|
|
|
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib
|
|
The Theory of Categories / Kategorienlehre
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib Document
|
|
The Theory of Categories / Kategorienlehre
The Categories of Hegel
Schmidt Number: S-1868
On-line since: 28th February, 2004
A lecture by
Rudolf Steiner
Das Goetheanum, November 13, 1908
GA 108
A lecture, hitherto untranslated given at Das Goetheanum on
November 13, 1908. It is the eighth of nineteen lectures in the volume
Answers to Universal Questions and Life Questions through
Anthroposophy. This lecture is also known as
The Categories of Hegel.
In the collected edition of Rudolf Steiner's works, the volume
containing the German texts is entitled,
Die Beantwortung von Welt- und Lebensfragen Durch Anthroposophie,
(Vol. 108 in the Bibliographic Survey, 1961). The translator is
R. Mansel.
Copyright © 1984
This e.Text edition is provided through the wonderful work of:
Anthroposophy Today
|
Search
for related titles available for purchase at
Amazon.com!
|
Thanks to an anonymous donation, this lecture has been made available.
The Theory of Categories / Kategorienlehre1
Lecture
by Rudolf Steiner,
Berlin, 13 November 1908.
Das Goetheanum,
13 & 20 December 1936.
GA 108
The
lecture today will be put into such a form, that through
particular remarks connected with the elucidations you will
be able to see where the bridge is to be made between
Anthroposophy and Philosophy, and how certain philosophical
concepts and knowledge can be of importance in the practice
of spiritual science. Something is to be stated at the outset
that will be useful to us in bringing the philosophical
edifice altogether into a right relation to spiritual
science. As a preparation, you have heard the logic lectures
during the General Meeting (22 Oct. 1908, on the
4th Dimension; 25 Oct. 1908, on Fichte, Schelling,
Hegel). There we recognized thinking as the capacity, to
place oneself over against the world in a technique of
concepts. We characterized it in a certain way, when we
wanted to obtain a concept from pure formal logic. We can
only really speak of thinking, when it takes its course in
concepts, and we strictly distinguished between perception,
representation and concept. If such distinctions are said to
be difficult, it must be borne in mind, that in spiritual
science it is obligatory that one engage in strict soul
exercises, which will increase to sharp and energetic
conceptual contours.
We have
learnt to know the concept itself as something, which is
constructed wholly within our spirit, and this construction
is a true one. All psychological disquisitions, which see in
the concept only a shadow, arising through abstraction, of
that which we have in the representation, remain stationary
half way. The concept has not arisen thus, but in inward
construction.
In order
to get a picture of the place of the concept and the
conceptual system, let us just represent to ourselves, what
relation this world of concepts takes on the one side to
sensible perception, and on the other side to the higher
reality, which comes to us through super-sensible
observation. The whole network of concepts that a man
possess, beginning from the concept of number etc. to the
concepts that Goethe constructed, but which in our western
culture remain wholly in inception, you may represent as a
tablet (Tafel), forming the boundary between the
super-sensible and sensible worlds. Between these two spheres
the world of concepts forms the boundary. If the observer of
sense things were to direct only his eye or other perceptive
organs to the outer world, he would merely experience
representations. That was shown in the representation of the
circle, which remains to us from the perception of the
horizon on the ocean. If the human being on the other hand
constructs the picture merely in the spirit, the pictures of
all the points which are equal in distance from a point
within, then in antithesis to the representation of the
circle he possess the concept of the circle. Thus we could
construct other concepts than mathematical ones, and could
finally rise to real knowledge of the Goethean morphology,
whose concepts have come into existence just as inwardly as
the concept of the circle and so on. When we accordingly
imagine the network of all the concepts which man can form,
then one can approach the sensible reality with these
concepts, and then one finds, that the sensible world agrees
with one's concepts. What one has constructed as circles
coincides with the circle that is given to him in the
perception, through journeying out on the ocean. In this way
in all true conceptual thinking we relate ourselves to the
reality. The concept is decidedly not gained through
observation — that is a conception which is very
wide-spread today — the concept is plainly something
wherein a man takes no account of the external reality. Now
through this we established the place of the network of
concepts in regard to the external sensible reality.
Now we
must ask: how is it with the position of the network of
concepts in regard to super-sensible reality? When he, who
through the methods of clairvoyance discloses the
super-sensible reality, now approaches this reality with his
concepts, he will thus find the network of concepts coincides
just as much with the super-sensible world. From the other
side the super-sensible reality throws its rays as it were on
the network of concepts, as on the one side does the sensible
reality.
Now
whence comes this network of concepts itself? Here that can
only be asserted as fact, for the answer to this question can
only result as the consequence of the logical path which we
shall yet be able to take together. Today I will only give
you a picture of this network of concepts, in order to show
whence the network, which a man weaves within him, takes it
origin. That is best made clear by a shadow picture. The
shadow-picture of the hand would never arise if the hand were
not there. The shadow-picture resembles its prototype, but it
has one peculiarity! it is nothing! Through the fact that in
the place of light the non-light comes, through the
obliteration (obscuring??) of the light the shadow-picture
comes into being. 2 The
concepts arise in exactly the same way, through the fact that
behind our thinking soul there stands the super-sensible
reality.
The
concepts also are really only an obliteration of the
super-sensible reality, and because they resemble the
spiritual world, as the shadow-pictures do the prototypes,
for this reason the human being can form an inkling of the
super-sensible worlds. When the perception of the
super-sensible makes concept with the sensible, then these
shadow-pictures arise. In the conceptual shadow-pictures you
have the super-sensible reality just as little as in the
shadow-picture of the hand you have the hand itself.
Accordingly we have recognized here that the concepts are the
boundary between the two realities, but originate from the
super-sensible reality.
Now we
ask ourselves: how can a man arrive at concepts, when he has
no experience in super-sensible worlds? If he had only the
sense-reality, he could only have representations. But it is
not requisite to ascend into super-sensible reality in order
to form concepts. The seer can perhaps arrive more easily at
a complete conceptual world, because he has of course learnt
to know the forces, which form the concepts. You will find
the spiritual-scientific explanation of what is here said in
my Theosophy. A man arrives at his concepts because he
causes them to stream down upon him in that form (formlich).
Now how is it possible for a man to arrive at a network of
concepts filled with content? The majority of people have
only arrived at pure concepts in mathematics. Most men, of
course, believe that concepts arrive through abstractions.
Naturally that is not at all the origin of concepts. Even
thinking men are in general quite unclear as to this. When I
tried to make clear the self-constructiveness of the concept
in The Philosophy of Freedom I had the opportunity of
experiencing something very curious. You find elucidated
there, in adverse connection with Herbert Spencer, that to
start from outer experience is a thoroughly unsatisfactory
mode of forming the concept. (p. 55, 1932 ed.)
The
concept cannot be gained from observation. That arises from
the fact, that the growing human being only slowly and
gradually forms the concepts conforming to the objects which
surround him. The concepts are added to the observation.
A much
read philosopher of the present day (Herbert Spencer)
describes the spiritual process, which we carry out in
connection with the observation as follows: when in walking
through the fields on a September day, we hear a rustling a
few steps in front of us, and at the side of the ditch from
which it seems to come, we see the grass in movement, we
shall probably go straight to the spot in order to learn what
has produced the noise and the movement. At our approach a
partridge flutters into the ditch, and therewith our
curiosity is satisfied: we have what we call an explanation
of the phenomenon. This explanation, be it remarked, amounts
to the following: since in life we have so often experienced,
that a disturbance of the quiet situation of small bodies
accompanies the movement of other bodies situated between
them, and as we have for this reason generalized the
connections between such disturbances and such movements, we
regard this special disturbance as explained as soon as we
find that it is an example of this very connection! On closer
inspection, the matter shows itself to be wholly different
from the description given here. When I hear a noise, I first
seek the concept for this observation. This concept only
points one to something beyond the noise. One who does not
reflect further, hears just the noise and is satisfied with
that. But my reflection makes it clear to me, that I have to
regard the noise as an effect. Thus it is only when I combine
the concept of the effect with the perception of the
noise, that I am led to go beyond the single observation and
to seek for its cause. The concept of the effect calls
up that of the cause, and then I seek for the object which
causes it, and which I find in the form of the partridge. But
these concepts, cause and effect, can never be gained through
mere observation, however many cases it should embrace. The
observation calls forth the thinking, and it is only this
that shows me the way to link the single experience to
another.
If one
demands of a ‘strictly objective science’ that it
should take its content from observation alone, one must
demand at the same time that it should renounce all thinking.
For thinking, according to its nature, transcends what is
observed ...
If one
would follow Spencer's line of thought, one would arrive at
this, that concepts only arise through the crystallizing of
the special observations out of the general. 3 So long
as I relate myself in regard to the noise, as Spencer
describes it, I can never come to cognition at all.
Something is still requisite. A prominent philosopher of the
present day, to whom I dedicated a copy of my book, wrote in
the margin at the place just quoted: “the hare
certainly does not do that”, and sent me the book back.
But here we are of course not intending to write a philosophy
of the hare. Our soul must be in a condition in which it is
able to gain the network of the concepts when it is not in
the position to get it from perception. The methods, even
when they are the scientific methods, which one employs to
form representations about the world through outer
experience, all these methods cannot aid us to construct the
real network of concepts in the human soul. But there must be
a method, which is independent of external experience as well
as clairvoyant experience, for the human soul ought in truth,
as we presuppose, to be able to form concepts before it
mounts up to the super-sensible. Accordingly a man has to
proceed from one concept to another then he remains within
the network of the concepts itself. That that takes place in
the soul, makes it requisite that we presuppose a method
having nothing to do with external observation or with
clairvoyant experience. This movement in pure concepts one
now calls, in the sense of the great philosopher Hegel, the
“dialectic method”. That is the true
dialectic method, where the human being lives only in
concepts, and is as it were in a condition to cause one
concept to germinate out of another. The man then lives in a
sphere, where he takes no account of the sensible world and
of that which stands behind it the super-sensible world.
We have
pointed out what the soul does inasmuch as it continues
mobile in the network of concepts. It begins to spin concept
to concept in the sense of the dialectic method. It leads man
from concept to concept. Granted that we have to begin
somewhere, then we pass on from concept to concept. This must
give as a result the sum of all concepts. They would
constitute the sum of all concepts, which in the world-all
are adapted below to the sense world and upwards to the
super-sensible world as well. In the widest sense of the word
one terms all these self-mobile concepts, adapted to the two
worlds, “the Categories”. Whence it follows that
at bottom of the whole human network of concepts is composed
of the categories alone. With the same justice one might say:
all concepts are categories, as one might say: all categories
are concepts. One has, in truth, habitually called the
weightiest, the radical concepts, the nodal points of the
concepts, Categories. These more important concepts,
following Aristotle, are called categories. But in the strict
sense one can use the words ‘concept’ and
‘category’ interchangeably, so that we are
justified in calling the sum of our self-mobile,
self-producing concepts ‘theory of categories’.
And Hegel's work — is really a system of categories.
4
Hegel himself, of course, says this very thing: if one
establishes the network of concepts in the whole ambit, one
then has in it the ideas of the divine being before the
creation of the world. Since we find the concepts in the
world, they must have been originally established there. If
we trace the concepts back, we discover the divine ideas, the
categorical content of the world.
Today I
cannot go into the historical development of the system of
categories, but only show how in the main Hegel, the great
master of categorical theory, has developed the system of
concepts. Hegel is today perhaps the least understood
philosopher. And when anything is ever said about him, it is
worth but little. Wherefore people are still apt to say
today, as they always said in his lifetime: he wants to
develop the whole world in concepts. Even the Leipzig
philosopher Krug understood him as though he wanted to
construct the rose out of spiritual perceptions, as though
one ought to develop it from concepts. Whereupon he received
the answer, that it is not quite evident why the writing pen
itself of the Leipzig philosopher should (not) be constructed
of pure concepts. 5
It is of
extraordinary importance for Anthroposophists to make their
way into these pure concepts. It is at the same time an
important and strongly effective means of training the soul,
and a means of overcoming a certain indolence and
slovenliness of soul. These are effectively banished by
Hegel's ‘Dialectic’. One has, you know, this
unequivocal feeling of the slovenliness of the concepts in
the perusal of modern books, when one has trained oneself in
Hegel's system of concepts. True enough, one must have a
starting point, one must begin with something; naturally,
this must be the simplest concept, it must have the most
diffused (geringsten) content, and the greatest ambit; that
is the concept of “SEIN” (being: in existence,
entity, mere subsistence). This is the concept that is
applicable in the whole circumference of the world. Nothing
is expressed about the kind of existence, when we speak of
existence in the absolute sense. Hegel starts from the
concept of SEIN. But how does one get out beyond this
concept? However, in order not to remain at a standstill we
must of course have a possibility of causing concept to
germinate out of concept. This essential clue which we have
not got we find in the very dialectical method itself, when
it becomes clear that every concept contains in itself
something still more than the concept itself, as, to be sure,
the root contains the whole plant in itself which will yet
grow out of it. It is so with the concept as well. If we look
at the root with outer eyes we certainly do not see what
impels the plant out of the root. In the same way there is
something incorporated in the concept SEIN, which can cause
the germination of a concept, and this, in truth, is the
concept NICHT-SEIN (non-being, non-existence), the contrary
of the first concept. The NICHTS is incorporated in the SEIN,
so that here we have one concept germinate out of the other.
If we would form a representation of the concept of NICHTS,
that is quite as difficult as it is important. Many people,
even philosophers, will say it is altogether impossible to
form a concept of the NICHTS. But that is just the important
thing for Anthroposophists. A time is coming when much will
depend upon the fact that the concept of the NICHTS is
grasped in the appropriate way. Spiritual science suffers
from the fact that the concept of the NICHTS can not be
grasped purely. From the Theosophy has become a theory of
emanations.
Imagine
yourself confronting the external reality and contemplating
the world from a point of view which depends only on
yourself. You contemplate, for example two men, one large and
one small. You imagine something about them, a
concept, which would never be conceived [about them] then
unless you had met them both, the small and the large man. It
is all one what you think about them, but the concept would
never have been formed unless you had encountered them. You
can find nothing in the primary causes, which could lead to
the concept. It has emerged through the pure constellation,
through the reference of things to each other. But now this
concept, which has come out of the NICHTS, becomes a factor
that continues active in you. The NICHTS becomes accordingly
a positively real factor in the phenomena of the world, and
you can never lay hold of this world phenomenon unless you
have seized the NICHTS in this real significance. You would
even understand the concept of Nirvana better if you had a
clear concept of the NICHTS.
Now
connect the two concepts “SEIN and “NICHTS”
with one another; then you come to the WERDEN (becoming); a
fuller concept, which prospectively contains the other two.
WERDEN is a continuous transition from NICHT SEIN to SEIN. In
the concept WERDEN you have [a] play [between] the two
concepts SEIN & NICHTS. Starting then from the concept of
WERDEN you arrive at the concept of DASEIN (existent
there); it is that which next (das nachste) unites
itself to the WERDEN; the stiffening of the WERDEN is the
DASEIN (existential state), a condensed WERDEN. A WERDEN must
precede DASEIN.
Now what
[do] we get when we have developed four such concepts within
us and gained them in this way? We get much from them. In the
concept of WERDEN then, we are thinking of nothing else than
of what we have learned as content of the concept. We must
forthwith exclude everything that does not belong to the
concepts. Only SEIN AND NICHTSEIN belong thereto. Wherefore a
strictly trained thinker is so hard to understand. When a
concept is spoken of, one ought really just as little to
think in connection with [it] of something diverse from it as
in the case of the concept ‘triangle’. Dialectic
is a splendid schooling for thinking.
Already
we have four sequent categories: SEIN, NICHTSEIN, WERDEN,
DASEIN. We could then go on and cause every possible thing to
germinate out of DASEIN, and we would obtain a rich DASEIN
from this one line. But we can also go otherwise to work.
SEIN can also be developed on the other side; this is very
fruitful. The pure idea (Gedanke) of the SEIN (existence) is
projected into reality in thinking. 6 At the
moment when we grasp the concept SEIN we must designate it as
WESEN (Nature, essence, being, i.e. existent but not
outwardly. Tr.)
The
WESEN is SEIN retained within itself, the through and through
self-penetrating SEIN. That will become evident upon
reflection on the essential (wesentliche) and the inessential
(unwesentliche) element in a thing. The WESEN is the SEIN at
work within, the SEIN wholly devoting itself to the work, it
is the WESEN-being. We speak of the WESEN of man when we
associate his higher members with the lower and contemplate
the concept of the WESEN as the concept attaching itself
directly to the SEIN. From the concept of WESEN we gain the
concept of ERSCHEINUNG (appearance or phenomenon), the
self-manifestation outwardly, the contrary of WESEN, which
has the WESEN within it; it is, namely, that which emerges.
WESEN and ERSCHEINUNG are in a lie relation as SEIN to
NICHTS. If we again connect WESEN and ERSCHEINUNG with each
other, we get the ERSCHEINUNG that once more itself contains
the WESEN. We distinguish between the outer appearance and
the inner essence. But when inner WESEN overflows into
ERSCHEINUNG, so that the appearance itself contains the
WESEN, then we are speaking of WIRKLICHKEIT (Reality). No man
trained in dialectics will express the concept REALITY
otherwise than by thinking therein of APPEARANCE penetrated
by WESEN. Reality is the fusion of the two concepts.
All
speaking about the world must be permeated by those concepts
which receive their contours through the inner texture
(Gefuge), the organic edifice (Bau) of the whole world of
concepts. We can still go on, ascend of even richer concepts.
We could say: Wesen is the Sein which is in itself, which in
itself has come to itself, which can manifest itself. If now
this Sein not only manifests itself, but furthermore still
extends its lines (Linien) to the environment, and is thus
capable of expressing something yet different we arrive at
the concept of BEGRIFF (concept) itself. We have our Wesen in
us; it works (arbeitet) in us. But when we cause the concept
to work in us then we have something in us that points
outwards which embraces the outer world. 7
Accordingly we can ascend from Wesen, Erscheinung, and
Wirklichleit to BEGRIFF. We now have the concept in us, and
we have seen in formal logic how the concept works in the
conclusion. There the concept remains within itself. But now
the concept can go out. Then we are speaking of a concept
which gives back the nature (Natur) of the things. We there
come to true OBJECTIVITY. In the contrast to the subjectively
working concept, we come here to objectivity. As appearance
(ERSCHEINUNG) relates itself to the WESEN, so objectivity to
the concept. And one has only rightly apprehended the concept
of objectivity when it has taken place in this way. If we now
connect BEGRIFF — concept — and OBJECTIVITY, we
come to the IDEE, the idea, which is at one and the same time
objective appearance and contains the subjective within
itself.
In this
way the concepts grow on all sides out of the primary
stem-concept, out of the SEIN. Thus there arises the
transparent diamond-crystal world of concepts, with which
only we should again approach the sense world. Then is
exhibited how the sensible and super-sensible world coincide
with the concept-dialectic, and the human being comes to that
concordance of the concepts with the reality, in which really
rightful cognition consists.
Note 1: |
At the beginning the source document
the following is written: “Aristotle's Categories
or Classes or Conditions or States: 1. Substance 2.
Quality 3. Quantity 4. Relation 5. Action 6. Passion 7.
Time 8. Place 9. Situation 10. Habit”
|
Note 2: |
In the source document
‘obscuring’ is placed above
‘obliteration’ as it indicate a correction,
but the latter is not crossed out.
|
Note 3: |
In the source document the sentence
reads “…crystallising out of the
special…”, ‘out’ appears to be
crossed out, but this is not absolutely clear.
|
Note 4: |
In the source document
‘theory’ is placed over
‘system’ so as to suggest ‘system of
categories’ could also be ‘theory of
categories’, also above “Hegel's
work”, and under “sum of our
self-mobile” is the sentence (hand-written):
“the logic derived from Logos, which of course is
also a concept”.
|
Note 5: |
In the source document
‘not’ is inserted as a hand-written
correction, but with a ‘?’ after it, so as
to indicate that the corrector is not sure about this
correction.
|
Note 6: |
In the source document
‘projected’ (hard to read) is an alteration
from ‘protracted’.
|
Note 7: |
In the source document
“… it works (arbeitet) in us. But when we
cause the concept to work in us …” is
inserted (hand-written) as a correction.
|
|
Last Modified: 02-Nov-2024
|
The Rudolf Steiner e.Lib is maintained by:
The e.Librarian:
elibrarian@elib.com
|
|
|
|
|