. The difficulty in grasping thinking
in its essential being by
observing it lies in the fact that this essential being has all too easily
slipped away already from the observing soul when the soul wants to bring
this being into its line of vision. There then remains for the soul only the
dead abstractness, the corpse of living thinking. If one looks only upon this
abstractness, one can easily find oneself impelled, in the face of it, to
enter into the “life-filled” element of the mysticism of feeling
or else of metaphysics of the will. One can find it strange that someone
should want to grasp, in “mere thought,” the essential being of
reality. But whoever brings himself to the point of truly having life in
his thinking will attain the insight that neither weaving in mere
feelings nor looking upon the will element can even be compared to the inner
wealth and to the peaceful, self-sustaining, yet inwardly moving
experience within this life of thinking, let alone that these two
could be ranked above it. It is precisely due to this wealth, to this inner
fullness of experience, that thinking's counterpart in our usual state
of soul appears dead, abstract. No other human soul activity is so easy to
misapprehend as thinking. Willing, feeling: they warm the human soul, even in
one's reliving of the original experiences. Thinking all too easily
leaves one cold in this reliving; it seems to dry out one's soul life.
But this is only the strongly manifesting shadow of thinking's reality
— a reality which is woven through with light, and which delves down
warmly into the phenomena of the world. This delving down occurs through a
power that flows within the thinking activity itself, which is the power of
love in spiritual form. One may not raise the objection that whoever, in this
way, sees love within active thinking is transferring a feeling, love, into
it. For this objection is in truth a confirmation of what is being maintained
here. Whoever turns, namely to thinking in its essential being,
will find in it both feeling and will, and these also in the depths of their
reality; whoever turns away from thinking and toward “mere”
feeling and willing only, will lose their true reality. Whoever wants to
experience intuitively within thinking is also doing justice to
experience of a feeling and will nature; the mysticism of feeling and the
metaphysics of will, however, cannot do justice to the intuitive thinking
penetration of existence. These last can all too easily come to the opinion
that they stand within what is real, but that the intuitively thinking
person, unfeeling and estranged from reality, forms with his “abstract
thoughts” a shadowy, cold world picture.
|