The day view opposite the night

view
From

Gustav Theodor Fechner

third edition

Leipzig
printing and publishing house of Breitkopf & Härtel
1919

First part. Broad.

I. entrance.
II. Historical point of view.
III. Principles of both views to each other.
IV. Developmental Principles of the Day View.
V. Positive development moments of the day view compared to the negations of the
night view.
1. God.
2. The sensual world of appearance.
3. The soul question stars and plants.
4. The earth in particular.
5. The hereafter.
6. The evil in the world.

VI. Religious views and prospects.

VII.Glaubenssätze.
Second part. Versions.
VIII. The old and the new of the day view.
IX. The three belief principles of the day view.
X. The Theology of the Day View.
1. Factual.
2. Linguistic.
3. The immutability of the divine essence.

XI. To the soul question.

XII. The doctrine of the hereafter.
XIII. On the mediation of the general and higher spiritual life with nature.
XIV. To teleology.
XV. The world questions of pleasure and aversion. Optimism and pessimism.
XVI. The question of freedom.
1. General aspects.
2. Representation of indeterminism.
3. Representation of determinism.
4. The prayer.

XVII. The causal law. The concept of strength and the experience.
XVIII. Principle of the tendency to stability as the financial principle of the
world. Psychophysical hypothesis of pleasure and aversion.
XIX. What causes and entitles us to accept an external world and how far is a
knowledge of its nature possible.
XX. Communicating the day view with the scientific view of nature.
XXI. Basic relationship between material and spiritual principle. Dualism and
monism.
XXII. Standing of the day view to the Monadologie. Synechological view of the
monadological opposite.
XXIII. Spiritualistic.
1. Position of the day view to spiritism.
2. Position of Spiritism to Religion.
3. Personal comments.

XXIV. Supplementary comments to justify the day view.

XXV. Ending.

First part
Broad
I. entrance.
One morning, sitting in a bench near the Swiss cottage in the Rosental in Leipzig, I
looked through a gap left by the bushes to the large meadow spread out in front of it,
to refresh my sick eyes at the greenery of it. The sun was shining bright and
warm; the flowers looked colorful and funny out of the meadow green, butterflies
fluttered about and in between, birds chirped above me in the branches, and from a
morning concert the sounds came into my ear. So the senses were busy and
satisfied. But for those accustomed to thinking, such satisfaction does not last long,
and so, from the contemplation of the senses, a play of ideas gradually emerges,
which I only want to weave out a bit further here and render it more orderly.
Strange delusion, I told myself. After all, everything is before me and around me
night and silence; the sun, which shines so brilliantly on me, that I am shy to turn my
eyes to her, in truth only a dark ball, seeking his way in the dark. The flowers,
butterflies lie their colors, the violins, flutes their tone. In this general darkness,
desolation and silence, which surrounds heaven and earth, hover only individual,
inwardly bright, colored and sounding, beings, even only points, emerge from the
night, sink back into it, without something of their light and sound to leave behind,
see each other, without something lights between them, talk to each other, without
something between them sounds. So today and so it was from the beginning and it
will be forever. What do I say: rather, it was not cold enough for billions of years, and
how long will it take for it to be too cold for the existence of such beings. Then
everything will be very dark and quiet again as before.
But how could I come up with such absurd thoughts? I did not agree either; I only
realized that they had come to think of it, and thought it strange that people had come
to think of it so generally. Is it the thoughts of the whole thinking world around
me? How much and what it quarrels, in which philosophers and physicists,
materialists and idealists, Darwinians and Antidarwinians, Orthodox and rationalists
shake hands. It is not a building block, but a cornerstone of today's world view, that it
is as I said it is; happy that she is in something. What we mean to foresee the world
around us, to hear it all, is only our inner appearance, an illusion which one can praise
oneself, as I read it lately; but remains an illusion. Light and sound in the
outer, Controlled by mechanical laws and forces, and not yet penetrated by
consciousness, beyond the organic creatures, there are only blind, dumb wave-trains,
which cross the ether and the air from more or less shaken material points, and only
when they are joined to the egg-balls Brain, indeed, only when they meet at a certain
point of the same, to translate by the spiritualistic magic of this medium in bright
sounding vibrations. One argues about reason, essence, details of this magic; one is
agreed about the fact; and of all the theories of thought and epistemology in which
philosophy is now exhausting and wanting to empty, as if it still wanted to give birth
to a philosophy, there is no doubt about the correctness of this fact, unless
Although the natural man resists this wisdom. He believes that he sees the objects
around him, because it is really bright around him, the sun does not begin to shine
behind his eye, the flowers, butterflies are as colorful as they appear to him, the
flutes, violins their tone give it to him, not receive it in reverse, in short, that there is a
glow and sound through the world beyond him and from outside into him. But he lets
himself be taught by science, and now believes that he is so cleverer that he has an
illusion less. The illusion remains and mocks his knowledge of how this mocks his
illusion. Which of these is finally right? Certainly, the illusion will never give
way; the knowledge that it is an illusion is probably just as firm and is not it rather an
illusion itself? Do you need the proverb that Ehrlich lasts longest, only to turn back
so that what lasts the longest is honest, to believe it.Naturam furca
expellas, usque tamen redibit , will not that also apply to the natural view of things?
Yes, she would not have to frighten that nightly view of herself when the mirror is
held up to her, but she immediately said that she herself was what she saw in it; and
yet, with some meditation, he must find every trace of it in it. But will she be able to
stand before the world with such features, when she in turn begins to
remember? Rather, if the world had always shown so clearly the whole
unfoundedness of this view, the whole improbability of it, the whole weakness of its
reasons, then to me in that hour, it could never have become a worldview. Now,
clarity is the last thing in those things, but the last will be clarity.
In fact, my belief is that, as surely as on the night of the day, that night view of the
world will one day be followed by a day view, which, instead of contradicting the
natural view of things, is rather underpinned and contained therein Reason to find a
new development. For, if the illusion disappears, which reverses the day into night,
then of course everything that is connected with it, and it has much to disappear, will,
and the world appear in a new context, in a new light, under new positive aspects.
For the light to be seen beyond us all over the world, the sound heard, there must
be a seeing and hearing being. And has not one already heard of a God who is
omnipresent and omniscient in the world? But for the night view his clarity, if he is at
all still for her, is above things; therefore the world beneath him so dark, dumb and
dull. For the daytime view, the world is illuminated by his seeing, his hearing is heard
through; what we ourselves see and hear of the world is only the last diversion of his
seeing and hearing; and above all that he sees and hears more than we of the world,
there is also something higher in him than in us. - After the night view, God needs no
light to see, no sound to hear, conversely the blind light, the deaf sound of no
god; and so it is easy for one to lose the other and for materialism to overgrow the
ground; in the meantime, according to the view of the day, both what is needed and
demands, and one thing holds the other; Thus materialism sinks below the
ground. Thus the whole position of God changes from the night view to the day view
to the world; and as the relation of the most general and thus highest spirit to the
world changes, so does the relationship of all individual spirits to God and the world.
One wonders in astonishment: are you so bold as to want to overturn today's
worldview? It is not self-evident that the world, in its remaining contradictions in
first, last, and highest things, agrees in that view which you like to call the night-
view, proof enough that in it it has necessarily gone beyond the natural view of things
?
It would be, if only they were not at odds in everything that is connected with this
view. So I rather seek the reason that she is, in that she agrees in that view. Destroy
the knot in which threads converge and hold together, so that the gap between them
remains common to all; but all fall apart; and if all the world agreed by a fundamental
error of calculation in the proposition that twice two is five, then the most various
futile and mutually explanatory attempts would be made to bring the whole world
account into conformity with it. In such attempts, we are still biased today.
Enter the halls of the philosophers, where the riddle of the world struggles with its
own solution. What do you see? Things are quarreling about themselves, I and not,
power and substance, simple beings, absolute, concept, will, unconscious about the
name of what emerges from the night and silence the illusion of a luminous sounding
world, indeed of space and time Himself, to generate in us; and the wisest offer for
the ground of existence, which, seemingly barbarous, casts all the baubles, but only
those names with determinations, which are abstracted from the illusory world itself,
and thus rage against each other; the divines, however, rage against them and are
themselves only united in what contradicts themselves the most.
To that same-like world they point to an almighty, all-wise, all-benevolent God,
who with unconditional freedom could create a world as he wished; and he created
this world full of darkness, full of creatures that devour each other, sickness, ill-
health, water and fire, evil of all kinds; and they teach us that such a God would not
fit into such a world, and such a world as such a god, was only a partial consequence
of our sin, partly a defect of our base knowledge. For although omnipresent and all-
effective, so that no hair falls from our heads without him, he is far too high for us to
know anything of him; but all the contradictions that appear to us to explain us
through his incomprehensibility.
The naturalists, however, laugh, knowing that they alone are the ones who know
something, and happy to know more and more about the safe ways. In the nerves they
have the sure signs and means of sensation, and in the brain the instrument of the
mind beyond which the world has none, none. Whether there are vibrations in air and
ether over the nerves, they know that vibrations only in sensory protein contain
phosphorus, and tend to regard psychology as a branch of chemistry: from coal,
phosphorus and oxygen in the protoplasm comes Ghost. - With the protoplasm, as the
common origin of nerves and polyps, begins a second creation, that of the spiritual
things; with the recognition of the protoplasm, the first full ray of light fell into the
science of these things; and after the disciples have forgotten to worship God as
creator of these things, they worship the golden calf of the protoplasm. - The eye
seems made for the purpose of seeing, the naturalists know that it is needed only to be
made without any purpose. In the case of philosophers and theo-thegenes, liberty and
necessity, like two butterflies running around each other, drive one another
tirelessly; the naturalists know that, like everything else in the world, life and
sensation obey unquestionable legal necessity; The world beyond man and beast but
dead, is insensible, because it obeys the same necessity. - The spiritual horses mean
that they pull the cart of matter; the naturalists know
Is not this literally the lowest and the highest, and in spiritual matters the most
exact of the wisdom of today, each of which already quarrels in itself and each other
with the other. And all that falls into that big gap or hangs so that you can pursue it,
along with it.
Proud of this wisdom, full of folly, we pitifully look down upon the simple modest
folly of Negroes and Turks, and think that we are far ahead of the past centuries,
because they had a few fewer of these follies. But we could be more proud of our
matches, which will still continue to shine upon us when all the ghosts of the night
view are extinguished and sunken.
Has the world view ever changed on the whole and big, will not it be able to
change again? Although I foresight, it does not do so by annulling the earlier
negatives on a new level, but by abolishing in the most lofty point of view of today's
world view the riches of the earlier ones; but to it will belong that it picks up that
night view.
It was thoughts of this kind that overcame me in a fleeting process, widening and
increasing, as I looked from the bank into the green that morning, but not at that time
first, but with a new driving force.
On the other day, looking from the same bench, I remembered the following about
everything else:
With every relapse of his illness, my eye can not stand reading a scripture close by,
not the sunshine of the street, not sunspots in the room. But deciphering the
company's big, distant writing feels like a salutary exercise; the more distant it looks,
the more refreshed it is, most of all the view of the pure sky, so it always turns from
time to time. "How do I compare that?" I ask myself; Everything sensuous can be
understood as a symbol of something spiritual. And I thought that the most beautiful
and truest interpretation of the picture lay in the fact that when man presses on the
earthly presence and nearness, he only has to direct his gaze into the distance and
height in order to find consolation, the safer, ever Greater width and height directs
him. In the daytime view, however, I found Thinking further, they also open their
eyes to this view, while the night view merely refers to them; It is only necessary to
open the view for the day view.
And another thought that the desk was not the first born, and I want to
commemorate this occasion as an introduction to this writing. It was in Sassnitz on
the seashore that I wanted to go to the beautiful beech forest that leads from Sassnitz
via the Waldhalle to Stubbenkammer. She, who has lived a long life with me, stayed
tired of the corridors of the past days and years, and said: "I do not like to leave you
alone, you could get lost, oh, and how will it be if I am you may have to go all alone,
in not too long a while. " "Who knows," says I, "whether you love me or I, but let us
not think of it." But I thought of it when I went alone into the forest; thought of the
infinite love and loyalty that has guided me through so many years. The beech sought
heaven, The blue sky arched over it, the sun threw in its sparkling bills, and from the
sea a rushing sound went through the forest. It was like a great chord of heaven, earth
and sea, which wanted to resonate inwardly and end in thoughts of the day view. But
the thoughts of the heart fought against it; I thought: can your day's view, with all its
high, broad, bright views and prospects, satisfy even your own heart at this moment,
and why then its views and prospects, if it can not, for no one, never can. To feel one
with another heart is the satisfaction of the heart; no worldview is needed for that at
all, and that can be despite any view of the world; As there is room for two huts
together, it may look all around in the world as it pleases. But immediately another
voice rose above this voice. May the heart alone in man want his satisfaction, he does
not consist only of his heart; and does not the day view, with its view into the wide,
the high, and the light, offer satisfaction to the heart? Not one that goes beyond the
next, which it demands and misses for the moment. Over the satisfaction of knowing
one another with another human heart, which has our sufferings and joys to its own,
floats, not arguing with it, but protecting and shielding, the satisfaction of being at
one with a being knowing the sufferings and joys of all of his creatures, that also
those of two faithful hearts may have to his own; and is not that the god of day
view. But two hearts, which are now one, always want to be; and are you afraid that
death will break the bonds that now bind one another to the other, so it is the fear of
the night view; the death in the day view rather burst the bonds, which now both still
separate from each other.
And does not the world itself go all round more to our hearts, and is more to our
hearts, when the sun shines its brilliance, the sky its blue, the sea its rustling
faithfully, the beech before the ax falls to us to warm up, to strive upward, to enjoy
light and warmth, as if everything lies in the world just as the night view lies. The
truth that the mind demands demands the heart for beauty; but there can be a more
beautiful world than that in which beauty itself becomes truth. And even if, according
to the daily view, she is only completely in God for God, who sees and hears
everything, then whoever sees and hears in his senses has his share in it.
With these thoughts, the heart was content, and every heart will be content, making
the thoughts of the day's view his own.
What follows in this text is only the execution of the previous thoughts, a shorter
one according to the main features in this first, another according to some main points
in the second part of the text.

II. Historical point of view.

But now, the view of the night exists, and if one can already dispose of oneself and
others by only grasping them clearly in the eye, then it is first necessary to grasp their
reasons in the same way in order to discard them. But the reasons for that, at least for
reasons of origin, must be there, and that is why they are still no justification. Which
one can you be?
True, for the present world it is not necessary to ask for reasons of the night view; it
exists because it has lasted so long. Today we are like those species of beetles that
have always lived in dark caves whose ancestors already lived in them; they no
longer have eyes for the light; It may come in, they see nothing of it, and if they see a
light, it is only misleading. The modern day world grown in the dark caves of the
night view is the day view such a light; in vain all reasons that it seems; but if you
want to hear reasons why it does not shine, you will hear only those who follow from
the night view first. This is in itself easily swept away chaff; but if you sweep away
this chaff, you will not sweep away the soil that carried it and carries it again and
again.
That's it, that's the more general and deeper reason for the night view. In order to
save God from pagan fragmentation into worldly details and to lift them above their
baseness, theology, disturbed by contradictions of their own sources and ever again
contradictory to themselves, has distilled him from the world. He has served the gods
as serving angels also transformed these over the stars. And now it is the world, not
only de-goddled, but also made of God with a gift of mechanical powers, that has
fallen sinfully from it, as a caput mortuumfor the measurements and experiments of
the physicists, for the Lukubrations of the philosophers, and for the slogans of the
theologians. So the divine consciousness has its contents from below, the sensuous
appearance lost its cohesion from above, that is dissipated to the incomprehensible,
faded this except for a few remnants.
But such a view of things, which divides existence in its midst, pours the contents
of the world out of its vessel and spills it, can not be the last, as it was not the
first; rather, after the first half, it is the second half into which we have come; But the
world will one day want the full end, which is not in the external completion of one
by the other, but in the fulfillment of one by the other, summit of one by the
other; and as such offers the day view.
In fact, from the outset, the pagan view, which does not know how to distinguish
and distinguish between the physical and the spiritual, apart from man, is the most
natural view of things. No king as powerful, magnificent, and benevolent as the sun,
a tree no less, only living differently, growing, dying as a man. Where now, as our
sages say, soullessly a fireball turns, Helios steered his golden car in quiet majesty; a
Dryas lives in every tree, and what in the sense of the night view will never feel. If
not everywhere the same developed and mythically decorated, this is the world view,
with which we all peoples, on whose undeveloped state we can still take a look, begin
to see. But that's just the one, let's say the bottom, Half the full view. The natural man
always sees fragments of nature at once, and grasps the independently appearing
independently in the eye; the unification of all in the universe and the clarity about
their relationship to space escapes him; and that's what the day's view has as a full
and whole beyond the pagan view and has to bring. It also sums up the connection
between the pieces and the untrammeled pieces, and depending on the dualistic or
monistic version, the world permeates and fills the world with a unified divine
essence, or stands out completely and virtually in a common unity with it. the
unification of all in the universe and the clarity about their relationship to space
escapes him; and that's what the day's view has as a full and whole beyond the pagan
view and has to bring. It also sums up the connection between the pieces and the
untrammeled pieces, and depending on the dualistic or monistic version, the world
permeates and fills the world with a unified divine essence, or stands out completely
and virtually in a common unity with it. the unification of all in the universe and the
clarity about their relationship to space escapes him; and that's what the day's view
has as a full and whole beyond the pagan view and has to bring. It also sums up the
connection between the pieces and the untrammeled pieces, and depending on the
dualistic or monistic version, the world permeates and fills the world with a unified
divine essence, or stands out completely and virtually in a common unity with it.
The Christian and Islamic doctrine has transcended the pagan conception; but
instead of continuing them to the uniform top and completing them, they just thrown
away. To enrich one of them all had to pass that world of gods. Under a top step,
which held her and lifted her high in the air, she pulled away all the lower ones and
sank into the night view. But the daytime view reveals it, sets it at the top level, and
measures the divine height at the height of the whole staircase. And that is what I
meant by saying that for a future view of the world, for which I hold the day view, it
would be destined to lift the wealth of an earlier world view into the loftiest point of
view of today.
A pendulum swings first to one side, weakly lifts it, the vibration gradually
becomes stronger, tears everything away with itself in its orbit, falls again, finally
stops; and the pendulum thinks that a movement that finally stops can not have the
right direction; So it turns around, lifts weakly again, the movement becomes
stronger again, tears everything away with itself in its orbit, and finally it slows down
and stops again; and so the pendulum finally comes to the conclusion that both
directions have the same right; and according to which of them it oscillates from now
on, it knows in every moment, the vibration is full only with the fulfillment of
both. Thus the world view has successively swung in two directions; the second is
close to stuttering again, and thus the time of finite reflection approaches.
It will always remain a hypothesis, from which the day's view originates here,
although it could also have another outcome, that the sensuous appearance extends
beyond the individual creatures through the world; but there is no less a hypothesis in
which the night view is rooted, that the world is dark and dumb between the
individual creatures. But the first hypothesis is in itself more edifying than the other,
agrees better with the natural conception of things, offers more support and points of
attack to a broad and high development into positive determinations, and admits them
to the principal features in only one way the other has only partly led to negative,
partly more or less contradictory provisions and conflicting views.
That's what I'm trying to show in the following, and that's what will eventually give
the development of the day's view the victory over the night view, which, instead of
bringing it to a progression, only becomes more and more self-indestructible worn by
work.
Of course the task is great. When St. Christopher was supposed to carry a child,
who was once destined to carry the world, across the river to the nearest shore, it did
not hamper his task that the waves threatened his foot and threatened to strangle him,
but that the child The longer the walk, the harder it became for him. Thus, it is not the
flood to be washed through that easily sinks into the sea of oblivious objections,
which makes the task difficult, which wants to bring the day view, today still a child,
to the shore of the future, but that on the way to it through its growing development
his powers threaten to overgrow, but it also strengthens his strength.

III. Principles of both views to each other.

So many negations and contradictions in the night view come together and leak out,
so many positions in and from the day view. If both are true, that the sensuous
phenomenon is not merely shining beyond us, but is spread objectively through the
world, and that it unites and culminates in a unified consciousness, so is other things
true. After all, the human mind has not enough of its sensual appearance and union in
a single consciousness; rather, what level construction of spiritual life
intervenes; how much less can the divine Spirit have enough of it, after he includes in
his vastness and height the human self; because that is the third of the two previous
main truths. In that our whole sensory life is overrun by the general, it has not fallen
out of its context, and so our consciousness of consciousness has only surpassed the
general, without having fallen out of it, so that our entire conscious life has generally
been decided upon. With each attempt to put it another way, one pervades, destroys or
de-starts the spirit of the world, which is at the same time the world of spirit, but in a
unified summary, and tears the thread of natural contemplation. Just as the human
body is part of the whole externally appearing material world, the spirit of man
belonging to this body, which appears to be inwardly self-evident, is a part of the not-
self-appearing spiritual being, which belongs to the world-whole, and the unity of the
human spirit only a minor fraction of the unity of the divine spirit.
In the end, too, only the beautiful word is satisfied, to which those who so gladly
use it do not give any consequence, to the consequential truth: that we live and weave
in God and are and he in us, and that he cares about all our thoughts knows like
us. Can one mind also be externally given to the other?
It was already thought to be beyond paganism with the one god; yet the human
spirits are allowed to exist as idols beside God, unconcerned that, in addition to an
infinite spirit, there is no longer room for finite spirits. The apostate spirits populate
hell under God, and at last it is reversed, and instead of thinking of the human mind
in the relation of subordination and subordination to the divine, one idolizes the
human by making the divine an illusion in the human.
True, there was a famous philosopher and theologian who placed the essence of
religion in the feeling of dependency on God, and yet put God above us as a being of
whom man can know nothing, except that it is unified, infinite, is eternal. But how
can an intimate, warm, heartfelt, effective sense of dependence on a being come of
which one knows nothing except that it has qualities we do not have, and to which no
bridge of understanding leads. How different, however, is the feeling of dependency
on God when we recognize and feel ourselves in God as knowing and acting
moments, but always subordinate to his higher knowledge and action. But that we
know that we are something in him, we also know something about him,
As essential, mutually demanding, conditioning and holding moments, or as basic
points of the day view, on which all development of the same has to base, and where
to hold between them, I consider the propagation of the sensual appearance through
the world beyond the creatures, the connection and conclusion of the same in a
supreme conscious unity, and the intermediate point of view, that our own
consciousness is at once at the same time subordinate to and subordinate to the
whole, ie divine, consciousness.
Against this I regard as fundamentally equally coherent connected moments of the
night view - only that they do not become easily aware of this connection: the night
of the sensual appearance beyond humans and animals, the overstatement of God, if
one still believes in God, over the sensuous appearing and creaturely world, and the
external confrontation of man against God or even overpowering man over God as a
mere human idea. With the night of the sensual appearance beyond man and beast,
the conceptual transmission hangs together, which seeks to bore into this night, even
to pierce it, in order to get beyond the essence of things; it is a search for the reason
of the reflection behind the mirror.
The day view is not one among other views, but stands with its positive starting
point, content and conclusion as one all opposite, which meet in the night view as the
common root of negations and contradictions. Nor is the night view one among other
views; it is neither a uniform nor positive view at all; one can only call them by a
name, as if it were a thing, as one speaks of a spirit that denies God's
opposite; whereas there is only the positive God as one and the unifier. Also, the
above basic points of the night view, although coherent in essence, coincide no less
than everywhere; because their ineritable consequences are raised only by
inconsequences, such as debts without assets only by debts, which are growing
instead of decreasing, pay. Completely without viewpoints of the day view, it is only
about the most blatant materialists and social democrats.

IV. Developmental Principles of the Day View.

The three fixed points of the day view, as they themselves are connected with each
other, are at the same time the starting points and indications of a coherent and
unanimous development. The nucleus and germ, as it were the punctum saliensIn this
development, the point of view mediating between above and below offers that our
counterpart to God is not an external one, as that of the part against the part, the step
against the step, but an inward one, as that of the part against the whole, the step
against the stairs, is. For after this, God's nature is no longer completely
incomprehensible to us; we ourselves are a breath, a small fraction, a small step and
sample of it. Not only the existence, but also of the internal relations of the divine
essence is thus something directly accessible to us in our own inner relations; and
from here, expanding and augmenting points of view are commanded, not to exhaust
God's existence, but to advance further and ascend in the knowledge of his mode of
being and his relations with us and all creatures, aspects of generalization, analogy, of
connection, of succession and gradation. But with the inferences on the divine mode
of existence, such things are related to our otherworldly mode of existence, insofar as
our present existence itself is only a part, a lower level of our entire existence decided
in God and has to seek its continuation therein. And after the whole world has
become divinely inspired beyond us, the circle widens and the step-by-step
construction of individually inspired beings rises above and above us. But with the
inferences on the divine mode of existence, such things are related to our
otherworldly mode of existence, insofar as our present existence itself is only a part, a
lower level of our entire existence decided in God and has to seek its continuation
therein. And after the whole world has become divinely inspired beyond us, the circle
widens and the step-by-step construction of individually inspired beings rises above
and above us. But with the inferences on the divine mode of existence, such things
are related to our otherworldly mode of existence, insofar as our present existence
itself is only a part, a lower level of our entire existence decided in God and has to
seek its continuation therein. And after the whole world has become divinely inspired
beyond us, the circle widens and the step-by-step construction of individually
inspired beings rises above and above us.
Of course, as long as the night view is still stored in the world, all such
considerations and conclusions, the whole new, wide and high light-lit world, which
thereby opens in place of earlier fantasies, myth and mysticism, even for such,
because on the ground of the Night view does not offer anything, with its abstruse
gait nothing is true. I've heard it, and I'll find out. But patience, they will find their
time; it is not day yet.
Those ways of concluding beyond ourselves are basically the same with which we
infer everywhere from here to here, from today to tomorrow, and with which all
empirical science concludes from the given to the non-given. Whoever may deny that
they become the more insecure the more they go, the higher they go from the given to
the non-given. So the night view lets it fall after the first steps, only to demand and
not to foot anything; whereas the day-view, which gives the individual security, seeks
to supplement it by the concurrence of all and the approval of practical points of
view, in order to come as close as possible to it where no strict knowledge is
possible. As firm in the sense of the day view but only has to apply what is consistent
with the basic points and what the points of view agree on all sides; But that is just
the most general and important thing.
According to her, the daytime view will still fluctuate in its composition and
construction, but it will not be able to disintegrate indefinitely, if it only holds its
three basic points as solid breakpoints like a flexible line that has been held at both
endpoints and in the middle. At the bottom of the day's view, new questions will
emerge that do not present themselves at the bottom of the night view, and new
riddles awaiting solution, but only those which can arise on the basis of the view, not
those which they undermine. New sects and divisions will then be able to form, but
no splits reaching to the bottom and to the top. The philosophy will step on a new
ground with the view into the day view and begin new transformations, their quarrels
on the old floor of the night view but sink with this self. Natural science will depart
from its previous safe ways of exploring the material world, but rather subordinate
itself to, rather than oppose, the belief in intellectual matters ascending above
it. Finally, theology will find principles of faith in its daytime view to its faith.
Everything most general, highest, last, farthest, finest, most profoundly is a matter
of faith in its very nature and in ours. That gravitation extends through the whole
world and has always been enough is a matter of faith; That laws at all, pursued by
the finite, extend infinitely of space and time, is a matter of faith; that there are atoms
and undulations of light is a matter of faith; the beginning and the goal of the story
are matters of faith; even for geometry there are matters of faith in the number of
dimensions and the sentences for the parallels. Yes, strictly speaking, everything is a
matter of faith, which is not directly experienced, and what is not logically
fixed. Every knowledge of what is, continues in faith and must continue in it, and
finally conclude, so that there is a connection, give a progress and completion of
knowledge itself. But one faith can be better supported and even better than the
other. The best faith in the world, which consists in the most consistent in itself, with
all knowledge and all our practical interests, and as such, he will also have the future
for himself, by the contradictions between the different faiths, which existed since
then and exist all around, rather reconciled than divides.
Thus, all conclusions of experience do not suffice to conclusively justify the day's
view in its highest and last sentences with the certainty of the Pythagorean
theorem. What is missing from the last security is a matter of faith. Enough, if that
which still remains a matter of faith, in the most favorable manner, on the one hand
completes what is to be known, and on the other hand retains its support.
How little is there anything that has been proven or proved, and even more
importantly, what we have to adhere to. What has been proved by the whole
religion? Nothing. What of your brother, your neighbor, your dog having a
soul? Nothing. Or that what you see of a tree is like a tree outside, that the sun will
rise tomorrow as it is today, that Alexander lived? None of this is proved in a strict
sense, nor provable; but we must believe in all this and the like; we live, dwell, as it
were, in a world of faith, the next and the last steps can not do without faith. So,
principles of faith would be even more important than knowledge, if one of the
principles of faith itself was not to rely on knowledge as far as not just to rely on it
alone; yet it is one of the belief principles of the day view. But nowhere is the
knowledge enough to suffice; and so is a second principle of faith in the day view, to
believe what we need, and thirdly, to do the historical principle of faith1) . One has to
measure the doctrine of the day view on these principles, because it is just a doctrine
of faith. But, of course, how can one measure them by recognizing principles of faith
as a theologian, as a theologian in faith, seeing only a gift from above, and a
philosopher seeing only a principle of insecurity?
l)
These three principles, which are only briefly mentioned here, are stated
more precisely in Sect. IX, and are developed in deductions in the "Three
Motives and Grounds of the Faith."

The non-philosopher, in principle, disdains faith, wants to replace it with

knowledge, strives for absolute knowledge. Now whole mountains of absolute
knowledge have risen together with their peaks far apart, all in tremendous pangs of
birth, but no viable mouse has yet emerged from it. And so a mouse says: a mouse
can know absolutely nothing but itself; knowing that one knows nothing but this is
the only certain knowledge. But that's just it with the mouse.
 In fact, while the philosopher of the day makes the knowledge that man has
immediate knowledge only of himself, and makes it the starting-point of all mediated
knowledge and faith based on it, night-philosophy seeks to spare knowledge, in part,
by leaking into faith It completely abandons this starting-point, in order to develop
knowledge only from absolute standpoints, which only lead conscience to
conscience, but have hitherto merely led to strife, partly to the fact that it locks itself
completely in this starting-point, only to itself into which the thing in itself does not
aspire to deepen forms of the human spirit, while man himself is nevertheless a part
of the thing in itself. Insofar as it practically needs the faith, does it only allow it to be
considered from a practical point of view alongside knowledge or as a corrective of
its desolation and emptiness, not as a continuation and consummation of
knowledge. Such a figure, unable to fit together in philosophy, has completely
divorced faith and knowledge in theology and natural science from the success that
one has completely eliminated nature from God, and the other from nature. But the
ultimate result of all this is that neither of the three is satisfied with the other, and
philosophy is least satisfied in itself. Faith and knowledge in theology and natural
science have been completely divorced from the success that one has completely
eliminated nature from God, and the other God from nature. But the ultimate result of
all this is that neither of the three is satisfied with the other, and philosophy is least
satisfied in itself. Faith and knowledge in theology and natural science have been
completely divorced from the success that one has completely eliminated nature from
God, and the other God from nature. But the ultimate result of all this is that neither
of the three is satisfied with the other, and philosophy is least satisfied in itself.
If I afterwards erect a statue of today's philosophy, I would portray it as Penelope,
in two respects. One way in which she always disintegrates her self-woven fabric
herself, and then because she has many suitors whom she has not brought home
yet. They eat each other, fight each other without killing each other, and wait for the
day that kills them all together.
And are you holding your day view of a world for the only wise man? But how
could the day have the strength to overcome the night when he felt too modest?
But I deny it to any criticism that here all the wisdom today of the most general, the
highest and the last things is poured into the one pot of the night view, to throw it all
away. Was not much good to be read out before? But how about managing the pot
altogether? And what does it matter? the good does not sink because it is poured
away, but finds itself again in the new pot with one.
One more thing. Everywhere the view of the day encounters the question of the
connection between the material and spiritual realm, body and soul, but instead of
solving the question of the nature and reason of this connection, rather than of
questionable facts of observation in and of itself to ourselves and to generalize, to
expand, to increase, moreover, according to the condition of the field of
contemplation, to generalize, to expand, to increase, in order to find out to the small
facts in us the larger and larger ones that are connected with us. Only to do this is it
for her to interpret the larger ones above us like the smaller ones in ourselves.
 Are there two electricity or only one? If one wanted to get into the subject of
electricity from this question and its decision, one would not get far, or rather come to
nothing. On the other hand, although the theory of electricity did not develop without
the question, but not on the basis of the question or its decision - rather the question is
still decided today - it is thus transformed from the small piece of amber, which
attracted Spreublättchen, to the electrifying machine, galvanic column, Lightning
rods and the telegraph network, which spans the earth. So the day view can
ask if Spirit and matter, body and soul are essentially only one being or two beings,
are at first undecided, and yet facts which are independent of this question are
followed by experience and experience. And so even this whole book poses the
question of dualism or monism, in order to enter into a few considerations about it
only in one of the last passages, which may or may not be decisive; neither the basic
points nor the implications of the daily view are significantly affected.

V. Positive developmental moments of day view versus negations.

(God, the sensual phenomenal world, the soul question, the earth, the hereafter,
the evil in the world.)
1. God.
The belief in a certain God, whose consciousness extends the human as much as he
exceeds in height, dominates from above the whole day view and is supported by the
two other essential points of the same from below. The sensual appearance beyond
man and animals can not float in the void, it requires a subject, an overarching
awareness of it. In accordance with the breadth of the spiritual substructure, the
spiritual height increases, and above the small mountains or pyramids of the human
consciousness, the highest inclination over all the individual costumes of the
creatures, which embraces them, rises, and the development of the day-view from
above falls come down with the expansion of the doctrine of God. The system of day
view is hereby completely theocratic.
The view of the night, however, was born, as it were, of the unity and sublimity of
God, and faith is reminded in memory of it to hold on to it. But in its consequences of
knowledge, like a fallen angel, it only leads to it, and as these consequences have
finally overpowered the faith, we have come to where we are today; no longer
knowing how to hold the faith, how to help him yet. In itself, of course, it is natural
for the night view to see, rather than in the divine, but in human consciousness, the
highest of consciousness of what exists. For, as she knows no means, to infer the
human consciousness that reaches far, how should she have the means to infer to a
higher beyond; But one thing is binding on the other.
And so the philosophy of the unconscious seeks the bond of the ghosts instead of in
a general general consciousness in a general subconscious mind, to which it attaches
mystical qualities which are reminiscent of those of the consciousness, but not those
of the consciousness. The philosophy of the concept speaks of a spirit of humanity, of
history as a bond, and could not speak of it without clues in reality, but the linking
consciousness seeks only in the single meshes, the philosophy of the monads only in
the atoms of the ribbon and for the materialistic emptiness lies the bond of souls in
matter between the souls. However, the day view argues too much with these
philosophical directions of the night view, in order to argue about it in particular.
Leave aside the linking consciousness of our own mind, you may of course also
assemble a psychology of intuitions, memories, fantasies, concepts, aspirations,
pleasure and aversion, and a dark parent-stock, which produces everything without
knowing anything about it. and with it you will have a psychology of man equal to
today's psychology of nations, to which the thought of a consciousness that connects
all individual consciousness is far removed; But in today's psychology of the people
there is nothing more to it than in such a psychology of man. It is Uhlands dead horse
with all the tendons, veins, nerves of the most beautiful horse, but a dead horse
remains, and to appreciate so much an anatomy of it, one does not have to confuse
the anatomical with the living.
Between the individual people there are more general and higher relations of them
in church, state, science, art, etc., mediated by sight, hearing, speech, writing, etc.
According to the day view, not only does man have a knowledge of these
relationships, but a more general and higher spirit above him, grasping directly and in
connection the whole web of mediations of these relations. But since the night-
philosopher regards it only as an illusion in him, that there is even a seeing and
hearing in the world beyond him-light and sound between men are merely dead
vibrations of material points; He himself is the only one who sees and hears - all the
relationships mediated by him are easily considered to be illusions in himself, which
he only looks out into himself into the world.
It is said, however, that the church, the state, science, art, etc.-in short, all the
institutions through which higher spiritual relations in the world are expressed-arise
only through men, and thus man as the creator and center retains the highest
importance of all over all. And, of course, all those institutions could not arise
without men, but just as little by men alone; and in order to establish thereby a true
communion between men, beyond the individuals, there is still a need to unify the
relations between them. When people are not connected by the ground under their
feet, the sea under their ships, the air through which the words and the light through
which the glances pass and return, If, apart from their mutual relations, they did not
receive common influences from nature on themselves and on the stars, then neither
the Church, nor the State, nor science, etc., would arise, nor could exist today. The
heavens, the sun, the moon, the lightning, the thunder, which inspired mankind's first
religion, were more present than men, and before a language could be formed by
men, things and relationships of things had to be there who asked to designate the
same. The truth is that a world filled with the divine spirit even before the existence
of man produced man without releasing him from his union, continued to work into
his own seed and part; he acts on her back; it's a self-contained interactive gear
coming down from above,
 Now, after all, among all parts of the earthly world, yet not yet the whole, to which
a discernible consciousness can at all be attached, the highest importance attaches to
man, but not one higher than the whole, and at the same time parting of them on the
spiritual and material side are, as you can see in the tops of a building the highest
parts of the building, but only if they are raised by the height of the substructure in
the air and remain deeply under the importance of the whole structure. But of course,
after the Copernican world-system no longer lets us believe that the sun revolves
around the earth, we still think that the earth and the sun revolve around people.
Also, the nodes in the network mean well, they are the main thing in the network,
but the whole network wants to say more than all its nodes. Unfold the knots, they are
small nets themselves, and the whole web of the world is just an unfolded knot.
If the night-philosopher, after the most profound explanation that God knows
nothing, finds that he needs it, and does not want to let it fall, he explains it as a
practical postulate, from which, theoretically, everything can be deducted Interest to
testify is. One can certainly speak of love, goodness, wisdom of God, etc., in order to
speak of him at all, and thus to conform to common understanding, but one must
always remain philosophically aware of the inappropriateness of it, for love,
kindness, wisdom, etc. are yes, even human qualities, and God is above all human
qualities, or at least all human knowledge, of his qualities.
Of course, according to the daily view, it is the same; but not because and insofar as
he is over it, but because he has the highest and best human and creaturely qualities in
himself at one and the same time, and concludes them at an unattainable height. The
Bible imprints on man: love God over everything and your neighbor as yourself; but
the day-view also leads him to the reversal of it: the love of God goes beyond
everything and he loves everyone as himself, because he loves being part of his own
being in it. But they can not be closer to Him, and God can not be any closer to us
and can not be our fellowman, as if we all have a part in Himself, and He completes
all of us as a whole. To know and to feel that is godliness;
2. The sensual world of appearance.
Does it resist you to think of God sunk into the world in the sense of the day
view? But take only the day view itself differently than with the owl eyes of the night
view. On the contrary, you think of thinking up the world in God by thinking of the
whole sensuous appearance of the world in God, and asking nothing more behind
it; because there is probably still behind it? It is God's foot, what you hold for a stool
under his feet, yes even pull away underneath because he does not need him. You
yourself today speak of one omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God in the
world, and then again of a supra-worldly God, and do not even stop contradicting
yourself; and finally reject the contradiction by saying that God is in one sense one
and the other. The same is true of the day view; only that she means it in a clearer
sense. With the fact that God is not omnipresent and omniscient beside light and
sound in the world, but the light serves him to see everything in the world that is
visible, to hear all that is audible, God is not yet in the sensuality of the world World-
deepened, but high above all rises the divine thought. Imagine a man who only had
eyes to see, or merely to hear ears; how miserable and low would be the thoughts of
pigeons or blind people, by the way. But God's thoughts are based not only on seeing
and hearing all people, but also seeing and hearing everything that is
beyond. Relationships through relationships pile up higher and higher in him to
complete at the highest level, and as a king has his ministers, and these her ministers,
and these their servants, and not their servants to execute his orders, not all of them
are quite right, so in the reverse direction God's supreme will prevails through the
will and impulses of his higher and lower creatures the world gear; while he always
keeps the reins in the upper hand; it is only everything inside him, what is out there.
To dampen this momentum of contemplation, the physiologist - and the
physiologist does not have the right to speak with regard to seeing and hearing -
approaches with the question: if there should be any more than seeing and hearing,
and even thinking, above and beyond humans and animals Why do you think of a
seeing, hearing, thinking God? Where are the eyes and ears and the brain beyond
humans and animals? Would it go without that and such, what would be the sense-
tools and brains of the creatures and the creatures themselves? Why the effort of art
in their institution? It just does not have to go without it. But if it does not work out
without it, it will not be without it.
Well, the sea is big and simple, innumerable multicolored cups and buckets draw
indirectly and directly from it; but they do not make the water, but draw it out of it
only, in order to return it to it after manifold use. So also the sense-tools of the
creatures and the creatures themselves are not for the first purpose of making sight
and hearing, but of appropriating and using in a special way from the general source
of seeing, of hearing, and to utilize them in a special way.
But why a comparison. Instead of rejecting the physiologist, we follow him into his
field, and are only careful to confuse his barriers with world barriers. Actually
extending to the conclusion of the faith is indeed the principle of the day view. So
what does the physiologist himself regard as fact in seeing?
From every point outside, a cone of rays falls into your eye and, through the power
of your eye, joins again into a point on your retina to give a picture of the external
things with its neighboring points. If it were not so, instead of a clear picture, you
would see only interlocking, washed-out bills. But do not stay with the light spots on
the retina, each one sends a ray from there into your brain and farther away through
the brain to continue to meet with the rays from other sides and senses, and thus the
sensation and sensation Memory of Himself to enter into your intuition and your
thinking. Is not it, or do you think differently? But always the appearance of a point
remains, even for the latest memory,
Why should God still need an eye like you and yours in order to gain uniform
points of radiation beyond you, since he himself has the radiant points of the outer
world. Instead of your retina, or rather behind it and all the retina of the creatures in
general, it has as a retina the surface of things itself; that is the most general and
fundamental thing that exists. And after the rays from there have already crossed your
eyes and your brain with rays from all other sides and thereby entered into the most
general relationship, the all-seeing being offers your eyes only additional devices
with new starting points and afterwards new entanglements to develop special
relationships.
Of course, not everything in God's vision can agree with our seeing; for if it were
quite right, it would only be a human seeing; but what is wrong with that is what
divine seeing precedes our vision and beyond.
Each point of our retina sends only a single ray into our brain, and each of these
rays passes through a special nerve tube so as not to mix with the rays from
neighboring points, not to flow away. How much he likes to disperse and split in the
brain, we do not know. On the other hand, every bright spot of the outside world
shines in all directions, because it has to radiate not only to one eye and brain, but to
thousands and thousands and beyond all over the world, thousands and thousands of
such broken images of themselves in the creatures and, moreover, to let the unbroken
appearance of himself for the world-being persist. But each of these rays, though
without a shell, remains so simple, mixes and flows with the rays from neighboring
points as little as if he were walking through a special side tube, crossing only with
the others, bringing innumerable crossings, thereby undisturbed, undisturbed, the
image of one and the same point to all eyes. That does not mean that he has to
penetrate outside, like inside, by nerve protein, where every point threatens to
strangle and threaten him, but drives faster than lightning through the air and ether of
his path. It would only be bad for the creatures, if he could pass through them without
having the time and the opportunity to develop the relationships that are to be dealt
with in them and leave behind after-effects for future relationships, as in the
intertwined ones Protein paths of the brain happens. That too is different that the ray
outside, as in our eyes, does not know anything in electricity, chemical process, or
God what the physiologist does not know himself, but thinks only this and that has to
be done in order to find his way through the nerve-protein; but he is less able to
illuminate in the air and in the ether, that he does not need such a turnover here in
order to succeed, and that therefore electric and chemical light are less light, that they
have their special lighters.
After this, however, the achievements of divine seeing are other than of creaturely
seeing. God sees all things at once as they appear to themselves in the space of three
dimensions, sees them from all sides at the same time, in their right size, their correct
position, their correct brightness and color, and no delicacy of visibility escapes
him. His seeing is the immediate seeing of things; how he sees things they really
look, and their appearance for God is one of the determinations of their being. We
see, however, with the artfully furnishedcamera obscuraIn our eyes of all things, only
those who are just before us, without being obscured by others, see them only in
surface projections, of one or the other side, in these or that shortenings and shifts
against each other, each differently according to his other position and
organization ; But that makes the world colorful, and that is the source of a wealth of
relationships that could not develop without it.
 Now man, though he can not cope with divine seeing with his eye, by the faculty,
by changing his position, by hearing with other men, by conscious and unconscious
inferences, the relations of the outside world to a certain extent in the sense to
interpret the divine intuition and to interpret all subjective intuitions as starting from
there. Nevertheless, as a pupil of the night view, he means that everything is only his
subjective appearance; there is no seeing behind his eye for things in themselves; and
with that, the whole world darkens for him except his eye.
According to this, one could speak of the other senses in the same sense as
seeing; but I do not want to give world physiology here; it was only necessary to
contradict the physiologist, who places the brief standard of human physiology on the
doctrine of general life, as if he had to reach out to cover it. No less difficult, of
course, is the mistake of not having anything in it.
3. The soul question, stars and plants.
It is true that there are some who, out of a livelier need than to satisfy the night
view, not only conceive the idea of the world in the whole unifying, animating,
permeating spiritual being of God, but also represent it vividly and
emphatically. What else is missing for a full day view? Nothing so far as what is
lacking, who, looking out of the dark chamber through an opening into the light of
day, sees the light, but blinded does not see what is in the light, as he sees, who
dwells in the light. Caught up with the sublimity of their general idea, but also
content with it, any conclusion from it that violates too strongly against a view of
their mother's milk, in whose darkness they are educated, is too much for
them. Through stars and plants the idea blows like a wind; the idea always remains
the thing of God; matter forms and moves under its influence; but only humans and
animals have a little more than beautiful words. Poor stars, once gods and angels, to
whom the eye still looks devoutly today, remain for the most part dead, which man
tramples on; poor flowers in which the eye rejoices, which seem to laugh at
ourselves; at least you let yourself live; but it would be to shorten the night view for
its most sure reagent of sensation, and to shorten the night too much, even if your
nerveless life should also mean sensation; poor books, spoken by a soul of stars and
plants; hunted down by the materialists at one end, by the idealists at the other end,
shaken off by the naturalists, never to be seen again, In the trade for the ridiculous
price started, makuliert, you have now finally suffered. For what is taken for granted
in the sense of the view of the day seems absurd in the sense of the night view,
because so much absurdity seems self-evident in it.
But it goes without saying that for the view of the day, insofar as the inspiration for
it goes beyond the world beyond humans and animals, it is no longer necessary to ask
where inspiration begins and ends, but only where and how do they exert themselves
in the same way of the general inspiration, individualized, as in men and animals; and
for this the signs of the construction and life of the creatures are there, and is the
conclusion of a step-ladder, which consists in ourselves, beyond us, and there are
many kinds of original, supplementary, and connected views; all in vain for the night
view, because it contradicts its axiom from the beginning, that where the signs of
human and animal inspiration are lacking, that inspiration is altogether absent. All the
reasons are shattered on this rigid wall
On the other hand, in the sense of the day view over the world of the individual
human consciousness circles, a higher world rises in the circles of consciousness of
the stars, and the highly developed human mind, even a small circle in one of these
large circles, has next to it the childlike soul level of the plants. In the divine circle all
consciousness is finally closed and concluded, and while no neighborly circle knows
the content of the other, the divine circle has all content with mediations between all
and mediation over all.
Man rejoices and prides himself on the unity of his consciousness and thinks that
he has something very special about the dispersion of natural things. He means that in
the sense of the night view. But there is no dispersion of things; the unity of
consciousness is omnipresent, and man himself has his share only in part of the
divine, not as one of them, but only distinguishable in them and divisible by others,
subordinate to them. For the unity of consciousness is actually - look only into you -
not comparable to the tip, which has the content of the pyramid out of itself, but the
interrelation of the pyramid, which has him in itself, as well as the one not their
fractions in itself but in itself. A pyramid, however, can be divided and
subdivided, without splitting, breaking the fractions of the one into new fractions
without the one breaking. This is how the world is structured and ranked.
What divorce of consciousness between neighboring stages is only discrimination
in the consciousness of a higher stage. Thus we find it as the law of our own spiritual
structure, and can find no other thing beyond us. The sensory circles of our eyes and
ears are divorced, as long as no one shares his sensations with the other, but the
consciousness of the whole man, both distinct, both in themselves; and in the eye of
man the individual points of view are still separated, but the whole circle of the
understanding of man, both distinct, both in themselves.
As this gradation extends into man, it reaches beyond him, and so men and
creatures of every star have their star itself as a higher degree above them, but the
star, at the same time, its creatures among itself and in itself, by participating in it to
enter their consciousness as moments into their more general consciousness, not
exhaustive but attentive to it. Every star has a share in the universal divine unity of
consciousness, a part divorced from that of the other stars and only distinguished in
God. For instead of thinking of a divergent flow or confluence of the content of the
consciousness of the stars in the divine consciousness, the stars offer all external
signs on which they can be based, a stricter individual distinction than the humans
themselves on earth; the visible, however, makes us close to the unintentional. While
all the stars in peaceful change follow the course of a general force, which, exalted
above all creaturely caprice, obtains order in the whole household of the heavens, at
the same time soft changes, the astronomers. If there are disturbances, there is space,
and each one holds itself together with other gravity, each one of them being shown
an inexhaustible wealth of inner, differentiated life from that of the other, each
undergoing another course of development with its own change of the year and
day. No man is so different from the other, nor from the surrounding element, as the
stars of each other and of the element surrounding them; In every star, everything
seems glued together, not the stars with each other; they only talk to each other
through light and weight.
In fact, while we ourselves are, so to speak, integrated with our neighbor's creatures
in soil, water, air; On the other hand, the earth divides itself with the other heavenly
creatures into the purer, finer, clearer element of the ether, floats, comparable to a big
eye, in the element of light, and inhales it constantly. Should not there be creatures
for this element? There are none for the night view. She fables probably of angels in
heaven, but considers such even for fables.
Against this, in the light of the day's view, the heavens are again inhabited by
heavenly creatures; call them gods or angels; they used to be called so and so. The
distance between us and God is great; they are an intermediate stage between us and
God; but on a ladder, in which the steps rather than exclude.
But as they stand on their higher stage as well as the earthly creatures on their
lower in the external relations of neighboring creatures to each other, it may also be
comparatively like humans, animals, plants, embryos, children, adults, old people, of
different external rank in the earthly Areas are juxtaposed, giving corresponding
levels of rank and development in the Heavenly Kingdom side by side.
Shall I now speak of the little plant-soul beside us after the view into the sublime
realm of the spirits over us?
A flowering hyacinth stands in front of me on the table. How daintily does the
cluster of flowers rise from the leafy growth, how daintily is every single flower bent
in it and fitted out in the finer, what pure color has it woven of light, how richly has it
unfolded since yesterday. You look at me - the flower speaks - as if I were a beautiful
girl; I am also a beautiful girl of my kind. Tell people. - I already told them, but they
did not want to believe it yet.
The belief in the animation of our fellow human beings and the animals has never
developed because they have nerves; there has never been given the trace of a proof
that such are necessary otherwise than just for human and animal inspiration; It is a
stale superstition that they are needed at all. So you do not want to give it up to the
world, to the stars, to the plants, to have nerves like humans and animals, to keep
them animated, when there are more important reasons for their inspiration. They do
not want to be humans and animals, and they also need another carrier and expression
in the realm of matter for the other soul. If, however, you have not done enough with
previous considerations, you may want to see a further development of such1) .
l) Zendavesta, Nanna, and the soul question

4. The earth in particular.

 On the basis of the previous one, we have here to grasp the Earth as a being
superior to us both materially and spiritually, in a higher sense than we ourselves, as a
knot which ties us together with our neighbor's creations into the divine bond.
Just think, to put it this way, not just the thin crust on which you walk with your
neighbor's creatures, in which the plants are rooted, herewith a dry soil; You do not
just think about his bones in humans. The inner glowing sea, the solid framework
around it, the ocean, the circle of air, the whole human, animal and plant world,
including yourself, all concentrically held together by a common force around the
same center, subject to common periods, in purpose and effect relationships grown
together, miscalculated, only in one the whole earth forms and hereby the punishment
over you. The same earth, which holds us and all its creatures captive by the same
power, has also given birth to all of us, takes them all back, nourishes and dresses all,
The foot of man is no less ground, the claw of the bird adapted to the branch, as
foot of man and claw of the bird of its own body, only with the advantage of being
able to move over its base and adapt to the changes and irregularities of the
same ; but from the whole earth, the whole man and bird are able to move still less, to
separate, than any member of the body of man or bird. So much tighter does it hold
together what seems so much looser to it, in an extended purpose relationship,
together. And so the earth in all the most general conditions at the same time proves
the uniform connection of all its parts and the relation of superordination over them,
including ourselves. But as she clearly does in material relationships,
From the outset, many points of equations of the whole earth with man can be
found, so day and night with waking and sleep, the cycle of waters with the
circulation of the blood, ebb and flow of the sea with the pulse of the heart, the green
plant cover of the earth find similarity to the sensory skin of humans, etc .; but the
similarity reaches nowhere beyond a certain limit, but is everywhere transgressed and
exceeded everywhere by the dissimilarity of the greater height, breadth,
superordination of the earth over man. And is there in man himself a part that
resembled the whole man? how should the earth be exactly like one of its parts. In a
sense, although it has almost everything that its people have, by including them in
part, but now does not need to have again what they already have and how they have
it by having it in them just as they have it; but everywhere there is something unitary,
unifying, on a viewpoint of higher purposiveness co-ordinating about it, and nowhere
does the analogy extend beyond teleology in this sense. So the earth does not repeat
the circulation of the blood in a larger circle of blood, the breathing of the creatures in
a larger lung; but all the bloodstreams of the creatures are but branches of the great
circle of waters in which they draw and are connected; instead of having a lung of
small vesicles again, it is completely enveloped in the atmosphere from which all the
lungs of the creatures draw, and by which animals and plants exchange oxygen and
carbonic acid; and instead of once again having a brain folded tightly together in a
skull capsule with nerves that give it sensory stimuli on long ways and dissipate
movement stimuli from there, it offers its entire organic world with its traffic routes,
cultural mediation and cultural products unfolded and externally attached to a
coherent whole solid capsule free from the light of the sky and the vibrations of the
air, from which all the nerves and brains of their creatures immediately draw their
inspiration and through which they communicate their reciprocal suggestions. Why
then a special brain with special nerves for mental activities. The earth knows nothing
of such useless repetitions, and it is useless to seek such in it, foolish to require
such to grant her an organic life as a carrier of a spiritual one. But if one misses them,
one sticks openly or covertly: because a person dies, loses their mind when they take
their brain from him, the earth is dead from the start, mindless because it has no brain
from the outset.
And so, too, one of her deadly crimes is that she does not walk around in the sky
irregularly like a human. But again, why should she again do externally, what people
already do sufficiently in her. And what would she have to run for? For food,
clothes? Rather, it best serves its higher purpose by following a fixed rule. Like man,
it leads an inner and an outer life; to the inner, however, belongs the external
intercourse of men themselves; and since there are more than enough irregularities in
this one, it is good that they are not absorbed in their outward appearance either, but
in their orderly course they receive common direction, rule, measure in space and
time for their people, and with knowledge a,
Yet the earth does not lack changes in the outer life which it leads in contact with
the other stars. And as the inner life of every man is determined by his outer
intercourse and is itself governed from a general point of view, it is with the earth, but
the man himself is controlled from a general point of view. In what varied variety the
stars illuminate the earth according to day and night, summer and winter, and pole
height; Sun and moon rise and fall, above each other horizons at the same time to
another height; the sun plays with the clouds and winds of the earth, thereby soon
pulling itself here, now there veils, reflected in the waters of the earth, lifts them here
in the air, to let them fall there again makes the plants grow , green, blooms, scents
and sweetness cooks in them, at any time, in any place else. During the day all the
flowers incline to her, while all the eyes of the higher creatures turn from her, so as
not to blind herself to her splendor, and shut herself up at night to rest silently for
herself. The tidal wave of the sea, following the course of the moon, revolves around
the earth, changing in height according to attunement or contradiction with the train
of the sun, and as the earth approaches or leaves the other planets, it does not just like
the change the brightness, but also of the train more than just externally. and shut up
at night to rest quietly for themselves. The tidal wave of the sea, following the course
of the moon, revolves around the earth, changing in height according to attunement or
contradiction with the train of the sun, and as the earth approaches or leaves the other
planets, it does not just like the change the brightness, but also of the train more than
just externally. and shut up at night to rest quietly for themselves. The tidal wave of
the sea, following the course of the moon, revolves around the earth, changing in
height according to attunement or contradiction with the train of the sun, and as the
earth approaches or leaves the other planets, it does not just like the change the
brightness, but also of the train more than just externally.
In the meantime, no sound, no fragrance, no touch from the earth to another star, or
from another to the earth; no mote finds its way from another to her; no creature of
her is able to see or deal with a creature from the other stars, and everything that the
sun has in it comprehends and gathers the earth differently the other planets; and so,
in the most lively intercourse of the earth with other stars, the points of view of their
individual separation from it remain in the right.
Nobody needs to be proved that the earth contains consciousness for all that,
because every part of it can be directly shown in the consciousness of what it contains
in itself, and more than that it can not be rejected not to demand the whole
consciousness of the earth itself. But he already believes in more, believing in the
consciousness of other people without having it himself, and without showing him
anything of it. However, in order to believe in a volume of consciousness of all this,
he has to remember the reasons of the previous number and the world position of the
earth thereby established in the realm of the soul stages as a celestial creature. The
bond of consciousness extends through the whole world, and the earth cuts its special
circle out of the general circle of consciousness towards other stars, just as man in her
again turns to other people. Not so that it leaves the world circle riddled, but in such a
way that it contributes to the filling of the world itself by filling its particular circle
with a special content. But this does not consist merely of the sum of the individual
souls which it contains, but at the same time includes connecting elements between
all who intervene in the individual, but fall fully and entirely into the all-embracing
and thus unifying higher consciousness. In order to find them, one has only to
translate the visible into the unseen. that it left the circle of the world riddled with
holes, but in such a way that it contributes to its filling itself by filling its particular
circle with a special content. But this does not consist merely of the sum of the
individual souls which it contains, but at the same time includes connecting elements
between all who intervene in the individual, but fall fully and entirely into the all-
embracing and thus unifying higher consciousness. In order to find them, one has
only to translate the visible into the unseen. that it left the circle of the world riddled
with holes, but in such a way that it contributes to its filling itself by filling its
particular circle with a special content. But this does not consist merely of the sum of
the individual souls which it contains, but at the same time includes connecting
elements between all who intervene in the individual, but fall fully and entirely into
the all-embracing and thus unifying higher consciousness. In order to find them, one
has only to translate the visible into the unseen. At the same time, it includes
connecting elements between all those who intervene in the individual, but fully and
completely fall only into the higher consciousness, which embraces all and thus
unifies. In order to find them, one has only to translate the visible into the unseen. At
the same time, it includes connecting elements between all those who intervene in the
individual, but fully and completely fall only into the higher consciousness, which
embraces all and thus unifies. In order to find them, one has only to translate the
visible into the unseen.
Are you asking, how can we speak of an awareness that unites everything human,
even earthly, when we see religions, peoples, and individuals on earth in a bitter
conflict. But how much does one argue in the individual, between whom he seeks
peace, often without being able to find him. Instead of the unity of his consciousness
hindering the inner conflict, it only makes him feel and seek to settle it. Of course,
however, that in the larger and higher ascending circles of consciousness of the whole
earth the conflict is more powerful and the finite peace more difficult to attain than in
the small of the individual - in a glass it can not storm like in the sea; but there is also
a greater, more powerful, slower-to-goals aspiration. But how tremendous is the
progress from the time when no state, no custom, no law, no religion, no trade and
change that crosses the seas, united men. And not only through the earth, through all
the stars and between all the stars, does the same divine aspiration prevail in
advancing the progressive development in prosperous ways.
All this, of course, is now different in the sense of the night view. After that,
humans, animals, plants, instead of parts of the earth, are something external and on
the earth; a big dead mother gave birth to live children, having separated from herself
and afterwards left as dead as before. But the astronomer does not remember, when
he looks at the earth against other stars, to draw from the mass of the earth the mass
of creatures; otherwise one does it, and at the same time withdraws the spirit of the
creatures from the earth; How then, of course, should one think of a spirit of the
earth, after having subtracted it from it in pieces? The night-philosopher sanctions
this conception completely in his speculations about the opposition of the organic and
inorganic, as living and dead kingdom of the earth,
And, of course, the contrast between the organic and inorganic realms of the earth
is greater than between bones on the one hand, and flesh and nerves on the other in
our body; but it is inherently in the nature of a superordinate organism, that it
contains greater contradictions than its parts, as our own organism as a whole proves
to its parts. But with an old antithesis to the organic kingdom, the inorganic is itself
the link of the organic to a higher organic whole. Tear it out of the whole, and all life
does not just tumble apart, but crumble into itself. And it is only because of this that
the inorganic can no longer yield anything organic, because no one has ever given the
other,2) .
2) For details of this see the scriptures "Some ideas, etc.".
We have geography, geology, paleontology, meteorology, botany, zoology,
anthropology, ethnology, peoples history, and whatnot, all of that for special lessons
from the earth. Quite well; but they are all but teachings which teach us the same
piecewise or from one side or the other. Where is the doctrine, which granted us the
intuition of the earth as a unified, self-embracing whole body and soul. For the night
view there is not even the point of view of such a doctrine; and since I have dealt
with it myself, I am called a phantast in these things.
A bird fled the cage to see the world from above. But a bird that wants to be free
must also be outlawed; you do not care about him or shoot him down. He would have
remained safe in the cage under the cages below, and would have run no other risk
than to be swept away by the birds in the neighboring cages, or to be screeched as
they do among themselves; He belonged to the company after all
5. The hereafter.
 Belief in the hereafter is prescribed to us by the Word, and the desire of man to live
one day, and to have there that which can not be had there, comes to his aid. But there
is no actual bridge to this belief, nor can there be any, as long as the night view on the
gap keeps watch. For, as consciousness breaks down around everyone, it naturally
breaks off after each; One is traceable to the other. And if there is still a future life to
come, it will be torn down for the same reason by this world, in a mythical-mystical
realm, that is the afterlife of the night view, guided. Already this world is a sheol to
her, in which only light dots run as if through black tinder, and the heaven itself, in
which we look up, also succumbs to this sheol. So for the night view, paradise and
hell are above all heavens and at every depth. If somebody wants to get closer to the
future life, he seeks it on the sun or lets his mind wander through the stars. Who can
resist it? Either the night view does not believe in the afterlife at all, and the
consistent night philosopher does not, but materialistically prefers the downfall of the
soul with the body, or ideally the absorption by the general mind, or anyone can
believe what he wants, and do so to fill the void left by the precept of faith.
For the view of the day, however, the hereafter is only the extension and
enhancement of the life already on this side in God; the bridge to the hereafter lies in
the connection between the human and the divine existence, and the belief in the
otherworldly existence is firmly bound up with the belief in the divine. The
intermediate stage between us and God, however, does not separate us from God, but
only inserts us into it.
Does one think, then, that the whole conscious life of a human being can appear
and disappear like a bubble in a more general conscious life, without leaving a
consequence of its kind in it? So it is not within the conscious life of a man
himself; yes, how could this be done? it will not be like that either; only, moreover,
must there be a more general conscious life, beyond which the worldly side of man
can extend its consequence and extension.
Of course, the materialist does not tire of reminding the soul of it and of threatening
it with the fact that it has the necessary condition of its existence and action in its
corporeality; how should it persist if this condition of its existence ceases? On the
contrary, one does not tire of proving to the materialist, the soul or even the spirit -
because one likes to cut the whole thing to save at least the most expensive part of it -
is essentially independent of the body. In vain, what help against the materialist facts
evidence. Instead of proving to him that his weapons are bad, it is important to beat
him with his weapons; There is no other way to beat it, but it does exist.
How should the soul not endure if the condition of its existence, as necessary for
the here-being, with equal necessity, produces the condition of the future
existence? Let it be admitted that the life of the soul on this side is bound to the
existence of any material process, the more essential, more steadfast, the better; but
can material processes, of whatever kind they may always be, pass at all without
passing on to successive processes, or should the conscious-minded make an
exception to this? Rather, where their consequences may also be found after our
death, and whether they can be found, they must be there; But precisely because they
are the consequences of processes that carry out processes of consciousness, we can
trust them to have the same capacity to carry them. without knowing better of the
others than the others, what gives them this capacity; for we know this in fact as little
from the causal ones as we can know from those who continue them into the
hereafter. In their very nature, causes continue their consequences without change,
insofar as they do not interfere with them or otherwise influence the
consequences; but insofar as it is the case, their nature is not destroyed by it, but only
determined anew, and determines the other new insofar as it does not interfere with
these in others or otherwise influences the consequences; but insofar as it is the case,
their nature is not destroyed by it, but only determined anew, and determines the
other new insofar as it does not interfere with these in others or otherwise influences
the consequences; but insofar as it is the case, their nature is not destroyed by it, but
only determined anew, and determines the other new3) . This will therefore also be
true of the consequences of our processes of consciousness. But in order to pass into
the subsequent processes, the causal ones must go out, ie die.
3) For a more detailed explanation of this sentence, which is here only briefly
and supra, in the physical sense, which leads back to the above conclusions, see
at the end of the 12th section.

And if, with the destruction of the whole worldly bodily existence, all the causal
processes that carried our consciousness on this side have become extinct, where are
the entire sequential processes of this life finally to be found, as in that, not affected
by our death, a further, higher and more general consciousness carrying whole - the
day view, not the night view - to which we already belong with body and soul on this
side, in order to belong to it in our otherworldly continuation only in a new form of
existence, and to contribute in a new way to the furthering of his life. Of course, we
do not know much about the material consequences of our life on earth, because they
radiate too far into the distance; they are, so to speak, too far unpacked, whereas
those who carry our worldly consciousness too tightly packed to capture and track
them with a quick and brief glance; and, more importantly, the connection between
the consequences of our life on earth is easily missed. But as impossible as it is to
break the temporal connection between cause and effect, it is impossible to break the
spatial sequence between the consequences of spatially interconnected events, as are
the processes in our body. Thus, with the enlargement of our circle of life, only our
circle of consciousness will expand; and held together in all enlargement but in the
earthly and finally the whole world. To break the temporal connection between cause
and sequence, so impossible to break the spatial sequence between the consequences
of spatially interconnected processes, as are the processes in our body. Thus, with the
enlargement of our circle of life, only our circle of consciousness will expand; and
held together in all enlargement but in the earthly and finally the whole world. To
break the temporal connection between cause and sequence, so impossible to break
the spatial sequence between the consequences of spatially interconnected processes,
as are the processes in our body. Thus, with the enlargement of our circle of life, only
our circle of consciousness will expand; and held together in all enlargement but in
the earthly and finally the whole world.
Thus from the most general point of view the consideration of the material side
with the consideration of the spiritual side goes hand in hand and leads to the same
goal. The mind of man extends its consequences into the general mind, and the body
of man into the general world of bodily things which bears that spirit; and how the
spiritual and physical causes are connected with each other on this side, so the
otherworldly spiritual and bodily consequences. For this, however, it is not necessary
to detach the mind from matter, but to continue the way the spirit on this side goes
with it, into the hereafter,
The string fades away and the sound escapes into the air, which, to put it simply, is
the relationship between this world and the hereafter. The natural man grasps it that
way and even opens the window, so that the floating soul can go out. But if the air
could not sound as good as the string that faded away, there would be no other side to
sound; There is nothing in the matter of the remaining string. Or does the sound
dissipate by floating into the air, in its generality? On the contrary, it only expands,
and interweaves, with the support of its full peculiarity, with other tones, to higher
connections. Thus, the spread on the otherworldly spheres of life of the people among
each other.
Of course, the picture in its simplicity can not meet everything that needs to be
done here. And it is not true in particular that man is not a simple sounding string, but
an instrument richly filled with oscillating and pulsating life, which feels his own
life's play, and the world around man not an empty air, but an air already high and
widely developed system is what absorbs the ripples of this game in itself and thus
further determined and expanded.
But even in this it is not true, because it only strikes the material side of what it is
to meet, and in it no mere material picture can be found, that the consciousness has its
seat according to certain, already in this world traceable and afterwards on the
Transition to the beyond transmissible laws changes. But what the one-sided picture
can not teach us in this respect will be taught to us by the view of the legal facts.
And so the whole doctrine of the daytime view of the hereafter depends on the
following points:
If there is a future conscious life, it can be sought as a continuation of the present
only in the consequences dependent thereon. The present conscious life extends its
consequences into the world which has been attacked by a common spirit; You have
to follow them in there. - And there are laws of the change of consciousness already
in this world, which also dominate the transition from this world into the hereafter .
The following is only an explanation, affirmation and development thereof.
Now, in this respect, it is certain, first of all, that life, guided by man on this side
within the narrow limits of corporeality, has a wide range of effects which outlive it,
never extinguish, producing ever new effects, a circle that never decays as the circle
of waves around the struck string or the drop or stone fallen into the pond never
decays, and, cutting and interweaving undisturbed with other circles, always keeps
the relation to the same origin. Of course, we can only follow individual directions on
this side, and what is beyond us seems lost to us, but it is not lost to us, but, as a
continuation of our being, is reserved for the hereafter. Every inner movement of man
carries, finally transferring to the outside and thus extinguishing for the interior, its
continuation with this wider circle; the finest nervous vibration can not escape this
fate; and if man dies, then with his whole outer being, his entire inner being has been
transformed into this wide circle and hereby his being on this side into his
hereafter. Nothing hangs on the remaining matter, over it one sets the corpse
stone; but he does not cover anything of the man floating out into the open. you put
the corpse stone over them; but he does not cover anything of the man floating out
into the open. you put the corpse stone over them; but he does not cover anything of
the man floating out into the open.
If this wide circle of after-effects of a conscious human life succumbed to an
unconscious world around man, and thus became itself an unconscious moment of the
same, as is the consequence of the night view, then there would be no other world for
man. But as the conscious human life thus continues only into a higher and further
conscious world, there exists for him a hereafter in which, instead of being destroyed,
he is destroyed, unfolds like the plant from the dying seed and finds itself subject to
further and higher conditions of development and contributes to further developing
the world. He only has to lose the consciousness of the world, yes, the capacity to do
so, to find the otherworldly, after he had previously produced the document in the
consequences of his life on earth, how the child in the life before birth already creates
the conditions of his second life; but first loses the first life to win the second.
Of course, one could ask from the outset: why the this-worldly consciousness first
loses, in order to find the otherworldly, when the conditions of the otherworldly are
already there, and the whole worldly life itself continues to be transformed into
it. But already in the case of the newborn child, who had no consciousness before
birth, you could ask why consciousness bursts out suddenly and suddenly at birth,
after it had created the conditions for it before birth. But it is not unlike that on the
basis of the life on the other side, which has already been generated, that the
consciousness suddenly emerges in the birth for the new life, and instead of the
external life-stimuli, which awakens the child to the first conscious life, it is the full
envelope of this conscious life Life itself, which represents the outer life stimulus
here.
The state of consciousness, together with the underlying bodily activity, changes in
sleep and waking periodically between ascending above a threshold and sinking
below a threshold. but the sinking below is itself the condition of the subsequent
surpassing, and the deeper the sleep, the more lively the subsequent awakening; and
thus the complete falling asleep of the narrow life of this world becomes the
condition of a bright awakening of the further life-cycle of the beyond; for the same,
that of the temporal, applies to the spatial change of consciousness. Let's take this
important relationship a little closer to the eye.
 Already on this side, man carries his consciousness around in space with him,
proving that it is even spatially displaceable, and in itself it changes place, as it
were. Deeply absorbed in a spectacle, man only sees and does not hear what is going
on around him; at other times he only listens and does not see what is going on
around him, and again another time he only thinks, and does not see or hear what is
going on around him. That is, the various organs of his sensual and higher spiritual
life are alternately put into conscious activity; consciousness, in connection with the
bodily movement underlying it, strikes over and over like a wave between them, but
can not rise here without sinking there. So long as man still lives on this side, he
wanders only partly in the whole with his whole living body in the world, partly
alternating between the organs of this body; if death comes, then it can no longer
wander with the whole body, which is no longer there, but wanders through this body
into the wider body - for why not, for brevity, need that expression for it - into its life
on this side had already come to the close, but until then slept, to wander for those in
this other body as formerly in the narrower. The ships behind him are burned; But to
go beyond that, it had to leave the old ships. But if the expression "wandering of
consciousness" appears too materialistic to you, then set your more idealistic, and the
thing remains the same; only logically transfer it in the sense of the facts from this
world to the hereafter.
Of all the changes in this world, however, one is above all apt to strike the bridge of
contemplation and conclusion to the hereafter. And no matter how difficult it may be
to believe in what we shall encounter one day, it comes so strangely into the familiar
view of an empty world around us, so we look at what is already happening in
us. There is already a here and now in us, only on a lower level, and it is only the
same principle that leads from one to another in us and beyond us.
Not unlike the conception of its extinction within us as a remembrance in a wider
and higher realm of human consciousness, the whole worldly mind of man will find
itself born again in another and higher memory of God, only insofar as our whole
Spirit is already higher and higher than our intuition, and God's memory is farther
and higher than ours, and therefore all the relations of our memories will be widened
and increased in it. How the memory in us is carried by widespread material effects,
which the physical condition of intuition, even as it stood, produced beyond itself into
the brain - the circles of these effects meet and intersect in the brain, without
disturbing each other, the spiritual existence of man in the hereafter is borne by
material effects, which, while still in existence, produced his bodily existence into the
material world inspired by God, but only expanded and increased everything
again. Insofar as you could now look outwardly in a living brain the memories in
it; but they go in there; as little as looking into the world outwardly, the otherworldly
spirits going in, yet such go in it.
Thus the view of the day does not imply anything new, unthinkable, unheard of to
the belief in the hereafter, but only a generalization, expansion, enhancement of what
can be observed, moreover, an extension and an increase, because it is an extended
and elevated field of contemplation , This is more than mere analogy, though it is also
analogy; they are universal laws which govern the worldly existence and the
hereafter, which are brought to bear here, whereas the vulgar, the philosophical, the
theological, in short the night view of today with this life breaks off the laws of this
life.
To be sure, you do not want to be a creature so wretched as our future corporeality
is supposed to be. But you just misrepresent it to yourself if you imagine it to be
undetermined. while she takes in all the determinateness of the worldly side by
growing from it. The seed may also imagine that the plant that breaks out of it,
breaking it, runs into the indeterminate because it can not follow it, but every part of
the seed's growth drives its associated part in the plant, and also in the adult Plant
bursts the bud her shell, not to melt into the indefinite, but to unfold in expanded
form. Only the limited outer form in which you appear on this side seems to be lost to
the hereafter, but with it, that she is lost to this worldly appearance, she is not yet lost
to the otherworldly; we only have the eyes of the hereafter only on this side. As well
as the memory forms of all his acquaintances can meet in the small inner beyond of a
person; the memory forms of all human beings are so good in the great otherworldly
memory, nevertheless, that neither here nor there does the material being, which lies
beneath the appearance, seem to be wearing the outer form of the phenomenon itself.
Our memories interweave into a higher mental play in fantasies, concepts,
thoughts, ideas; the views for oneself are not yet able; yet a thousand memories play
into every intuition, it is called association, it is inspiring into it. So also the higher
life-play on earth, and because the earthly life is established in God, the higher life in
God is not conducted between the spirits of this world, but the hereafter; but ideas of
the deceased, in which they themselves continue to live, play into those left behind on
this side, indeed, the circles of life on this side of the earth are all cut and crossed by
circles of otherworldly life; the most intimate communication between this world and
the hereafter is calculated in the natural way of being and the development of this
world itself; yes, what would we be today, if the ghosts of past centuries did not live
on in us; only they do not live only in us but also beyond us.
It is believed that the spirits of our loved ones have been brought to us with death at
a remote distance; you doubt even if you will find them in the hereafter. On the
contrary, the more her worldly circle of life had grown together with ours, the more it
engages in our otherworldly sequence into our worldly side. Only on this side do we
not know that he does it by reckoning as ours, which is their own. The unconscious
communication with them, however, becomes conscious when we ourselves enter
into the hereafter; until then, the deceased part, husband, wife, lover, beloved, still
lives as guardian spirit in the leftovers.
Those who are already one in spirit and yet still feel apart from each other, will also
feel one inwardly there for the sides, after which they are truly one. But also the
conflict of the spirits will be felt more inward and harder, and thus more powerful for
upliftment and reconciliation; and a ruthlessness will depend on the inward
intercourse of the spirits, which many may fear for the first. What one of his thoughts
would like to conceal here from everyone in the otherworldly memory will be
transparent to all, and only that may comfort everyone a little and make everyone
indulgent towards all, that all of their thoughts here want to hide something all. But it
will be a purgatory for all, through which they have to go, and certainly for him who
is not merely his deeds,
Much more general and serious promises and threats are connected with our
outlook into the hereafter. The good and the bad, what has emanated from man into
the world on this side, and of which he means that it is already beyond him, will only
fully meet the co-reactions and counter-effects, which he has by nature, only in the
hereafter, and whatever has not stirred his consciousness here, stir the same
there; Hereby man himself creates his future heaven or his hell. The pain that man
carries, pain no longer in the memory of this day; they will no longer hurt in the
otherworldly memory; yes, where no cutting off of a sick limb helps any more, the
cutting off of the whole sick man finally helps; but the pain, which one has awakened
others aches already on this side in the memory, one calls it the conscience, and
becomes bitter pain in the otherworldly memory kingdom, even where the conscience
on this side was not yet awake; because the hereafter has the means to wake her
up. You betrayed him, you wronged him; what are you still doing; It will do you
good, if in the spread of your future existence you will encounter the evil
consequences of this world, which you think are beyond you, as a rebounding on you,
indeed, directly in you. what are you still doing; It will do you good, if in the spread
of your future existence you will encounter the evil consequences of this world,
which you think are beyond you, as a rebounding on you, indeed, directly in
you. what are you still doing; It will do you good, if in the spread of your future
existence you will encounter the evil consequences of this world, which you think are
beyond you, as a rebounding on you, indeed, directly in you.
Much more would be said of all this; but it is enough for now 4) .
4) Once again the question of the hereafter is included in the 12th section of the
second part; but more in detail in the "Book of Life After Death" and in the
third part of "Zendavesta".

In the Scriptures, which one should believe in the word, there are words - of course,
there is no system - that one really only had to take by the word in order to have or to
infer the belief in the hereafter in the sense of the daily view 5) , As in the belief in
the one God, the day view has only followed the biblical faith. But you just do not
believe the word further than the night view allows.
5) Cf. the "Three Motifs and Reasons of Belief" p. 175, 214, 217.
6. The evil in the world.
No less for the view of the day than for the view of the night, the hardest question
remains: where, why, why, where the evil in the world, and how its existence unite
with the existence of a all-benevolent, almighty, all-wise God. It seems a pure
contradiction. The view of the day, however, escapes the contradiction first by
throwing the first view, instead of the dark origin, upon the clear state of affairs, and
with the fact of the evil contemplating at the same time the striving that goes through
the world To ward off evil, to lift it, to heal and to make a blessing, and to seek the
summit, union, and conclusion of this aspiration, as well as all good in God. But it
can not seek that of the evil in it, because evil as such is able to do so by virtue of In
God's summing up, summing up, concluding counter-striving has no summit, union
and conclusion at all. Rather, the longer it progresses, the further it gets around, the
higher and higher it rises, the more extensive, stronger, and higher the means and
forces are called upon in the world order, which finally overgrow it, indeed to make
the source of a new good; however, once the good that has been achieved shows the
opposite behavior, in its propagation and strengthening the conditions of further
propagation and strengthening. But since this worldly existence is not the whole of
existence, neither is the final turn and reconciliation of the evil, nor are all means for
this already to seek in this world, only the direction to it is already to seek and find in
it.
Therefore stir up the evil from whence it may be, we may be comforted by the fact
that in the world of the conscious, for whom there is only evil, there is not only a
tendency to aspire, which is the uplifting rather than the promotion of evil - only that
the finite desire is capable even of finite things - but also that so high and far and
powerful the evil reaches and is in the realm of finiteness, and is handed over by a
still higher, wider and more powerful counter-striving. But with this there is not only
the idea of a God who is benevolent in the highest sense, wise and mighty, but
requires the idea of such a God. That's one, only a second will come.
It is true that the striving of each individual to ward off the evil, to eradicate it,
refers at first only to his own good, and if there is an innate sinfulness of man, it is his
egoism; so the smallest child takes his doll from the other, beats it, and acts contrary
to the commandment; Often man also spoils the future for the sake of the present
enjoyment. But as man grows, his interests widen, he recognizes and feels of himself
that his well-being is connected with that of others, and that the future demands
sacrifice of the present, and the more his insight and feeling expand in this direction
he increases, deepens, strengthens, clarifies, the more he holds in his hand the means
for carrying out his purposes, and from the higher points of view he controls them; he
succeeds better and safer. But God's insight and power reaches beyond all
circumstances and means of the world, it is yes, all his own; his feeling reaches from
the highest height to the depth of the feeling of all his creatures; But a conflict of
egoism with love for them can not exist because it is not in itself but in itself; his
highest selfishness coincides with his fullest love for them. His caution, however, has
no limit, because in the knowledge of all present also the condition of the knowledge
of all future from it lies.
As infinitely high God stands above all his creatures in all these relationships, so
infinitely great, high, and far, of course, is his task over that which is placed in them,
and with which they have to enter into his own in a subordinate manner. All the evil
in the world, in the spread through the whole space, in its deepest roots, in its highest
peaks, in its fierce entanglements, in its ever new births it has to master; but to master
it in an infinite space, it also has infinite time, and in a finite time finite approaches to
it, which expand and increase and lead to ever newer and higher degrees, as the area
expands, heightens and that Life comes to new levels.
Are those views and prospects woven vainly out of thin air? But let us look back to
know how to look forward, and to do so we look out of the narrows and downs into
the vastness and the high. Has a blue sky over a flowery earth and over a sea, in
which the sun and moon are reflected, arched already in the time of the chaos, in
order to delight by beauty and sublimity creatures, to offer them measure and
course. At the time of the mega-herds and then the stilt houses there was already
religion, moral laws, science and art; does not improve every time the shortcomings
of the past, by every new invention wins the world; and as new evils rise with the rise
of new degrees, it is only an incentive to exceed them again, and therein lies a life-
stimulus. It is not the custom of the piano to disintegrate the harmonic chord into a
disharmonic, but to dissolve the disharmonic into a harmonious one. But this custom
has the man-made piano of the game of God in the world. And so we may also
believe that this world and the hereafter follow in the sense of this custom and the
death of the beings themselves will only be a means, the disharmonies of this world,
which could not find their dissolution in this world itself, if not all to dissolve
immediately but to continue until finite solution and reconciliation.
When all conscious existence in the divine existence has been decided upon, so is
all evil, which can meet wanting, knowing, sentient beings, is sin, error, and pain
therein resolved; only none can meet God's essence at the highest level; it rules only
in the lower finite regions of its existence, where one is still opposed to the other,
while God, with his supreme will, knowledge, and feeling, reaches agreement in
everything. In man also there is a higher spiritual realm above a lower, above the
sensual desire the higher will, above the seeing of the eye the higher insight, above
lower pleasure the higher joy. But the highest in man is still a low one in God. So
even the will of man is not God's will, although man can and should set his will in
tune with the divine. And well us, that our evil is not out of God but at the same time
in and under God; The certainty that he can not leave any evil in his world
unreconciled in order not to be left unsatisfied does not concern anyone who believes
in God and the hereafter in the sense of the daily view. As great as it is, and as great
as its power and duration is, it will have a greater time, a greater field, a greater
power to redeem it ready. But everyone has, as part of God included, to help in his
works. a larger area, a greater power to pay for it, have ready. But everyone has, as
part of God included, to help in his works. a larger area, a greater power to pay for it,
have ready. But everyone has, as part of God included, to help in his works.
With all this, of course, the gravest question is only postponed: where is the evil in
the world, if there is an all-benevolent, almighty God in the world, all the harder for
the daily view, if after all evil, what felt in the world is felt by God in his
creatures. Why not prevent it from the beginning, in order to eradicate it in the course
of time only with all forces and thus in no finite time?
There is only one self-consistent answer to the question that can exist with God and
with God. No creature inflicts evil on itself, or permits it with will, unless without it a
greater evil can not be avoided or a greater good can not be allowed. It does not
contradict only the nature of the human will; it contradicts the nature of the will in
general. Therefore, God can not have produced or permitted the evil either in a higher
or in a lower realm of his being with will, unless such a thing can not be avoided at
all, or a greater or higher good can not do without it. And if one were to think of
creatures, and therefore their evil, apart from God in the traditional sense, it would
not be less objectionable to his goodness and omnipotence,
Thus, the second-day view of contradiction, in that it overcomes the origin of the
evil and its evolution to the limits to which it is at all able to thrive, rather than in the
will or in an arbitrary admission of God, takes on the urgency of being It is called a
metaphysical necessity, by virtue of which being itself either could not be at all,
without falling into evil in temporal beginnings and finite districts, and continually
falling into new births, or at least ascending to greater and greater higher good could
not happen without passage through evil. Really, however, lies in the adjustment,
uplifting, reconciliation, overcrowding the evil from general, higher, presupposing,
from this side of the world beyond, the very source of the more general, greater,
higher good of which there is to speak in the world, and in which all things, finite in
proportion, as it progresses, expands and raises its sphere of existence; Part wins. But
so necessary is the evil in one or the other, or at least in both senses, so necessary
now also the direction of the divine will to its elevation, reconciliation, overcoming.
I say that this is the only consistent path, God's will, because of the existence of
evil in a world created or infused with or rising from it, over which the strife here
would be futile to overstate responsibility, and us to assure the inviolable and eternal
goodness of his being. But if somebody would shorten God's omnipotence by the fact
that his will is directed against something that either is not itself there through this
will - even though it is always in God, through God, who is not entirely of supreme
will - or Whatever God would or would have wanted to allow for higher purposes,
Leibniz's word would have to be taken to heart, so that, where God's goodness and
omnipotence come into conflict, the latter has to yield.
There is a logical necessity against which God's omnipotence can do nothing; for
he can not make two to two five, and can not nullify the validity of Ludolf's theorem
on the circumference of the circle to the diameter. Rather, the logical necessity is a
fundamental moment, that of the truth, of its eternal essence; The metaphysical
necessity forms another fundamental element of its essence, that of its action and
volition. If everything had always been the best possible, as we might imagine, then
we could no longer think of any will and action that went beyond and led us beyond
it. But since such exists, we must also accept the principle.
Among all the wonders that exist, the greatest thing is that there is anything at
all; yes, if there really was not anything, it would be considered impossible that there
could be anything; because from where, how, by what mediation should it come
about. There is nothing left but to say that it has always been a being that does not
require any external mediation of its existence, that exists by itself; but it does not
make us any more comprehensible that and how such a being could exist, and no way
of concluding, no right of demand exists for us in this regard. We must take God, as
he gives himself to us, to designate the primordial and the universal essence of
existence by that name. If we could tell God how to do it, we would like to prescribe
it for him: that from it, as the cause of all existence, no evil would arise in this
existence, that everything in it would be equal, or progress from good to more
perfect; but the evil exists, and so we must infer that the existence of the evil itself is
inextricably intertwined with the causes of existence or its further development; But
if there is also a general endeavor to exalt the evil, and in the general course of the
world is a success of this endeavor, we have no less to conclude that such endeavor
and the possibility of its success are inseparable from the very causes of existence
and its development. that the existence of the evil is inextricably intertwined with the
foundations of existence or its further development; But if there is also a general
endeavor to exalt the evil, and in the general course of the world is a success of this
endeavor, we have no less to conclude that such endeavor and the possibility of its
success are inseparable from the very causes of existence and its development. that
the existence of the evil is inextricably intertwined with the foundations of existence
or its further development; But if there is also a general endeavor to exalt the evil,
and in the general course of the world is a success of this endeavor, we have no less
to conclude that such endeavor and the possibility of its success are inseparable from
the very causes of existence and its development.
The night view does not know the previous ways of contemplation. Nothing would
prevent me from believing in God, I hear someone say, if not evil existed in the
world. He spoke that and thought probably thousands in the sense of the night
view. If God had possessed the evil, he would not be able to defy evil; because there
is evil, there is no god. So the night view of the contradiction is easiest to do. The
world may try to cope with the evil as it can without God, and since it can not cope
with it, the pessimism is finished. But if there is to be a God and a hereafter for the
night view despite all evil, then it overcomes the contradictions, which it can not
banish in its ways, through greater contradictions. God has made man free from the
outset for the love of him, to make himself good or evil and thus blessed or
unfortunate, and the world halfway with heaven, half hell, breaking God the All-good
no will or the Almighty no longer has power, or is there a third? To the moral evil,
which the first man himself chose, God has bestowed upon the world the physical and
intellectual, the good as well as the evil, adding to it the animals that can not choose,
endowed with cruelty and torment; he either wanted to be good enough or could not
break this connection of evil with his omnipotence; or is there a third? The true
human father leaves his children out of love for them and out of love for the good
only in good; only a limited freedom is valid among men and proves to be good
among men, and there is still freedom in good things; But God, to put it well with
them, let the good half benefit from the outset also the evil half of freedom. The right
father does not beat the good children with the bad ones, so as not to rob them of his
confidence in his righteousness, and does not punish them for the use of a freedom he
has left them. The all-good, just God, whom the human father, legislator, judge is to
model, gives them another example to the good half, from the outset, the evil half of
freedom. The right father does not beat the good children with the bad ones, so as not
to rob them of his confidence in his righteousness, and does not punish them for the
use of a freedom he has left them. The all-good, just God, whom the human father,
legislator, judge is to model, gives them another example to the good half, from the
outset, the evil half of freedom. The right father does not beat the good children with
the bad ones, so as not to rob them of his confidence in his righteousness, and does
not punish them for the use of a freedom he has left them. The all-good, just God,
whom the human father, legislator, judge is to model, gives them another example6) .
Also in regard to evil, the day view is only the abolition of an earlier worldview
into a second. According to the Gentiles, the gods are still fraught with human
weaknesses and faults; Today's view gives God an abstruse perfection, exalted above
all weaknesses and faults; The view of the day removes the necessary faults and
weaknesses of finiteness at the same time as the search for their reconciliation and
elevation in God, but acknowledges in the highest realm of its being the most
untarnished perfection.
6) Further remarks on the question of freedom in the 16th section.

VI. Religious views and prospects.

1. By the fact that the day view ends in a doctrine of faith and concludes as such, it
goes far beyond mere philosophy, Insofar as this, in vain, of course, refuses faith in
principle, as discussed earlier (chapter 4); On the contrary, it agrees with religion in
this respect, and is itself religion in its highest and last beliefs; but what she is more
than philosophy is not disgusting. Even the historical belief in revelation, represented
as it is by orthodox theology, is far more than mere philosophy, but what it is more is
in part antagonistic. Therefore, Paul could speak of a divine folly higher than human
wisdom; Tertullian could say: credo quia absurdum est; and Luther says somewhere
(in a similar way): it is a most reprehensible sentence of the Sorbonne that what is
true for mathematics and philosophy must also be true for theology. And still today
human reason is often reproached by the believer in the revelation that in the highest
and last things it leads more easily to wrong than to right ways.
How, then, will the historically established belief in revelation stand against the
view of the day and this against it, after the day view itself claims to be a
religion? Let's just say it briefly: he will reject the day's view because he confesses
that he has only the highest and the best, but not the whole of him; but the daytime
view will save its highest and best even before it falls into the very limelight
itself. After that we say the same thing a bit longer.
2. The believer in the revelation in general needs the certainty of his faith only for
historical and practical reasons, and will not abandon the venerable book, which
offers him this certainty, in order to reach for these new pages. Why should he? He
finds by the word from above what these leaves seek only to ascend from below, and
in the reliance on it he feels superseded by all wavering and erroneous human
reason. The firm footing on his rock of faith in the midst of the torrents of today's
philosophy which are brewing around him and are approaching from all sides, may
not be interchanged with a fall in their bottomlessness. And because he, finding
himself on his point of view from above, does not need the steps to ascend, which at
the same time need and win those leaves,
But there are others, many more, and more and more from day to day, who, in the
orthodox belief in revelation, for the two reasons, the historical and the practical,
miss the third foundation of faith in which this reconciliation lies, in the belief in the
highest and the last things go wrong, and the day view offers their help.
But it is more than a mere help, which it offers to individuals, it is a re-
establishment of the faith which it offers to the world as a whole; and does not it need
such?
Let's take a serious look at the current state of things.
3. A feeling goes through the world: it can not stay that way or it can not go away
like that. Already the world is almost anxiously seeking a renewal of the faith or even
a new faith; even such a one proclaims itself as in league with the knowledge, which
is however only the overthrow of the old faith, and thus can not quench the fear of the
world, but only increase it. If only he draws the last consequences of the night view,
in contradiction with which the old faith upheld itself, found light and comfort, and
thus overcame the contradiction to the daily view which he himself shared on the
other side. For basically, with the light appearance which spreads through the world,
everything higher, which rises above it, sinks into night; but the old faith, having torn
it off, has saved it in a heaven above the heavens;
When I think about tomorrow with today, that's how it looks to me:
4. Those who are weak in faith but strong in reason, who still like religion well and
who want to stop their decay, think that they can remove all the rotten beams from
their historical structure; They do not have to gather for it, or only others, for instead
of being able to receive it from philosophy-and wherever else they seek-the latter
only transfers their own discord and iniquity of faith to it; Nor can a religion be
mended. However, natural science completely collapses the building, which has only
become more and more obsolete through rescue attempts. The Orthodox are still
struggling against it with all their might, holding fast to gruffness as the feast, living
and dying to the right conviction, that if the whole is to be held, it must be kept
entirely; And truly, the main blessing of religion still hangs over them, as long as it
still holds because it still holds through them. There is still faith, faith and faith fruit
to find, where else? For what is good otherwise does not flow from faith. And though
it is not lacking in hypocrites and quiet doubters among them, they are but foolish
sheep from the herd, but it is still a flock that feels safe under a shepherd, a
shelter. But the small group, which has already become small, melts more and more
together, and is finally buried under the inexorable ruin of the once-mighty structure,
after the state has withdrawn its support from it too, for which it finds no support in
it. Woe therefore to the church, and therefore woe to the state.
 5. It is said that this is true of the church; but church and religion are two things; let
the dogmas of the church fall, the freer the religion, no longer bound by it, will be
more free. But strangely, the more one sees falling from the untenable dogmas of the
Church, the more one sees the fall of religion; the released one dissolves and
disappears into the air. If church and religion are two different things, it is how body
and mind are two things; they persist and collapse. And are not all the signs of their
dwindling together already there? You heat the churches, you give baptism and the
Lord's Supper free of charge; it is free; one does not resuscitate a corpse by external
warming, and the people no longer like the reduced commodity. Already the
congregations of the pastors seem to have a burden; for who still wants to pay for the
conversation of a preacher in whose preaching he does not go and whose sacraments
he does not need; the registrar's table replaces the altar; at least as a pastor the
minimum requirement in matters of faith is preferred. According to the new faith,
God is in general only the name for a universal world order, which comes to
consciousness in men, and future life for the generally dissolving consequences of
life on earth; and some preaching from the pulpit of reason deceives the worshipers
only with these names. But if there are those who want more than mere names or
surrogates for God and the hereafter, then they do not know how and where to find it,
after only reason, not the word in the Bible, is the reason of the one but against the
other, the chair against the pulpit is, and finally, the reason of the individual, and if he
were the most unreasonable, left to make his own faith or unbelief, or let it be done
by one or another; whereas faith in the congregation of believers must seek its life-
principle and its support, and the state and the church should agree to secure this
harmony by united doctrine; only that it does not work today. Finally one comes so
far as to no longer miss the harmony of the faith; and so Christianity and Judaism,
Catholicism and Protestantism happily keep wedding, as everything makes wedding
in nothingness, and when it has come to nothing. And if it is not yet so far, then it
goes down like on an incline, and the faster it goes down, the cheering about the
movement is so louder. So religious faith outside the Orthodox circles has, on
average, already reached near to the level, and at a deeper level deeply down to the
negative; and orthodoxy itself has always found it harder to stand, like a fortress
which is ravaged on all sides and devastated around the land.
Now let's face the time that threatens, fulfilled, where there is no religion and no
church left. It will be a time when every barrel breaks its tires, and the lowest one
turns against the chief, to be on the very top, that the moral law that has fallen away
from God and the hereafter seeks nothing but support in free pleasure, the law of
nature and by chance Mass law of the state vainly to replace light and discipline from
above, to seek duty and love for one's neighbor, who no longer baptize with water
baptized to baptize with blood. It will be a time of general struggle for existence and
prudence for prudence, instead of the feeling of belonging together and concatenating
all existence from the highest and last points of view.
But there can not be any hesitating about it, for it will not quite come to that, and
before one knows how it will turn, one can be sure that it will turn. Religion can only
sink to rise elastically.
 As long as a religion is still there, it is everywhere where it depends on the highest,
the last, the unifying, the most lasting, the final. and where it is lost, all that is lost,
the individual as well as the state, the custom, the science, the art. If one lies in bed
and no longer knows where he is from, he still has a hope for God and a world
beyond remorse, without resignation or despair. Where there is no fear of the law,
fear of God and otherworldly retribution suffice. But it can not escape this
one. Without being shot down in religious belief, science goes back and forth without
a goal, or only finds the goal in emptiness; and if you paint religious ideas out of art,
you have cut them down, as it were, over their heads. Even if all this was an illusion,
The whole history of the world has been governed in the most general aspects and
from the highest point of view by religious motives, impulses, statutes; The greatest
and the best, the greatest and the worst in history, have come forth, the best from the
best, the worst from the worst of religions, and the worst from the want of any
religion. Because the worst religion, as long as it still deserves the name religion, is
better than none. This does not change and will never change, even if the physiologist
in front of the slaughtered dog, the chemist in front of the heated stove himself, feel
nothing of the contractions that go through world history, and think that they can do
without them. She would rather do without physiology and chemistry than without it.
Thus, religion can not decay without the decay of its need for renewal for the
individual as well as for the whole, and it grows ever stronger until, after all the futile
attempts at restoring the old, time has grown ripe for new construction.
Is the time already full? I dont know; but let it not be today, it will be tomorrow or
the day after tomorrow. And now it is well to see whether, after exhaustion of all the
means of the night view, of keeping religion by repairing or emptying it, and of all
the powers of orthodoxy to keep it as it is, it is new in the sense of the daily view to
build.
But the new structure, into which the day-vision invites its professors, will not arise
on and from the rubble of the old, but on new ground, from new beams, new stones,
only with the unbreakable cross of the old on the top. It is not the cross against which
Christ is struck, but that which is raised by Him into the light, to illuminate Himself
over all the world. And if it were not possible to increase it anew from the ruins of the
old structure, into which it sinks more and more every day, its new peak would be
missing. Yes, he could not raise himself again if he did not from the beginning take
his direction toward the revival and exaltation of what he unanimously agreed with
the old one and had to conclude. The train is coming up here like from above;
6. Without picture I want to say with the following.
In Christianity, two ideas, an eternal universal one, in whose assertion it has
surpassed all former times of clarity, decisiveness, and highness, with which it will
overcome all that is still opposed to it, and in which it will assert its eternal
existence; and a temporal, specifically dogmatic, which essentially determines the
present form of Christianity, and is counted by the Orthodox to be its very essence,
indeed almost as its essence.
 The first is that, not Jews, pagans in particular, but all the genders and peoples of
the earth have to unite in faith in a certain God who wills the best, and a life on the
other side with just retribution, a moral bond, a direction of action to find a comfort, a
hope beyond the earthly in this faith. But Christ, we have to worship as the founder of
this idea into being and top representatives of the same l) .
l)"That Christ set the highest things, and set the unifying and the fiercest things,
and set the things that are at the same thing as the highest, no one has done
them before, and none of them do him any harm, for he has done it." .... "But
that is it, what all have united under him and all will unify who are not yet
unified, that he is the unification of all from the point of view of the only
unification of all possible, first with consciousness in the consciousness of and
through life and work has given the living stimulus for the dissemination and
operation of this idea, that all men agree as children of them, only wanting
good, God, as citizens of a heavenly realm beyond the present, and as To feel
brothers, to seek and to act in this spirit.
Although Judaism and Islam share the idea of the one God and the hereafter
with Christianity, and thus themselves help to prove the universal significance
of these ideas, they remain behind Christianity in that the Jewish people
consider themselves chosen, a Messiah for seeks, and puts religion in the
shackles of external statutes, but Islam only a heavenly realm full of sensuality
in mind, and rather seeks to spread by the sword as the power of those ideas
themselves.

The second idea is that the man afflicted with original sin by Adam's fault, unable
to save himself from the consequences of it, can obtain forgiveness and reconciliation
of his sins through Christ's crucifixion, by God Himself, in the second person Christ
has humanized, given himself to this sacrificial death, and by exceptional means
guided and sustained the course of the world in this way of salvation.
Both ideas, although their content is not necessarily demanding externally and for
thought, have historically grown together, and in this connection by the claim to be a
matter of divine revelation not only prepared, but also immune to, any attack. To do
this, they are interwoven by the Orthodox Church into a system which, by reason of
its inner connection, does enough of the reason which keeps itself within the limits of
the system and places it in the service of revelation, as it misses to master, thereby the
followers assured of its maintenance, while its connection and cohesion with the rest
of the thought-processes of the world is more and more decaying, and has already
become a gulf, over which there is no bridge; because reason there and here does not
want to match,
Now it is not enough to take the historical union of the two ideas as the specific one
responsible for this dichotomy; but, if not for the historical hold of the whole a new
positive hold, capable of a new beginning of history, offered in the nature of men and
things, for the dogmatic content of which another is drawn from this nature, the one
idea disappears and all the faith dies under the knife that wants to heal him; the fact
itself proves it. The Protestant association is growing and the churches continue to
empty. One can pay attention to the pursuit and half regret the failure, half the
success. The free communities and Old Catholicism, however, are like branches cut
off from the tribe; the tribe will not be cut off, but the rootless branches. All this
speaks just as much for the need of remedy, as for the impossibility to afford it from
the existing foundations. Today's wisdom has nothing to offer in all its directions,
rooted in the night view, caught in it or calculating with it. And so, in most of the
religions, where there is still some of it beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is
dependent on childhood habits and practical needs. These are strong threads that
finally become tender and tear when reason does not tire of eating and tearing. If she
had to weave her own threads with it, there would be a hold that would not only resist
every attack, but would not even find one. All this speaks just as much for the need of
remedy, as for the impossibility to afford it from the existing foundations. Today's
wisdom has nothing to offer in all its directions, rooted in the night view, caught in it
or calculating with it. And so, in most of the religions, where there is still some of it
beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is dependent on childhood habits and practical
needs. These are strong threads that finally become tender and tear when reason does
not tire of eating and tearing. If she had to weave her own threads with it, there would
be a hold that would not only resist every attack, but would not even find one. All this
speaks just as much for the need of remedy, as for the impossibility to afford it from
the existing foundations. Today's wisdom has nothing to offer in all its directions,
rooted in the night view, caught in it or calculating with it. And so, in most of the
religions, where there is still some of it beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is
dependent on childhood habits and practical needs. These are strong threads that
finally become tender and tear when reason does not tire of eating and tearing. If she
had to weave her own threads with it, there would be a hold that would not only resist
every attack, but would not even find one. to do it from the existing
foundations. Today's wisdom has nothing to offer in all its directions, rooted in the
night view, caught in it or calculating with it. And so, in most of the religions, where
there is still some of it beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is dependent on childhood
habits and practical needs. These are strong threads that finally become tender and
tear when reason does not tire of eating and tearing. If she had to weave her own
threads with it, there would be a hold that would not only resist every attack, but
would not even find one. to do it from the existing foundations. Today's wisdom has
nothing to offer in all its directions, rooted in the night view, caught in it or
calculating with it. And so, in most of the religions, where there is still some of it
beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is dependent on childhood habits and practical
needs. These are strong threads that finally become tender and tear when reason does
not tire of eating and tearing. If she had to weave her own threads with it, there would
be a hold that would not only resist every attack, but would not even find
one. Directions nothing to offer that substitute. And so, in most of the religions,
where there is still some of it beyond the Orthodox circles, faith is dependent on
childhood habits and practical needs. These are strong threads that finally become
tender and tear when reason does not tire of eating and tearing. If she had to weave
her own threads with it, there would be a hold that would not only resist every attack,
but would not even find one. Directions nothing to offer that substitute. And so, in
most of the religions, where there is still some of it beyond the Orthodox circles, faith
is dependent on childhood habits and practical needs. These are strong threads that
finally become tender and tear when reason does not tire of eating and tearing. If she
had to weave her own threads with it, there would be a hold that would not only resist
every attack, but would not even find one.
7. But now I think that the general view of the day and the principles of its
construction and expansion, as listed here, really offers such threads, that is, the
universal idea of Christianity, positive moments of a new hold and content for the
discarded dogmatic offers - moments which can not only exist before reason, but
place the universal idea of Christianity itself at the head of a rational world
connection, but at last enable it to fulfill its own demand, ie, to unite all genders and
peoples while the rigidity of the dogmatic breaks the success of the missions, 2 and all
the bitterness of reason is directed only against them.
2)
"Why do you always preach us of the crucified instead of the living
God?" so or so a Brahmin asked.

In fact, what would it be, with which the day's view emerged from the supreme
Christian idea, by which it did not serve to justify, consolidate, and develop it, for
which it did not gather all the forces of reason and in which it did not satisfy its
demands, or ways kept open for satisfaction. So those who thought that they would
have to reject the Christian idea for reasons of reason will first have to remember
whether they still need to reject it, and if not in the present but future generation, this
reflection will have become prudence, that it will be the same Reason reasons have to
demand rather. Moreover, while the day-view may abolish the pagan dismemberment
and humiliation of the Divine Being, but not throw away the pieces thereof, but only
lifts it up into a higher union, it thereby makes the supreme Christian idea accessible
and accessible even to the lowest levels of knowledge. And yet he does not give his
supreme idea to Christianity, but from the outset has it as its guiding star.
8. But once the religious faith has gained a new hold in itself, the cohesion and thus
change of state and church will find itself again; because there will be no reason to
separate. From the beginning they were not separated; but now they seem to me like
two slats, who are supposed to hold themselves upright by supporting each other, but
now push one from another to get rid of the mutual pressure; If this goes beyond
certain limits, both will fall. Or, like two brothers and sisters who have been walking
hand in hand for a long time, they pull their hands apart, scold each other and refuse
to obey the other; Now the most radical tendencies in state and church call
themselves brothers and extend their hands to the overthrow of both.
An oak can shoot up higher and more powerfully; but when its core is corrupted,
and the pest always spreads, the growth of external power and splendor goes from a
certain limit backwards, rather than further. Are not we already at this limit, to be
beyond?
9. First of all, all the basic points of the day view seem to be only of a theoretical
nature; but the belief in the highest and last things can not be based solely on theory,
has never stood alone and will never stand alone on it; but to the theoretical motives
and grounds of faith, historical and practical, if it is not more valid, to say that they
must come to these. Only one can rely on where what appears to be the truest appears
as the best and most durable in history. Yes, the orthodox faith in the Bible, with all
the detriment of today's reason, would still be in such great advantage against it from
a historical and practical point of view, how could he still oppose it? That we have a
faith in the holiness of the Word of the Bible that has been transplanted historically,
and thus to some extent increased in strength and expansion, and that comfort and
hope beyond all earthly ones can be summed up in the words of the Bible, awakening
fear beyond all earthly ones, that we still have a religion today. The fact that we have
philosophical systems with the pretension, the most reasonable in all the highest and
the last, from Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Herbart, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer,
Hartmann, etc. does not just not make us still have a religion today ; rather, we hardly
have them because of and in part only in spite of these systems; because even that
does not contradict the historical belief,
But only the reason, which goes in the shoes of the night view, that is the today's, is
opposed to the orthodox Bible faith with such advantages. And who can fail to
recognize that his look upwards and consolation from above and his salvation are
mixed with a cloudy element, a moment of self-contempt and contempt for the world,
and that his historical hold on the past no longer reaches into the future. To a
corruption of the whole human race, indeed of all nature as a result of Adam's apple
bite, of a God who needed the crucifixion of his Son to find reconciliation for the
guilt of the people he himself had created with sinful impulses, an eternal mercy and
justice, which imposes perpetual sins and temporal sins and eternal hell
punishments, and how many still can not be believed forever; the Orthodox are not
mistaken.
And what, he asks, do you have to support yourself historically with your news? -
What I supported from the beginning: not just one, but two stories more than a
thousand years old; The fact that the day view basically just eliminates two
worldviews that have already existed in succession historically, indeed divides the
world still today, into harmony with one another. Between the two, the night view,
with its negations, is only stored today, both divorced. If it is lifted, then both flow
into each other with the elimination of the incompatible elements of themselves.
History does not stop idly, but it does not jump nor drag it; but she strides, holding
the last superior foot in his stead, and advancing on the back one. The gait consists in
alternating both steps; a higher view sees the connection of both steps. The steps of
religion are great, but slow. It takes millennia to a new step. The foot, which has been
lifted to progress, hovers in the air, already sinking; When will she put him down?
 Of course, that's not enough with mere strokes of the pen. But when the time is
fulfilled, so too will the burning word and the community-forming power, which still
needs it, be missing. The wind first plays in the leaves of the tree, which will once
fall from the intensification of the blow, and the religion is still hesitant to crush a
world of the old with the new kick at once,
There stands one who wants to roll away a tremendous burden from a patch on
which something wants to grow - the light just can not add. He soon arrives here,
now there, picking up the weight of this and that side, but it is too heavy, too deeply
pressed, and falls back again and again on the uplifting hand. The bystanders look
dull, shake their heads or laugh; Some who stand on the burden and help to multiply,
do not want to be thrown down and scold. Here and there probably sounds an
encouraging voice, but nobody attacks with. He has grown old over these attempts,
feels that he does not do it alone, does one last jolt and now waits for the new
power. She will have it easier; for the stone, internally decayed, begins to crumble by
itself;

VII. Beliefs.

Should I now summarize my confession of faith in the sense of the daily view in a
few short sentences, so I like to put to the top of a saying that I was pleased in a
small, well-known in Orthodox circles, booklet "Christian Forget-me-not", every day
of Year to the shortest morning devotion considering a biblical quotation considering
just meeting my birthday.
"There are many powers, but there is one God who works all things in all" (I Cor
12: 6).
Essentially the same thing is said by the first proposition of the following
confession, and all others are only dependent on it. With all and in all, it remains true
that the highest and best of faith, about which nothing higher and better is concerned,
is already a matter for the universal idea of Christianity (see above). The one God
over all and in all the other world with just retribution, the highest moral
commandment: love God above everything and your neighbor as yourself, are not
news of the day view, but a light from above, without them to do it again confess, did
not find the direction and the goal; and this acknowledgment closes the confession.
l. It is a God whose infinite and eternal existence has not externally outwardly and
externally in relation to the whole finite and temporal existence, but in itself, and in
itself subordinated; so that, as far and as high as one wants to pursue and measure the
existence of finite things, the divine existence extends beyond it.
2. So man, too, is not externally opposed to God, but is at the same time entrusted
to him, and he is also entrusted with the subject, life, and consciousness of man in the
divine.
"In God my soul rests,
Because God lives, I live,
 For he alone has life,
I can not stand beside it,
He can not let me."
(From the three motives and sizes of faith.)

3. The world between men is not dark and dumb, but God sees with the light and
hears with the sound of his world all that is in the world and happens; and above all
that he sees and hears more than his creatures, thoughts higher in him than in the
highest of these creatures.
4. Humans are too modest not to be at the top of the world, but find only the
highest levels of individual development of the earthly kingdom, but which are linked
by higher relationships and over which the world includes even higher levels, all at
last in the highest degree, that of the divine existence, to unite and complete.
5. Every star has its own world of senses and the higher world of consciousness
ascending above it, which unifies itself uniformly over that of its creatures and closes
against those of the other stars, but remains completely open to the divine
consciousness, so that the stars become an intermediate and mediating stage between
their own Creating creatures and God, including the earth.
"In God my soul rests,
The angel whole crowd
In his pure heights
I see the light shining
And one carries me even."

6. As our earthly life on earth is higher and higher around us, it will have such an
effect, as its continuation rather than dissolving in the wider and higher life, entering
into and gaining new moment of development. What our view of extinction
encounters, that it is reborn as memory in a higher realm of our mind, of which the
corresponding is only broadened and increased in our whole spirit in the spirit over
which it is already established.
"In God my soul rests,
you speak, that it passes away,
because I do not bear any worries,
there is always salvation,
which now exists in it.
In God my soul rests,
Seems to be quite with her,
The trace of her lost,
If she just reborn
One in his higher house. "
 7. The otherworldly life of the spirits will no longer be confined within the same
narrow spatial limits as this worldly one. The spirits will enter into a freer and higher
intercourse there than in this world, and the only justice thus conceived here will
fulfill the principle that every one will follow his works, and he will reap what he
sown there.
8. Our error, our folly and sin, depend only on our finitude and on our lower points
of view in God, just as in man himself ideas, thoughts and impulses can arise and go
against his higher insight and higher will, but the true insight remains , the right will
and the commandment about it.

"In God my soul rests,

God works it out in itself,
its will is my will,
I can go against it,
but it leads it out.

My soul rests in God,

He himself does not sin,
Carries with his child
in Himself his sin,
Lastly leads to duty. "

9. All pain and all suffering, all evil in the world, is not there by the will of God,
but by a necessity of existence; but with the same necessity as it exists there lies in
the nature of God, and with it the dependent world order, the striving to reconcile, to
reconcile, to which his creatures have to participate. Finally, and completely, he can
only lift it up and reconcile it by doing it in all its creatures; and the farther and
higher his means go beyond his creatures and out into time and space, and ascend to
higher stages of life, the more sure will be the upliftment and reconciliation; you just
have to expect them from there. One can lie down to sleep with such faith.
"In God my soul rests;
O comfort in the greatest suffering!
God can not tolerate it in himself,
it is only a debt of joy,
I am waiting for my time.
In God my soul rests;
It's the last word;
Far away from the harbor,
I can sleep peacefully.
 He is my everlasting port. "

10. In the ideas of truth, beauty, goodness, the divine essence culminates, and in
faith, hope, love, that of man with respect to God.

"In God my soul rests,

it holds in itself the advice of
truth, beauty, goodness,
that unity in the mind
and guideline is the act.

In God my soul rests,

And it still
wavers so much Disturbed by earthly impulses,
In faith, hope, loves
He remains their highest goal. "

11. The divine and moral commandments have the meaning that man subordinates
his aspirations and actions in the direction of his own good to the aspiration and
action in the direction of the good of the whole to which he belongs. Man is to be
educated to do his duty out of love, and his conscience tells him without account
what is right.
12. The most exalted and universal doctrines of Christianity are the highest, best,
and most durable of all, which religion can put to its head, and Christ is at the head of
all witnesses to the existence and validity of the highest, the best, holiest truths.

"In God my soul rests,

The soul does not implore it,
Since God shows the Lord
The witnesses descend,
Christ forerunners as light."
 VIII. The old and the new of the day view.
As new as the day-vision appears and is in some respects, so old can one find it in
other respects; yes, if it was something completely new, it would certainly be
something fundamentally wrong, because the truth can never be completely absent,
only lacking in the whole truth and being much beyond the truth. In order to
supplement what is missing, the excess must fall; and so the day view with the old
part contains more, partly less than the old.
In this sense, it has been emphasized several times that the view of the day is
basically the abolition of two historically validated world views, that it shares its
ideas in the highest and last things with the Christian view, its natural ground with the
pagan view. But in that, instead of adding one outwardly and contradictorily to the
other, one unites the one uniformly by the negation of the other and the summit by
the other, it gives way to each one in particular, not merely through the greater of the
others, but also through the dropping of the moments who do not agree with this
ratio. And since today's theological, philosophical, and scientific views evade this
unified coincidence of one side or the other,
Perhaps most intrusively, the difference of the day-view in large pieces emerges
from the prevailing views in the view of the objective propagation of the sensible
appearance through the world, in the implementation of the immanence of the finite
spirits in God instead of mere phrase, in the doctrine of the Soul of the stars and
plants, and in the way of deducing the hereafter from this world. It has been seen
how, of course, everything that is connected in the daytime view, swells apart, holds
itself mutually supportive and demands, whereas in today's world view, nothing
wants to fit right. In the meantime, it should not be without interest to survey what I
would rather refer to from here (Zendavesta III, 332 ff.), just as the doctrine of the
hereafter, which at first sight seems so strange, is at the same time only the collection
and uniting of all possible, previously occurring views on it, even the spiritualistic
belief in the afterlife of the modern age (according to XXIII) enters into them. Every
student from the lessons of mythology knows that belief in the individual God-being
of the stars is a matter of ancient paganism; It is well known that the Christian faith in
angels was originally rooted in this belief, and is the same among primitive peoples
today. The view of the spread of the sensible appearance through the world can be
found in a more recent version of monadology (Sect. XXII); and for the immanence
of finite spirits in God was a priori (p.
Is it right after all to say that everything of the daytime view was partly already
there, partly still there, then remains just as true, the whole day view was not there
and argues with the whole today's world view, for which they contradict has to expect
all corners and ends, because a few middle does not have the same.
The day view can easily be confused with natural philosophy; and why not; except
that they are not confused with every version of them. But natural philosophy can be
understood as a doctrine of the most general points of view and laws, to which the
world of material things ruthlessly submits to a spiritual content, in short, as a more
general and higher natural science; and the day's view may well be based upon such a
thing, without counting its construction and expansion to its task itself; So far, they
would only find more than fragments and problems of such. Secondly, natural
philosophy can be conceived as a doctrine of the most general and highest relations
of the spiritual to the material or internal, external to the external world, where the
view of a God-ensoulment of the whole world and the organization of this animated
world occurs. A philosophy of nature in this sense claims to be true to the view of the
day, not merely of a theoretical character, but of a significance to the religious-
practical; it would also be displayed in the opposite direction so that the latter aspect
would appear as the leading and the higher. Thirdly, natural philosophy can be
understood to mean a doctrine which nature regards from categories which belong
rather to the spiritual sphere, or in which the points of view of both regions mix
unclearly, according to a finished schematism. In this sense, the natural philosophy
has recently mainly occurred, thus interfered with the natural sciences, and the
indignation of the latter, on the other hand, has discredited even the word natural
philosophy. And after you caught the day view with this words, you also hung them
underneath.
But in the sense in which the day-view really exists as a natural philosophy, ie,
according to its theoretical side, it is essentially only the perfection and conclusion of
what is raised from below as psychophysics, or the faith-blossom and fruit above
Root, which psychophysics seeks directly in knowledge. It has been wondered that
the first account of the day view in Zendavesta and the Elements of Psychophysics
have the same author. There are two things and one column in the author. But do not
you see when the developmental principles of both are connected and co-
ordinated. In the realm of experience, based on experience, as psychophysics does,
and still based on it, only with the requisite generalization, extension, Increasing the
points of view, as the theory of the day does, are not all that different. The
fundamental connection between the two teachings proves itself, too, that the first
germ of psycho-physics emerged from the first description of the day-view-I did not
even give it that name before (Zendavesta II. 373), and that in some final sections of
the Elements of Psychophysics (XLV and XLVI) it is shown how generalizations
from psychophysics can be used to arrive at the daytime view.
Similar to the content of the day view, it deals with the principles of development
of this content. Individually, nothing is new, only the unanimous combination of
everything that can be based on is new. From time immemorial conclusions have
been made from the given to the non-given, and one-sided conclusions of the kind
extend even to the most general, highest and last things; From time immemorial
practical and historical points of view have helped to support or justify religious
beliefs. The view of the day has only the new, that it does not allow one or the other,
but lets all these paths pass without their one-sidednesses and half-measures, and
seeks in the greatest possible harmony all the possible assurance of the faith (IV. IX).
Whatever may be old or new in the view of the day, this writing contains nothing
essentially new, insofar as it essentially only carries out the content of earlier
writings, in some cases in a shorter form, partly in a wider sense or in other
directions, partly in others, sometimes also probably the same turns. Why is she
doing it? Well, first of all, because that look from the bench into the green, it seemed
as if from a fresh germ, then because a tree, the first blows of the ax put on him feels
little, can fall from a last blow, if this only the first like; finally, because at all:
" Nunquam satis dicitur, quod nunquam satis disciture ".
Following is the list of earlier writings, which partly complement each other in the
presentation of the daily view, and partly from different points of view, but in the
present one, in a certain way, sum up according to the time sequence of their first
appearance.
1) The booklet of life after death. l. Edition. Dresden. Grimmer. 1836.
2nd edition Leipzig, Voss, 1866.
2) On the highest good. Leipzig, Breitkopf and Härtel 1846.
3) Nanna, or about the psychic life of plants. Leipzig, Voss 1848.
4) Zendavesta or about the things of heaven and the hereafter from the
point of view of nature. Leipzig, Voss, 1851. 3 Tle.
5) On the soul question, a walk through the visible nature to find
the invisible. Leipzig, Amelang 1861.
6) The three motives and reasons of faith. Leipzig, Breitkopf and
Härtel. 1863.
7) Some ideas on the history of the creation and development of
organisms. Leipzig, Breitkopf and Härtel, 1873.
The connection of the day view with physics through the synechological view (to
be compared in the following section XXII) can be found in the 28th section of the
"Physical and Philosophical Theory of the Atom" (1st edition, 1855, 2nd edition,
1864) Related to psychopsysics in Sections 45 and 46 of the second part of the
Elements of Psychophysics (1860); the connection between these and aesthetics is at
least touched in the preschool of aesthetics (1876, I, 37). "The writing:" Professor
Schleiden and the moon "(1856) can be considered as a kind of contribution to the
history of the day.
Of the first mentioned writings, the "three motives" and "the question of the soul"
are the most suitable for introduction to the whole doctrine, the former especially in
principle, the latter by their treatment of some main themes. The content of both is
returned in this document only shortly. The most in-depth, sometimes indisputably
broad, is the doctrine developed in the 3 volumes of "Zendavesta," the third of which
deals with immortality on the most varied pages, while in the "booklet" it is shorter
and perhaps more appealing. The ethical side of the day view, to which this writing
refers only incidentally, is particularly represented in the writing "About the highest
good".
It is true that there are some points of departure of this writing from those earlier
writings, of which special mention must be made. The most essential deviation from
the formal side, insofar as it has extended its influence to the whole course of the
consideration, without leading to substantially different results, may lie in the fact
that in the present the reference to the desolation of the world from the point of view
of the night-view is the result but in those earlier ones the starting point is taken from
positive analogies, contextual and original considerations of a larger style. One can in
particular complain of each of these modes of departure, if one wishes to find the
justification of the whole view of the day therein; but the day view can not at all be
reasonably substantiated from a single point of view or a single page, but every
moment of it has to contribute to holding the whole. However, a few supplementary
observations on the starting point taken here are still contained in one of the last
sections (XXIV).
In fact, the question of freedom in the 16th section of this text is conceived and
treated in a different way than in Zendavesta I, 374 ff. And Üb. D. Soul question 217
ff. Some like the earlier view of the still prefer newer, which still seems to me with
their greater determination at the same time to combine greater clarity, inner strength
and practical applicability, provided that the decision and recovery happens rather in
the sense of the Day as night view. Because that changes the viewpoints, conditions
and consequences of the decision. On the other hand, earlier in the "Ideas for the
History of Creation" the one in Zendavesta II, 174 ff., From the development of the
organic kingdom; other points of deviance of more secondary importance between
the present and the earlier writings not to commemorate.
All this, it will be said, proves, however, that the day-to-day view, so sophisticated
and confident against the night view, can for its part waver and err.
It is true, but it is also admitted from the outset (p. 17), for the modesty of the day's
view in relation to the night view does not lack the modesty of day in its own field.
 The solid essence of the day view rests in the three basic points of the third and the
three principles of faith of the ninth section. Those who adhere to these principles and
principles, the first of which rely on the latter, are thus committed to the day view and
not only determine their world view from the most general and the highest point of
view, but also the main direction of their development. As one abandons, abandons or
denies any of those factual or formal moments of the day's view, one enters the
darkness, one-sidedness, contradictions, desolation, deep divisions of the night
view. But the three principles of faith are admittedly not principles of absolute
knowledge, but merely principles of progress for greater certainty, the more one
proceeds in proper application of the same; and the task of developing a world view
on all sides and determinations is too great for its first attempts to be perfected. And
so it will certainly not be this attempt, and have to be modest, if only reason and
facility of the same prove their durability. Not only will every book that uses those
principles better than this be above this book, but the book itself acknowledges that
such can exist, while asserting that only by the use of its principles does such exist
can, and that the contradiction against the night view with it must be all the more
resounding. as that first attempts of the same could be accomplished. And so it will
certainly not be this attempt, and have to be modest, if only reason and facility of the
same prove their durability. Not only will every book that uses those principles better
than this be above this book, but the book itself acknowledges that such can exist,
while asserting that only by the use of its principles does such exist can, and that the
contradiction against the night view with it must be all the more resounding. as that
first attempts of the same could be accomplished. And so it will certainly not be this
attempt, and have to be modest, if only reason and facility of the same prove their
durability. Not only will every book that uses those principles better than this be
above this book, but the book itself acknowledges that such can exist, while asserting
that only by the use of its principles does such exist can, and that the contradiction
against the night view with it must be all the more resounding.

IX. The three belief principles of the day view.

All faith, and above all, religious faith, depends in fact on three motives, and, to be
the right, depends on three reasons, which are but the purifying and generalizing of
one-sided, crude, and imperfectly valid motives here and there , In detail this is
discussed in the more mentioned paper "the three motives and reasons of faith". Here
it may be sufficient to reproduce from it the utterance of the three reasons,
distinguished as theoretical, practical and historical principle, in a somewhat
abbreviated version.
On no one of these principles, faith alone has to be based. Man can fail in
generalizing what he knows can fail in what he thinks is best, and history has always
made mistakes on both sides; Thus, the three principles must monitor each other in
such a way that they lead to the same goal only in different ways. Depending on the
task, the way may be pursued here or there, preferably in the sense of the one and the
other principle, and, of course, where the theory is concerned, only the theoretical
principle can be the guiding principle; but always with consideration that there is no
contradiction on the part of the other principle, the mediation of inaccessible
contradictions.
Theoretical principle.
the farther and the higher we look into the experienceable area, and to take full
account of the difference that results from the greater distance, breadth, and height of
the area. From more different points of departure, where conclusions in these ways
unanimously meet, the faith will thereby be supported more surely.
Practical principle
Every erroneous and inadequate assumption proves to be such as to be perceived as
being detrimental to the influence it has on our thoughts, feelings, and actions, or to
detracting from human happiness by turning us into disgusting ones Moods and
wrong actions are involved, which are partly followed directly by unpleasure,
dissatisfaction, and partly by unpleasant consequences; whereas the truth of a
presupposition proves itself by the opposite of all this. This sentence proves itself all
the more, the greater influence error or truth gains on our feeling, thinking, acting, on
a larger perimeter of people and the longer duration it extends, while an error without
considerable intervention in our remaining feeling, thinking , Act, for a single human
being or small circle of people and for a short time may well seem satisfactory and
useful. Thus, after all, only faith can be considered to be the truest, which, according
to the totality of its relationship, is most wholesome to mankind; according to which a
conclusion must be made from the goodness of a faith to its truth.
Historical principle.
If there is a belief in the existence of something that is not directly subject to
experience, then there must be any reason, conscious or unconscious, of the area of
existences that produces that belief, or needs in man that drive it , Every, even the
most erroneous, faith has reasons of its kind, though not always universally
permissible, but often merely one-sided, partial, selfish, which, by inadequate
preponderance or ineffective generalization, produce the false faith or the false in the
faith. With this in mind, the validity and the goodness of a faith can be more likely to
be inferred, the more general and unanimous, with the greater durability and
effectiveness,

X. The Theology of the Day View.

l. Factual.

If we decide, in the sense of the daily view, to believe in a true bond of all
consciousness in a supreme and ultimate unified consciousness according to the
image of the consciousness which transcends our own spiritual realm, we must have
only the highest extension and elevation of the viewpoint to believe it.
First of all, we have to believe that God, under what name we worship the supreme,
unified conscious being, only knows everything that his creatures know, as he himself
knows, more and more than all, and not, as some think, only one transcendental
consciousness of man, as others think, of an only immanent consciousness in man,
but one with the other.
Knowing everything that His creatures know, God also knows about their
ignorance and errors without sharing them, because they are only a matter of the parts
that do not know as much about the whole as the whole knows about them. Some do
not believe or doubt God Himself, even though He is in God, but that does not mean
that God does not believe or doubt His own existence because the individual is not
God. God sees the unbelief of man as good as faith, and has means in his world order
to promote the faith, to obliterate unbelief, and applies it in that sense; for faith has
always over-grown unbelief, and will, no matter how much it is, overgrow it. But if
God does not suddenly raise the errors and unbelief, it is written on the same page, as
why he does not suddenly raise the evil at all; and, for example, those who give an
unlimited almighty power to God can better say why he does not do it suddenly?
Secondly, we have to believe that God also embraces the conscious tendencies of
all his creatures at the same time, and overreaches them with higher tendencies,
which ultimately determine the direction of the course of the world as a whole, that of
the finite creatures not only with, but also against his supreme tendencies, say, for a
moment, against God's will, as well as in us lower impulses against our higher
will. But with that they can not change the direction of the course of the world as a
whole, but must, in the final analysis, turn themselves in the direction set forth from
above, as long as the divine will runs against everything that is against it, but helps
everything that goes in its direction.
Let us imagine a main stream with many small tributaries. They may flow into him
in a direction that runs with or against his, hereby against the main direction of the
whole branch of the stream, and let their water flow away for some time against that
direction in him, but can not, and must not, reverse this direction with their
countercurrent finally follow the same.
Thirdly, we have to believe that God feels all pleasure, all joy, the highest bliss, but
also all unpleasure, pain, suffering, the highest pain of his creatures in a lower realm
of his being, but at the same time reaching beyond all creaturely aspirations and
faculties It has inherent powers and self-possession in the finite equalization,
uplifting, and reconciliation of all the evils of the world, and feels in itself a higher
desire of advancing toward this goal, which transcends all lesser displeasure.
No evil, which we ourselves perceive as such, appears in us with our will or our
free admission; but as we experience evil, our instincts are directed, and it is not able
to lift it by direct counteraction, but our will against it, and puts into effect more
general means, though only through another course of time. It will not be different in
God. Where evil is felt in the world - and what is nowhere felt, whether direct or in
its consequences as such, is no evil - it is felt in God and hereby by God; and
immediately a lower impulse is directed in him, and where he does not reach, a
higher will, which both can still fall into his creatures, but where the highest will of
the creature is not enough, the highest will of the Creator,
But we must also be patient, if the evil is not suddenly and suddenly lifted, enough
that we can see the tendency to do so in the divine order of things, and trust God that
he can finally lift it. The impossibility of lifting it at once depends on the same
primordial conditions of existence, on which the existence of the evil in it depends,
but also the possible means of its elevation; God knows in his omniscience about
these means, and knows to come to the end with the smallest costs and by the shortest
possible way. These costs can seem great to us and these ways long; but the world
evil with which God has to deal is not small in itself.
True, it runs hard against the common belief of a purely blessed God to think the
unspeakable pain and suffering of his creatures felt by him. Moreover, if we had to
relate the name of God merely to the abstract culmination of spiritual existence,
rather than to refer to the realm under which it was conceived, we would return to the
sublime conception of the divine being in general, above all suffering of his
creatures. But as good as the man feels the sufferings that strike him in a lower realm
of his being, despite his sublimity from a higher point of view, after all, as suffering,
and feels his will to eliminate it, it will be with God, if we in him to grasp the whole
connection of his nature. There is also a great value for man in the idea that in this
regard God is the same from a higher point of view than man; and all philosophy and
theology, which, by virtue of their abstract concept of God, also abstract from their
ancient participation in the sufferings of his creatures, have no substitute for the idea
that God, if he feels them like his own, feels these sufferings as well as his the
appropriate addition of the funds will lift.
How can one ever have love and trust in a God who, according to the traditional
idea of his omnipotence, spared himself all suffering and thus bestowed his creatures
with it. If they had to be suffering at all, and only because they had to be, could they
be, then the being, which includes all spiritual existent, must naturally also grasp all
the sufferings of this existence, but at the same time with the impulse to lift them. and
a stronger reason of trust in God in our sufferings, we believe differently in God, we
can not find at all. Yes, God will outweigh even greater and higher sufferings than we
feel, which arise from relationships which reach beyond the individual creature, the
sufferings of whole generations, times and peoples, not merely as the sum of the
individual sufferings. but as the feeling of the source of their sufferings; but likewise
he will carry in himself supplements and reconciliations of these sufferings from a
higher point of view, which reach beyond us, and above all the joy of turning
everything to the best, bearing in mind the forethought of this turn, that the
unpleasure awoke by disharmony in music is already reconciled in advance, and in its
success more than compensated by the subsequent dissolution in harmony. What we
already have in the finite course of a short music, God has in the whole course of
world affairs, without having to wait for the success of all dissolution to eternity; for
in every time pleasurable progressions will lead to harmonious conclusions, and even
to larger or smaller circles.
2. Linguistic.
That we enter into God with all the defects, errors, and sufferings of our
knowledge, of will, of feeling, does not hinder that God, at the highest stage of his
being, has an absolute perfection according to old categories according to which we
judge perfection: only in the lower It can not be found in areas of its mind. And it can
be asked, however, what the above thought was, whether, instead of the whole
intellectual existence, which was overshadowed by a unified consciousness, one had
only to consider the most general, and at the same time the highest and the best, as
the summit of spiritual existence as God. As important as this question seems, it is
more a question of language than matter. For whether one calls the supreme or the
whole of spiritual existence God, The relations from below to above, and vice versa,
remain the same; only in the literal sense of the word do they appear as outer between
God and a lower region, otherwise as inner between an upper and a lower region in
God. The first is better suited to the living language. and conceptual usage - and
should not you have as much as possible of it? for one uses only the most general, the
highest and the best in God to seek and to see the world of finiteness and peculiarities
deep below him; but then it is only an abstraction, what one calls God, which is as
little able to exist as the highest unit of consciousness, will, and feeling in us; and
according to the most common concepts God should have an independence over all
spirits; Thus, in such a version, we come into contradiction with ourselves. We also
lose the fact that we call God a spirit in other sense than our own mind, by which we
do not merely understand an abstraction of the highest and the best, the conceptual
and technical reference points. that can be found between the divine spirit and our
spirits. And if the daily view is not concerned with these points of reference, it must
also be preferred to the manner of apprehending and describing the divine essence,
which permits this comparison. that can be found between the divine spirit and our
spirits. And if the daily view is not concerned with these points of reference, it must
also be preferred to the manner of apprehending and describing the divine essence,
which permits this comparison. that can be found between the divine spirit and our
spirits. And if the daily view is not concerned with these points of reference, it must
also be preferred to the manner of apprehending and describing the divine essence,
which permits this comparison.
It does not really matter what you want to call God, but whether the whole spiritual
area of the world follows the same principle in itself contiguous and ascending, only
in greater breadth and higher ascent, expanded and expanded, as our own, and
whether our spirit itself enters into this structure as a subordinate member. We
believe, in the sense of the day's view, that this is so, that we have the only means in
the creation and development of our own minds to give us an idea of that of the
whole Spirit. But if that is so, then we shall have a name for this whole spirit, and
find no other than God. He is the one and only and self-sufficient, who exists; and
what spirit would fall out of him would not be; but also the divine spirit would not be
without its content, to which the creaturely spirits belong; only that the divine is not
merely the sum of them, but with higher relationships and one supreme unit all
transcends. The day view must break with many traditional concepts, so it must break
with many uses of words; The traditional use of the term for God, however, is only
the consequence of the conventional night view.
In the meantime, insofar as the most general, the highest and the best can only be
found in God, one may, after all, be concerned with this point of view, as is usually
the case in the religious interest, God in a narrower sense as the representative of the
most general, the highest and the most To contrast the best of a world full of
shortcomings with it, and thus to conform to the prevailing concept, but from a more
general point of view not forget that this conceptual comparison does not exclude that
factual agreement. Language does not have so many words as expanses and
expressions of concepts, and so the context must often decide between them; enough,
if he really enough, to decide; and this may also apply to our sooner, now more
narrowly conceived, now so forth, now so well-advanced concepts of God.
One can broaden the question, asking whether we should not include in the concept
of God also the whole material sphere which is seized by his consciousness. But the
same answer returns: it is only a matter of language than of matter; because the
relationships between the spirit and the material world do not change with it. If one
includes the whole world in God, one is a pantheist, although not in the sense in
which one is afraid of the world today, as if the personality of God succumbed, and
rather in the unity of consciousness, which distinguishes much in itself than can be
searched in the distinction of other. If one does not include the world, then one puts
God over the world and above, and yet both can have the same view of the relation of
spiritual and material existence. It is similar, as one may ask, whether one has to
reckon with man also his body or to regard the body merely as an externality related
to the actual human being. If one wishes to adhere to the view expressed later
(section XXI) that the material world is only the side of the external appearance of
the same essence, which according to its inner appearance is the spirit of the world,
then one can either God the whole being or just to call only the side of inner
appearance, but the relationship between the two sides remains the same. And if,
instead of that view, one wants to put another view for the relation between spiritual
and material world, so you will always have the same choice; for there is no view that
would not have a point of view of distinctness between matter and mind, even if it
removes the distinction in a higher unity. If God, as the embodiment of all existence,
is to have the most general, highest, and most independent significance, then in any
case the spiritual and material worlds will have to be regarded only as distinct
moments in God; If one follows the usual usage of language and concepts, then one
will have to distinguish divine existence as merely spiritual from material
existence. In order not to get completely out of context with the usage of language,
we follow here in general the second version, that is to say, in the whole of existence
we distinguish God as the spiritual and a world as the material side of existence, not
forgetting that both can be lifted into such a unity to demand a common name for
which we are again only concerned Names of God would be found; but the demand
of distinction meets us more often than that of decline to that connection.
 Instead of confronting God and the world as the spiritual and material side of
existence, we can finally, without regard to this distinction, speak of a world of
creatures towards God, by classifying creatures in the sense of the day view as being
especially distinguishable entities of them confronting the whole divine
existence; while the night view also sets an external one for this inner
relationship. And so the concept of the world can take a different turn from God as
well as the concept of God itself, always following the turn of the latter in opposite
directions.
3. The immutability of the divine essence.
One of the qualities that one attributes to God is one with the uppermost, that is the
immutability of his nature. But it should not be the immutability of a stone; One
speaks no less of a living God, even seeking in him the fullness of life; But life is not
without change. How to avoid or mediate the contradiction? Some people think so:
what appears to us as a succession, is unchanging for God at the same time; but that
would be basically the immutability of a stone; and should not exist for God as the
form of intuition of time as for us, since we as his sub-beings can only have such
things of Himself. The night view would go to the, among their many occasional
sometimes occurring thoughts, that we are in God and God in us, only seriously
one, it could not even be a dispute about it. But all the same, once the view of the
temporal course of things for us exists, we can imagine the world government and the
course of the world no differently than under its form, and we ask ourselves: are there
any other than those connected with other abstruses? Abstruse immutability in God
and nothing in it, whether it is abolished in him or even externally dependent on his
imaginary world, what we have to the immutable in God himself? Certainly
something can be found, it is the law existing in and through all changes of the
spiritual and material world, all binding, the connection of all mediating law,
according to which, whether spiritual or material, causes, conditions always and
everywhere, today as well Tomorrow, here and there, the same consequences will
flow and only in a way determined by law. God rules the whole course of the world
with this law, founded on God's unchangeable being or on the unchangeable support
of his being. Without this, and without God, no hair falls from our heads. A break of
this law somewhere and someday would be a break in God's essence itself. God does
not say, I could, I want, should I do it one way or another, but he does it just as the
determinations of his lawful will, knowledge, Acting, being as a result of the earlier
determinations of his will, knowledge, action, being. That makes him a solid, some
and whole being. It is said: God first gave the laws of the world to the world; but he
could not give her to her without having her, and she could not give it to her in a
finite time, if she had always been in him. And is it a pity for us that it is so? It would
be a pity if the law of God's will, knowledge, action, led to disaster for us; But if we
have to believe the contrary in the sense of the daily view, we have to enjoy a
legalism that leads safely and without wavering to the goal.
Freedom is not excluded at all with the all-binding law, only a lawless, a gratuitous
freedom is excluded, of which one speaks, as if there were no other, a freedom,
according to which a subject, God himself as supreme subject, behaves like that or so
can decide, without his previous being, yes, the whole previous nature of mental and
material things contains sufficient reasons of the decision, the decision only where,
not from where, the decision to evil as easy as for the good. But there is another
freedom, according to which man wants so well, that he can defend himself against
external compulsion, that he can unfold his essence into an inexhaustibility of ever
new determinations out of himself, as he has hitherto done, only that the legal eternal
order of things thereby does not suffer a break, a freedom which God has unlimited
power over all his creatures, creatures as his sub-beings, but only in a measure
limited by their subordination to God. The contemplation of this and the difficult
questions connected with it are reserved for another section (XVI), whereas a later
(XVII) discusses the most general law.

XI. To the soul question.

If, according to the daily view, not only men and animals, but even plants and stars
have their own soul, will not the crystal also be considered as such? Well, I mean,
that's the way it is. If the light is not only seen in people and animals, but also seen
beyond, its brightness, its shine, its color - and that is a basic point of the day
view; the general mind is the vessel of all this sensation; so will the special way in
which a crystal breaks the light be felt in a special way; and how the crystal turns
against the light, or this turns against it, or turns against it, always different, and yet
in a manner conditioned by its internal structure and the relation of its axes, without
the sensation overlapping with that of other crystals. If you want to count that as a
matter of a special soul, then you are free; in any case, you are not hindered by the
fact that it is the general mind that has these sensations; the same spirit also has all
your sensations, memories, etc .; but does he distinguish you from other spirits and do
you have your own soul with it? why not the crystal in the same sense. And so the
diamond would have refined the most beautiful of all these little souls, the polished
one even formed by education; and most beautiful, if it is the diamond on the finger
of one who has an even higher and more beautiful soul in the head over it. in any
case, you are not hindered by the fact that it is the general mind that has these
sensations; the same spirit also has all your sensations, memories, etc .; but does he
distinguish you from other spirits and do you have your own soul with it? why not the
crystal in the same sense. And so the diamond would have refined the most beautiful
of all these little souls, the polished one even formed by education; and most
beautiful, if it is the diamond on the finger of one who has an even higher and more
beautiful soul in the head over it. in any case, you are not hindered by the fact that it
is the general mind that has these sensations; the same spirit also has all your
sensations, memories, etc .; but does he distinguish you from other spirits and do you
have your own soul with it? why not the crystal in the same sense. And so the
diamond would have refined the most beautiful of all these little souls, the polished
one even formed by education; and most beautiful, if it is the diamond on the finger
of one who has an even higher and more beautiful soul in the head over it. why not
the crystal in the same sense. And so the diamond would have refined the most
beautiful of all these little souls, the polished one even formed by education; and
most beautiful, if it is the diamond on the finger of one who has an even higher and
more beautiful soul in the head over it. why not the crystal in the same sense. And so
the diamond would have refined the most beautiful of all these little souls, the
polished one even formed by education; and most beautiful, if it is the diamond on
the finger of one who has an even higher and more beautiful soul in the head over it.
But the sensations of diamonds left no memories in his soul, he will not reflect on
his feelings, they will arise and by external accidental influences in it pass away
without it was to repeat itself, at its own periodicity or retrain for something new; and
do you want to say that the diamond does not have a soul? it is up to you, on which
you want to tie the expression soul. And has not one already made the most extensive
use of this freedom? Even talked of souls without any sensation, so far, even for the
plants allowed those without thereby allow sensation for them, and then again only
souls want to accept that not only feel but also know that they are feeling. Can I limit
the freedom of words, and hinder the controversy of the night view about the use of
words? it would be shortened by half its philosophy.
By the plants, I do not mean that they have a higher, reflective consciousness of
any kind, but that they live in a succession and periodic development of sensations
and urges in which the crystal does not yet live, but the newborn child already living
in it. Even this can not yet say to itself: I feel, and when I first immerse myself in the
stimuli of the outside world, I do not yet come to remember the past, but continue in
the river of the present; and so too, I mean, is it with the plant; but later the child
comes, while the plant never gets to it; it does not have the faculty to do so, but from
some point of view it always remains at the level of the newborn child, and from
another at the level of a female character, it stands opposite the animal and man. Of
these, the first already has memory, but not yet self-reflection, the grown man, is he
different from the rude Negro, even these. But I want that earlier in this respect
elsewhere1) Do not run again here of the wider one.
1) In "Nanna" and "About the Soul Question".

So now there are differences, stages manifold in the individual way, how the
consciousness develops and operates; and one should not argue about the name soul
for this or that stage - what is to be inferred from a word that one did not first put into
it - but merely ask about the thing about which a dispute of factual interest alone
is. One could only see in other souls as in one's own, in order to decide the dispute
about it.
From a very general point of view, the following question arises: since the material
process in connection with the world reaches out to which relationship the spiritual
distinction is linked, whether it be sensations or that it concerns entire spirits. To start
from facts, as always, I start with two examples of them.
 The sky is full of stars by day and night and yet we do not see a star by day. Why
not? Each star adds to the sky by day in the place where it stands, as much brightness
as the sky at night. It is true, but its difference from the surrounding brightness to
which it is as it were placed, is relatively low by day, and as it is too low in relation to
it, we do not differentiate it more from the environment, it elapses in the general
Brightness. Even at dusk, therefore, most stars disappear.
The playing of a violin is clearly heard when it is played in our vicinity for itself or
during weak daytime noise. But if there is a tremendous folk turmoil, it is still heard
in the general noise and helps to multiply it, but its play is no longer particularly
distinguished; it flows in the general impression. But if one needed only to reinforce
it sufficiently, it would be differentiated again. Also difference of quality of game
adds to the remaining noise to make it easier to distinguish from it.
Insofar as the sensations of light and sound are linked to physical processes in us
which rise and fall with external exciting causes, we shall have to say that sensations
can only be distinguished in our consciousness insofar as they are special and
discriminate against each other as the underlying physical processes differ beyond a
certain limit, the so-called difference threshold, from the neighboring and thus mixing
ones, taking into account both quantity and quality of difference.
If we generalize the previous law, then the entire areas of consciousness of man and
beast within world-consciousness will be distinguished only insofar as the material
processes which carry the consciousness of men and animals differ from the
surrounding general process beyond a certain limit ; otherwise they flow away in the
general consciousness of the world-spirit, and while they still help to lift the same in
the whole, without, however, distinguishing themselves in a distinguishable way over
the whole. In-depth is acted on by these conditions in my elements of psychophysics.

XII. The doctrine of the hereafter 1) .

The materialist laughs at the belief in a second life because he sees in death the
conditions of the first destroyed. But he does not laugh at the belief that everything
that happens in the physical sphere produces indefinitely consequences in the
physical sphere, or that we can not pursue them, in short that the causality of cause
and effect does not die in the physical sphere ; Why does he laugh at the belief that
even causality in the spiritual realm does not die, and that it is carried by causality in
the physical sphere beyond death, just as in life itself. But nothing else wants the faith
of the day view.
l)In part, the basic considerations of V-5 have been reduced to somewhat
different forms, sometimes with explanatory and supplementary
considerations. The no longer too immediate consideration of spiritism is
postponed to the 23rd section. To motivate this provisional deferment here
some, the whole judgment in this regard anticipatory words. In my opinion,
spiritualism can only be admitted as a fact It is an exceptional displacement of
 the normal relationships between the beyond and the here which, like the mad
states of this world, keeps certain relations with the normal in common,
without granting a pure expression of the normal or allowing a certain
inference. Finally, however, the possibility and the fact of abnormal
circumstances must be taken into account.

The pessimist regrets the belief in a second life, asking: is not enough of the misery
of the first life; Let us thank God, or rather the unconscious, for there is no other God
that takes us back in himself and thereby releases the continuation of misery in a
second life; even if he, with the thought of the onward continuation of misery, reveals
the thoughts of his otherworldly reconciliation and reconciliation, and finds no music
in this world concluding with a dissonance, and thus could even imagine the misery
with which many a life closes here that the dissociating life is not complete at all.
The pantheist, what is called today so neat, says to the man who lived: the Moor
has done his duty, the Moor can go, the world will go away without him; the stream
passes, the wave passes, and out of the old waves new ones are formed, which carry
on the stream without themselves being led far away from it, since they have to make
room again; the individual life goes to the claim of wanting to be more than a
vanishing moment of the eternal as finite. Although the pantheist sees that you do not
build a pyramid with them, you tear down the old steps again and again to build the
new ones out of them, and a tree does not continue to grow because the old branches
repeatedly crawl into the trunk; and the current just because of this always remains
the old one without development, because it is the waves,
The monadologue unites with the unity at the same time the richness of conscious
life to a simple being or atom, which, when the body is destroyed, remains intact, and
saves the soul with content gained through bodily mediation. Nothing easier than
that, only with the difficulty, after the destruction of the old body of the soul, to create
a new body for the preservation and development of orderly relations with the outside
world, and with the reservation that the monadologue gives up God, to the soul of
man rescue; for in vain is the attempt to attach the name and concept of God to a
simple being, and thus at the same time to save the unity of the divine Consciousness
and the monadological consequence.
The dogma and who is trained by it saves the body with the soul at the same time
by believing in a resurrection of the body with the soul, by eliminating the difficulty
of the conception of such resurrection by rejecting any attempt to solve it, and by
completely differentiating the new life of the first life and of its image, only prettier
in heaven and worse in hell, professing to know as much as anything about it, and
scolding every one who fancies to know or miss more. Although one should think
that when a second life really comes from the first, there must also be a traceable
thread of the connection between the two.
 And this is precisely the point of view from which the daily view not only clings to
the belief in a second life, but, following the thread, also seeks to shed some light on
the way to the hereafter and into the same.
In fact, the most general point of view, from which the day view can be thought of
as an otherworldly conscious life, and at the same time the only one from which to
think in the end, is that with which we confronted the materialist from the outset.
If we ask what sustains the continuity of an identical consciousness from childhood
to the present age on the same body, despite the fact that the substance and form of
the body have changed, then it is the circumstance that the later body has grown out
of the former Carrier of the former consciousness has produced consequences to
which consciousness again attaches itself; and if we ask ourselves what the
consciousness-relation of memory preserves to the intuition from which it has grown,
it is again the fact that what the memory carries in us is a consequence of what
intuition carried in us. So this principle applies to the continuity of consciousness in
general, as far as we can pursue it in this world, and so we will be able to give it also
from this world to the hereafter.
On the second principle of experience, however, the sinking of consciousness in a
realm of conscious life itself becomes the condition of ascension in something
connected or arising from it. But there is no simultaneously more complete, deeper
and lasting sinking of consciousness in the present body and life than death, and
therefore no stronger condition for the awakening of the otherworldly being, which is
produced out of the present conscious bodily life, which is just as little abstractly
guided by matter as the death of the present one.
These are the two principles on which the doctrine of the hereafter was already
fundamentally supported in the first part, and which will also be supported.
Closer on, the consequences of the present conscious life are divided into two,
those that are in the same body, and that contribute to chaining life to the present
body, and those that are about it which the future life attaches to, while remaining,
when the present body melts. But the consequences of this earthly life in the same
body, during the course of this life, are perpetually converted into those which are at
stake by attacking the body, with the latter still dying, so that the whole inner wealth
of this narrow circle of life has been transformed into death in only the otherworldly
of its consequences, and the present narrow body is in fact only one passage point for
all. With all the visible and audible consequences of the afterlife, in actions, words,
writing and other works, through which the effects of the spirit are carried beyond his
body, the finest nervous vibration must give its contribution, invisible and inaudible
to us, by doing so It can only be internally extinguished by the fact that, even if it is
partly transposed into another form, it passes over to the outside. And so coherent in
itself, so manifold, so entangled, so capable of development, and ever evolving in the
same character is the circle of initial conditions, it must be the circle of consequences
which can be explained by the following picture, if only weak. through which the
effects of the spirit are carried beyond his body, the finest nervous vibration must
give its contribution, invisible and inaudible to us, in that it can only be internally
extinguished by going over to the external, even if it is partly transformed into
another form , And so coherent in itself, so manifold, so entangled, so capable of
development, and ever evolving in the same character is the circle of initial
conditions, it must be the circle of consequences which can be explained by the
following picture, if only weak. through which the effects of the spirit are carried
beyond his body, the finest nervous vibration must give its contribution, invisible and
inaudible to us, in that it can only be internally extinguished by going over to the
external, even if it is partly transformed into another form , And so coherent in itself,
so manifold, so entangled, so capable of development, and ever evolving in the same
character is the circle of initial conditions, it must be the circle of consequences
which can be explained by the following picture, if only weak.
When a swan floats in the water-to compare it with the life-course of a human-all
wave propagation, starting from its orbit, as far as it is drawn, remains coherent; the
later ones intervene in the earlier ones, and contribute to the further development of
the whole system by new regulations, not only those which proceed from the swan's
own path, but also those which originate from the orbits of other swans in the same
water intervene, without losing the relationship of each wave system to the original
trajectory and its dependent character of the same.
The example does not hold true only in that the consequences left by the life of a
man on this earth do not proceed from his external life but from his inner life or
processes of life; but in regard to the continuing connection, the entanglement, the
capacity for development, and the development of the wider circle of life which the
closer struggles with, it is quite true, insofar as the consequential effects dependent on
the inner life-cycle are subject to no other conditions in this respect than those of the
outer, rather only to think of an even more complicated mesh.
Of course, it would be difficult to imagine that the full decline of the narrower
circle of life below the threshold of consciousness in death suddenly and suddenly
turned it over into an elevation of the whole further circle of life; for it can only
directly benefit one circle, which escapes the other, but which does not suddenly lift
the whole wide circle through what escapes the narrower in its last phase. But just
because of other reasons we have no such idea. Even in this world, everything that
can awake within us is suddenly awake; Soon the eye, now the ear, now this watch,
now that remembrance, while the rest sleeps in unconsciousness until the turn comes
to pass in the alternation and subsequent play of spiritual life, in that, in addition to
the already given conditions of consciousness, a new one suffices to bring about a
sufficient rise in the threshold at this point or in this respect. And so the total sinking
of the circle of life on the one side into death below the threshold is to be regarded as
a condition whereby the consciousness of the last phase of life of man changes
directly into the consequences of this phase, but from whence it is not only To find
further and freer ways of wandering through the possession of the past life, as in this
world itself, but also on larger worlds can interlink. In doing so, association laws and
other psychic laws will spread from this world to the hereafter,
 Faith in the hereafter, when we encounter it, appears as a sibling with faith in
God; but by letting the otherworldly as well as the worldly spirits lead their lives
beyond God, or taking back in the thing what one admits in words, the life of both
loses its common ground and its bond, falls apart without relation, without mediation,
wins the doubt and the denial space. Let us, however, be serious in believing that all
spiritual life, the otherworldly as well as the worldly, is established in God, and that
the divine spiritual stepwise construction reaches beyond us on the same principle as
into us, so we also become the otherworldly life above that as if by itself they fit into
this stage construction. Without the otherworldly life of his creatures, God lacked the
full height of the spiritual structure above their worldly life; without entering into
God, the otherworldly existence lacked spiritual support and ground. For, radiating
into a dead nature, the after-effects of our lives also remained dead.
And so we have already presented it in the past in such a way that, as above the life
of intuition in us, an adult life of remembrance builds up with higher spiritual
processes, which are further weaving out of it, then in our whole worldly life a higher
and higher one in God. Now the scope, the strength, the durability of the memories,
and the amount of interrelationship between them, increases with the breadth,
strength, and height of the spirit they enter into, only in this respect do we compare
our memory life with that of animals; but the divine spirit, in breadth, strength, and
height, unspeakably exceeds our spirits; So our memory life in God will be led in an
unspeakably wider scope with quite different strength and durability and on a higher
level of consciousness than the life of the memories in us.
We forget much, the animals even more, the plants will remember nothing at
all; our memory pictures are weak; we can not recall many memories at once; but all
these are defects of our memory life, which depend on the one hand on the
incomparable narrowness and weakness of our spirit on the one hand, and on the fact
that the echo of an intuition in man in himself can not have the same power and
fullness as the echo of a whole Human life in God. Thus, from the point of view of
equality, the point of view of the difference between the small this-world and the
other-world, which enters into us and the great into which we ourselves enter, must
always be recorded. In effect, we gain the assets by death
In the very fact that the otherworldly relations of life on the material as well as on
the spiritual side appear not merely as an inference, but at the same time as an
extension and exaltation of this world, lies a difficulty in the intuition of their
conception for us, which we are still under the conditions of this narrow life Find. We
are accustomed to the old, compact, body, laboriously walking from one place to
another, or horses and horses, for easier locomotion, and although we want the future
life to be a whole new, the present surpassing, and In order to avail ourselves of the
means, we should not, in presenting them, easily go beyond the contradiction with the
old-fashioned form of life, and emerge difficulties, partly dependent on us, The
conditions of the narrow form of conscious life, which we do not find in the
substratum of the new, confused with the conditions of conscious life, mean that if it
is with them, let alone with us, and partly that we are the points of equations of the
future Living with the present, which still has to be found, because of the breadth and
height of the gaze required by their views. But instead of being misled by difficulties
of one kind or another, we only sharpen the gaze, and they will disappear. which still
have to be found, because of the breadth and height of the gaze required by their
views. But instead of being misled by difficulties of one kind or another, we only
sharpen the gaze, and they will disappear. which still have to be found, because of the
breadth and height of the gaze required by their views. But instead of being misled by
difficulties of one kind or another, we only sharpen the gaze, and they will disappear.
First and foremost, let us not be mistaken that our otherworldly life should be
supported by a wide range of effects, as if there could not be a unity of the
otherworldly consciousness with it; since our present conscious life is not borne not
by one point, but by a connection and a succession of effects, but these exist not only
no less for the otherworldly circle of life than for this worldly side, but also in
connection with the latter, so that we to be able to grasp the otherworldly unity
in continuity with the worldly side.
In the hereafter, the scope for the activity and development of conscious life has
become only one more, more manifold, and freer than in this world, and man has thus
been brought one step closer to the omnipresence and all-efficacy of God; Whatever
we may wish for the future life, yet we can achieve neither with the risen old body
nor with an etheric body drawn from it, since in the latter we would have only a
shortening instead of an extension of the old means.
Nor can we be mistaken that the otherworldly circles of life enter into our worldly
and interconnectedness, as if this could lead to a mutual disturbance, aberration,
confusion or even a flow of individualities. Without relying on the analogy of
undisturbed wave intersection, although the principle of the same applies to the
material underpinning of the otherworldly existence as fundamental as to the earthly
one, we adhere to direct facts that are at our command.
In fact, the ideas, institutions, and works emanating from our ancestors extend their
effects into us; but rather than being disturbed by it, it would be much more intrinsic
to us to develop, to develop; Otherwise, we would always have to start afresh with
what we receive from them in whole or in part. But that does not change, whether we
think the aftermath of the deceased's life with the deceased's mind or not. But if we
are not mistaken by their intervention in us, why should they be mistaken; On the
contrary, in the encounter with us they will also receive contrary progressions which
will contribute to their further development.
And that is only the extension and enhancement of what we already find in this
world within ourselves. In fact, in the intuitions of our senses memories, which
themselves originate from the life of intuition, continue to play a decisive role; and so
does z. Example by the vision of the likeness of a man who pretends we basically just
a colorful spot, the whole meaning of a person, we see in the house and tree, the
whole meaning of the same in and build on the sound of the words, the meaning of
the words 2 ) . On the contrary, intuitions, through every new phenomenon which they
impart, contribute to the further development and development of the memory-life,
without there being any talk of mutual disturbance, aberration, and confusion.
 2) In detail about this in the IX. Section of the "Preschool of the Aesthetics".

Even our memories themselves, however, whatever they may be attached to -

probably through interlocking waves in our brain - instead of being disturbed by their
many-sided encounters, which we can at least pursue on the spiritual side, interweave
into concepts and thoughts, without the ability to do so to lose one's own
reproduction and its relation to the outcome. A corresponding development of the
whole otherworldly life only in a higher sense may we expect from the intermeshing
of the individual otherworldly spheres of life involved in it.
You say, for example, over and over again the comparison of the otherworldly
kingdom with the realm of our memories. Beyond us, however, where the
otherworldly life is supposed to play, there are not any comparable means for a life of
remembrance. What would be our carefully, finely and artfully developed brain, if its
device was not used for the formation and storage of the memories, even for the
support of a developed psychic life. Now it is supposed to be a higher and more
richly evolved memory, into which we enter with death, while only depriving us of
the means for the present, the narrower, the lower.
But I mean, however fine and carefully a brain may be developed, it is a world
developed by church, state, science, art, commerce and commerce, social and family
life, through the baptizing and the thousands of streets, carriages, ships, books,
Letters, words, a much richer and more sophisticated organization than a single brain,
enclosing at the same time all the brains and remembrances of the brains
themselves. But a brain has only the same purpose, as the seed, of driving from the
finer structure a larger, richer, less expensive, subject to the price of the narrower into
the larger. For what everyone has contributed with this consciousness to the
development of this larger organization, he will have with otherworldly
consciousness and develop it further under the more general and further conditions of
the hereafter.
But that, too, must not be mistaken, for countless deceased in the same institutions
and effects, to which they contributed together, will share in common; each one has
his share of it in other senses, from the other side, in every direction, and in each one
the whole of them is composed in a different way. Only in such a way is it
conceivable how so many who are born one after another into the other world have
space for each other. The same world is all common property, but each in a different
way, different in sense from the other.
If, in spite of the limited, vivid form of the present body and the underground of the
future life without definite limitation, we are at first unable to think in an
incomprehensible way for the contemplation, it might well be that what is in this
world as a means of mutual recognition, reciprocal traffic and revival means are
valued by sensations of beauty and love; in the hereafter, they lose this value and
would be lost at the price of higher advantages, which can be sought in the means of
a more direct and versatile communication and the conditions therein. But I hold it, as
briefly touched earlier, more likely that the loss itself, which one worried, does not
occur, but also in this relationship, what this seems Lost, Beyond that expanded and
increased; As always, I conclude from this world on the other side. For this, however,
the following point of view is required.
The bodily processes, which are subject to the memory of the form of a living or
deceased in the brain, can no longer have this form; Rather, the reason why they still
reflect us on the figure in question is that they may have emanated from a picture in
the eye, perhaps earlier, what this figure had, and depart in the connection and order
which are the starting points had 3), And although the form of the picture in the
memory is still preserved, nevertheless, that through the same facial nerves
innumerable pictures radiate, thus the after-effects of which, on which the memories
rest, are confused. It is only necessary, in order to raise from the mixture of these
after-effects the memory of one of these pictures before the others in the
consciousness, an intentional direction of the will and the attention or an involuntary
occasion in the course of our associations, or an external
suggestion. Incomprehensible, one can say, this ability to bring the most diverse
memories especially to consciousness, since their conditions mix in the brain 4), But
the fact consists in us, and so an incomprehensible seeming fact of analogy with that
and the continuation of that beyond will be able to exist. For what has to take care of
the incomprehensibility of the thing for this continuation, if it exists as fact.
3)The fact that these processes, in spite of their spatial extension, are contracted
into the form of the original image, undeniably depends on the synechological
principle to be discussed and substantiated in the 22nd section from a more
general point of view. The intuition afforded by the picture in the eye depends
not only on the points of the retina on which the picture is painted, but on the
entire line of vibrations, which goes inward from one point of the retina, and
draws itself synechologically into the appearance of the retina Starting point
together, and in connection with the radiations emanating from the neighboring
points, gives the appearance of the whole picture, from the central points, but
further through the brain, radiating the memory of the picture.
4)The comprehensibility would have nothing to do with the fact that the
memories of material conditionality were thought to be completely
withdrawn; by claiming mystical qualities of the mind to represent the same
facts. Incidentally, experiences of detachment of memories contradict material
conditionality. Some clues to come to the aid of the imaginability of these
conditions are discussed in the second supplement at the end.

In fact, we shall now be able to imagine that the emanations which have emanated
from our visible form during life in connection with the other effects of the same, for
those who are in the kingdom beyond, still reflect the former form, if appropriate
Occasions to let them enter into consciousness occur, as well as belong in the life of
this world to the conscious memory of certain forms. Insofar as it is necessary in this
world to call to mind a definite figure that there is a limited material image of this
figure and a material eye, it suffices that there be necessary aftereffects and causes of
their particular recall in us -, it will be in the otherworldly further memory. The spirits
will be able to see themselves in their former form, without having a limited material
eye, if they intend to do so, or find involuntary motive in their intercourse. Now one
wall or the distant distance can prevent me from seeing the other. There are no more
barriers of the kind in the otherworldly memory; The otherworldly figure can now, so
to speak, appear airy here, now, where it is conjured up by a corresponding
occasion; In any case, one already tends to think of the phenomena of the
otherworldly spirits anyway. But there will be as little lack of barriers in the
otherworldly as a worldly region of remembrance; But in this memory they are self-
evident only in the respect of association laws;
Now one may ask: but the human form changes from youth to old age; the facial
features change their expression, today the figure is so and dressed tomorrow. What
shape, what dress will attract the apparition in the hereafter. The answer is very
simple: according to circumstances each, but not all at once, as is the same of the
memories of the changeable shape and clothing of a man already in this world; and
she will not need to remain unchanged; already on this side memory forms change
and are changed by influences of the imagination.
To explain this, I want to recount a graceful story, which has been told to me by my
friend SHT Miiller, who was long since deceased, and lastly director of the secondary
school in Wiesbaden, without hindering that in the apparition, of which there is talk
only see a subjective hallucination, although even more could be seen in it.
When Muller's grandmother died, her daughter, his mother, was not present at her
death, and could not calm herself that she had not seen her one last time; the thought
of it tormented her day and night, and she almost entered, as they say. Once at night,
when she sat up fully awake in bed, and the desire to see her mother again before she
passed away, she again took possession of her whole soul, she suddenly saw a light
phenomenon before her, out of which the figure of a young one soon emerged Person
who she did not recognize at first. But soon she realized that her mother must have
looked in her highest youthful blossom. No sooner had this idea come to full
consciousness than the figure of the young girl vanished; but soon the apparition of
her mother, as she had really seen her as a child, took its place, and this appearance
made a third place, where her mother represented herself as she was when she saw
her for the last time. But then everything disappeared and no renewed appearance
could be caused. From an hour on, the mother became calm and fully restored to
fresh life.
Stories of ghost appearances are known to exist in abundance, even collections of
such and doubts about such enough. Without wishing to venture into this in one sense
or another, I will, for example, add to the previous story only one more, originating
from a particularly reliable source, and rather to make a question concerning these
kinds of phenomena, than they do also to decide. Dr. Rüte, who died as a professor of
ophthalmology in Leipzig, a man who was otherwise inclined to believe in mystical
things in a quite rationalistic mindset, once told me that he himself had the following
thing that carries this character.
When he was still in Göttingen, he treated two ladies who both suffered from
consumption. They had no personal relationship to each other, but the knowledge of
their same suffering mediated by their common doctor had allowed them to take a
mutual interest in each other; They asked each other about their health and greeted
each other when they met. Gradually the condition of the two worsened, and when
one morning came to the first, she was immediately different. After a brief discussion
with the relatives, he immediately went to the other patient, whose relatives he found
in the greatest agitation. The patient had just had the appearance of the deceased, who
waved to her, what she as Looking at signs of their near death, which was also soon.
It is undisputed that phenomena of this kind in themselves do not provide a means
of deciding whether they are to be transmitted from the brain of this living being by
one projected into the external world, as it were, the abnormal effect of the
imagination, or are projected from the outside world by abnormally effective reasons
of the hereafter, or whether both are intertwined or conditionally connected; We just
do not have the theory of such anomalies, which they are anyway; But if we want to
seek a continuation in the comparison of the great and the small memory-rich, we
must not forget that in our little realms there are not only memories of actual figures
present, but also phantasies that have woven themselves together from many
memories entire stories can be imagined in a novel way. And that makes you think
from the start
Facts of the former kind, if allowed to be considered as such at all, are connected
with a great field of other facts which are asserted as such, the so-called spiritualistic
ones, or rather themselves form part of them, as will be found in one of the last
passages (XXIII) will come back; No less does the so-called somnambulistic territory
enter into this circle, of which a few remarks follow.
Insofar as the circle of life of man, which is determined to the otherworldly
awakening, is already connected with the worldly side, one could imagine that
occasionally or abnormally during the present life the waking reaches from one to the
other, and it lies all the nearer, the somnambulistic watch among them Point of view,
as has happened many times before, during which most of the organs of ordinary
waking sleep deeply. Only one can not see a pure awakening in the hereafter, but only
a cross between this world and the beyond, since the somnambulant actually lives on
in this world and makes use of this means of transport with others. With so many
others, which everybody likes easily, without me touching it here, To mix undoubted
and actual things would be explained by such overlapping that in somnambulistic
waking one remembers what has happened in ordinary, as well as an earlier,
somnambulic waking in and with us, but in the ordinary not of what in
somnambulene; for the later can remember the former, but not the other way
round; but the content of the otherworldly circle of life is the result of the present, not
the other way round.
 The idea could then be further linked to this, whether the most strange dreams of
ordinary sleep owe their origin to a play from the hereafter, and not so much in sleep,
but less so in memory of this world Adequate awakening of the hereafter takes place
the deeper the sleep is; Sleep and wakefulness of this world would therefore be
connected with the wakefulness and sleep of the otherworld, but death would only be
the point from which the possibility of returning to this worldly wakefulness ceased
altogether. But who wants to decide these questions? So let us not dwell on the
possibilities in this respect.
What can be argued against the view that the somnambulistic awakening can
already be regarded as a partial awakening for the hereafter is that, although often
enough, somnambulists give information about the states in the hereafter, but they
have little in common, and are generally of fantastic character and those who seem to
have been influenced by this or that side of the present ideas. In the meantime, one
must not overlook the fact that the circumstances of the hereafter that are foreign to
this world are not at all easy to describe in expressions of this world, and partly that
the information about them is more or less interspersed with the various ideas
circulating on this side of the hereafter can be, because even the somnambulistic
guards even the worldly still retains share. Thus ideas can enter into the other realm
from one, and, under such abnormal circumstances, one can not draw any useful
conclusions about one or the other region. In fact, turn it around, and ask whether,
from the information given by the somnambulists concerning the circumstances of
this world, insofar as they are drawn from the somnambulistic state itself (and not
from memories of ordinary waking), there are pure, unanimous insights into the
circumstances of this world: certainly not.
Explanation to Chap. V. 5
A movement, when passing from one medium to another, may be partly affected by
the fact that it converts itself, to a greater or lesser extent, into another form of
motion, and partly to the movements which it encounters in the other medium. Thus,
when the anvil hits the anvil, the movement of the hammer largely translates into the
anvil trembling, which continues to propagate from it, but the anvil also begins to
move in the direction of the impact, propagating the impact on the
ground , Conversely, the imperceptibly small heat oscillations of the steam in the
steam boiler partly translate into the larger visible movements of the punch and the
movement of the whole machine without being exhausted. In the latter case
analogously, in the act of the will, the fine nervous vibrations which carry our
spiritual life are partly transformed into muscle contractions, which reach outward in
our actions, but without exhausting themselves in their physiological evidences The
tremors of the muscles themselves continue, which are indisputably transmitted to the
outside in the external movements brought about by muscular contractions; because
what would she think back. But apart from this, even when the human being thinks or
dreams quietly, the fine nervous vibrations which govern the mental processes must,
steadily, quietly and invisibly, reproduce beyond the human in the periodicity,
composition, and sequence as they arise internally; for as little as a heat or sonic
vibration can be locked up in a capsule, nor any kind of vibration; it would also be
strange, since the movements of the solid, the fluid, and the airy, which we can follow
in their paths through the body, find only one passage point in man. If the vibrational
motions, be it of the weighable or the unpredictable, which we can no longer trace in
it, remain locked up in them, we just will not be able to pursue them beyond that. But
as far as the larger movements are concerned which reach outward in our arbitrary
actions, effects and works of many kinds are produced, which are no less dependent
on their mode of origin, their connection, and their separation from the mode of
origin.
Addition to Chap. XII.
However puzzling the ability seems to be to bring to consciousness a great variety
of memories, regardless of their conditions in the brain, a hint of the possibility of
this can be found in the following reference; without, of course, therefore, to speak of
an explanation.
Let us think of those overseas letters, such as are occasionally given, which are
described not merely by the transverse leaves, but by lines set at right angles, and also
by the length of them, and perhaps even diagonally, in order to save the space by
saving space To facilitate letter. The lines here clash, as we imagine, that the
processes underlying memories are confused, except that the lines here are
presumably represented by wave-trains of oscillations and devices for the production
of such. Now, with the letters, it is possible to observe these lines to a certain extent,
but only up to such an undisturbed pursuit of the lines in transverse, long, and
diagonal lines, if one lets attention pass these paths; but what external attention can
do can also be internal. some with German, others with Latin, the third with Greek
letters; corresponding differences are also available to the wave trains in the different
period and form of their vibrations. But, taking into account such differences, it may
also be thought that even features of vibrations which follow the same paths can be
distinguished, and of course one will have to accept this principle in our brains,
which is unspeakably more developed, than in a letter.
It may be objected that we can not divide a composite color-vibration radiating
inward from a given point of the retina into its components neither in intuition nor in
memory. But this fact can not invalidate the equally certain fact that in memory I can
separate the image of the Sistine and Holbein Madonna and innumerable other
images which have penetrated through the same nerve fibers, that is, one by one to
the other. What is the difference between the two cases? In fact, in the fact that color
oscillations, which pass through the same nerve fibers one after the other from the
same retinal points, can be recalled one after the other by remembrance, while those
which at the same time proceed from the same retinal points, only at the same time,
and thus can be remembered indistinctly. But since at first the aftereffects of the color
oscillations which have occurred later must fall into those of the earlier ones which
still existed, there remains something mysterious in the success of both cases.
The effect of attention can be found in a psychophysical system, for which there is
also a psychophysical representation; but there is no need to go into that here, since
this is only the fact of the effectiveness of attention in general.
 XIII. On the mediation of the general and higher spiritual life with nature.

It is indisputable that it is most important for man to consider the relationship of

God as spirit or in his spiritual side to the human mind; even if one wants to use the
name of God in a certain sense for the epitome of all existence (see chapter X.3.), and
for religion in any case the interest of consideration lies only on this side. But if there
are relations of the divine and the human spirit to the material world, one can always
ask for them; and insofar as the day-view to the religious has its side facing nature,
requiring it to connect the relations of the divine spirit with nature, and attuning them
with those of the human. Now that this happened earlier (Chapter 2) concerning the
sensory realm, it would still be necessary To extend the contemplation also to the
higher spiritual realm, we only know more of the material mediation of the higher
spiritual activities in ourselves; because according to the principles of the day view, it
can only be a broadening and intensifying view from here. However that may be, at
least what we think about this mediation may here be spun off into a few further
thoughts, without placing any emphasis on it, rather than demonstrating that the
thread of traceability of the relations is above us In this relationship we do not break
off. Of course, if more developed psychophysics had a different starting point, they
would, of course, spur themselves on otherwise. Incidentally, the considerations
presented here essentially coincide with those of the previous section. God and
hereafter are everywhere on the same page.
The organs of our senses and of our external action are through intersecting and
manifoldly interwoven paths of vibrating motion, for that is what keeps the nerve
fibers connected, in short we have a brain; and all spiritual activities exceeding
sensuality are to be conveyed through the complicated play of movements in this
chief organ of our material and spiritual life. It is not necessary to grasp this
mediation as the one-sided conditionedness of the mind through the body; for as little
as a thought without an underlying play of material activity in the brain, this game, as
it exists, could come about without the thought. Relations of lower and higher order
between the material movements may be thought of with those of the spiritual
movement in the relation of conditionality. Certain things can hardly be said about
it. But now all the brains and all the stars are connected again by the same principle
by intersecting and interwoven paths of vibrating motion, and no involvement of
these movements can rise to such a high order in us as their entanglement beyond in
the earthly and beyond the earthly Heavenly realms, because no movement within us
can go away without transferring itself to the outside in a continuation and to re-
entangle with others transferred to it, none can proceed in the earthly realm, without
stirring the ether in it and, consequently, beyond an element to contribute to a higher
involvement. The physicist certainly does not pursue much more than the simplest
sound and light waves through the smooth air and the smooth ether; but air and ether
are in fact not smooth, but more interwoven with more complicated vibrations than
our brains. Every step, every movement of the hand, every word, every gaze of a
man, and every trembling propagated outwardly from the interior thereof, triggers a
dependent swinging or wave-like movement in the world around the human being,
with those derived from other men and involved in movements that are independent
of people in the world; and the order and interweaving of movements in man himself
can not be more sensible than out there, because, yes, what arises and proceeds in
him and beyond him, arises in connection and mutual dependence, exists and
develops. Inside and outside a seemingly insoluble tangle of material movements, the
mess; but the confusion exists here and there only for the opposite, the involvement
from the outside, not for the mind that penetrates it with its clarity. For it is as yet
unexplained how the mind begins it, from the mixture of the most varied forms,
which have penetrated through the same optic nerve, and the various speeches which
have penetrated through the same auditory nerve in the form of vibrations and are
necessary in their reproduction by the brain but to build a realm of clear memories
and concepts (see chapter 12); but the fact exists inside, and so it will be able to stand
outside. not for the mind that pervades it with its clarity. For it is as yet unexplained
how the mind begins it, from the mixture of the most varied forms, which have
penetrated through the same optic nerve, and the various speeches which have
penetrated through the same auditory nerve in the form of vibrations and are
necessary in their reproduction by the brain but to build a realm of clear memories
and concepts (see chapter 12); but the fact exists inside, and so it will be able to stand
outside. not for the mind that pervades it with its clarity. For it is as yet unexplained
how the mind begins it, from the mixture of the most varied forms, which have
penetrated through the same optic nerve, and the various speeches which have
penetrated through the same auditory nerve in the form of vibrations and are
necessary in their reproduction by the brain but to build a realm of clear memories
and concepts (see chapter 12); but the fact exists inside, and so it will be able to stand
outside. which have penetrated through the same auditory nerve in the form of
vibrations and have necessarily mixed in their reproduction through the brain, yet to
build a realm of clear memories and concepts (see chapter 12); but the fact exists
inside, and so it will be able to stand outside. which have penetrated through the same
auditory nerve in the form of vibrations and have necessarily mixed in their
reproduction through the brain, yet to build a realm of clear memories and concepts
(see chapter 12); but the fact exists inside, and so it will be able to stand outside.
One difference between the inside and the outside, of course, lies in the fact that the
organization of the brain instructs the movements inside to find more specific ways
than to find the movements outside. But this condemns us only to a pre-determined
and therefore more limited development of the higher spiritual life than the world
beyond us. But the trajectories of the movements outside are not wholly indefinite,
but determined by the natural and man-developed establishment of the earthly
kingdom, and beyond this by the establishment of the whole heaven in only further
limits. And inside as well as outside, the device on which the gait of the movements
depends changes by the action of the movements themselves with time; The brain of
the adult is different from that of the child, and the earth today is different from the
original state. Thus, all differences in this regard are only relative, but all in favor of a
freer, wider and higher development of spiritual life in the world, than in us, the parts
of the world.
If you miss the central ganglion balls of your brain outside, you have the luminous
stars with your own ganglia balls in them; and what does it matter that the
movements are out tied to no protein filaments, the naked light beam outside is
traveling in the second by thousands of miles, while his continued sluggish sneaks
into your nerves 1), Is it a disadvantage against you? The big should not repeat the
little thing at all, the whole thing should not repeat the part, and how about the world,
even though it was so creeping in on the whole and every ray of light needed its rock,
as in you, the little fragment of the world , One does not want to anthropomorphize
God, and o contradiction, does not know how to find it in the whole sky because it is
visibly superhuman.
1)The (excitement of a nerve in the living human is propagated by less than
200 feet per second.

In order to explain the whole matter by means of a picture, which coincides with a
part of the thing itself, think of a string that transmits its vibrations to the air; all the
strings of a violin or harp do it, all violins and harps do it; and all transmit their
vibrations to the same air. The higher the entanglement of the vibrations through their
meeting over the strings, violins, harps, flutes, etc. rises, in such higher tone relations
the play resounds; but the vibrations must also reach beyond the individual strings; in
themselves they give no harmony and a single instrument nor a symphony; this
includes the confluence of the vibrations beyond them. The creatures and above the
creatures the stars are instruments, by means of which,2) , while he alone feels it fully
and fully at the same time as it exists in the instruments and beyond all, and hereby
also feels its most general, highest, and ultimate relations.
2)Every instrument, in fact, plays a faint note of the play of those not far away,
but preferably only those sounds which are related to those which it is itself
able to produce.

One probably thinks that the spiritual field has something beyond the material
sphere, to which it can not comply with something corresponding or conditionally
related; that is, the self-reflection with which a mental activity exceeds itself. We
think, feel something, and can make this thinking, feeling, even in a higher act,
representable to us. If anywhere, here is the point where the spiritual realm freely
rises above the material. Well, if there is anything in the human mind at all, what
escapes material conditionality or mediation, then it will also escape it; but why it
prefers to believe in spiritual self-reflection, for it can find in a material at once its
reflection and its support; yes whence even the expression for the spiritual, if he did
not come from the comparability with the material. Insofar as an awareness-bearing
material process, as it were, passes over itself, the spiritual one attached to it becomes
conscious as well as objectively. But wherever an ether, air or water wave is thrown
back into itself, one has a material or physical self-reflection. Small and big trains go
through the world, and when, in the sense of the day view, the whole physical world
is filled with a psychic life that joins and closes beyond the spirit in the earth and
beyond all spirits in the divine spirit, so Even physical self-reflection will have a
psychic meaning, for which we can find nothing but psychic self-reflection. Only it
may be that outside, as well as inside, physical self-reflection must exceed a threshold
before it becomes conscious of the psychic. The state of present-day knowledge does
not allow itself to delve further into possible chains.
Over the whole entanglement of the vibrations, circulatory movements, direct and
reflected movements, in general everything that goes back and forth in the world,
crosses and dissolves again, but there is one indestructible one, universal, immutable,
all the most distant in time and space internally It is the omnipresent law of all
happenings, and everything that binds it externally, that is space and time itself. A ray
of light can, as fast as it goes, last for a thousand years need to get from one star to a
distant one and have dispersed in all directions, and no longer be where he once
was. But the law that the ray follows, and the law that the stars themselves follow in
their course, is here and there at the same moment, is today, as it was from eternity
and will be in eternity. The ray may pass through all finite spaces and times, beyond
the infinite space and the infinite time, it can not go out, and so also everything
remains scattered for finite eyes, extinct for finite memory, for the mind, the infinity
of force, space and Time dominated, fulfilled and permeated with his knowledge and
will.
In the meantime, whoever, like the theologian, does not need the decline of the
material foundation of the mind in order to believe beyond himself in a divine spirit
to the material world, does not need to enter into considerations like the previous
ones. God can not prove this ; only to those who, according to his footsteps in the
visible world, seek out such wise men.

XIV. To teleology.

(Contradiction of the view that the purposeful establishment of the creatures

arose by a conscious creative action, with the view of their origin by
unconsciously creating forces of nature.) From the Darwinian elimination of the
purposive principle.)
In the following, the question is: does the expedient creation of the creatures and
the world presuppose any conscious creative activity or only unconsciously creating
forces of nature? A question that goes into the more general question: does it even
require the acceptance of a conscious creator and folder of the world? Regardless of
the fact that the day view is based on this assumption, apart from a special
consideration for the purposeful establishment of the world, why should it not rely on
it if it can really find a support in it? But is it also the case, as is the vocation to it,
that happens? It's something like this:
All expedient devices, tools that man produces out of whatsoever - Krönig calls
them "industrialisms" - require the application of conscious activity with the explicit
orientation of the same towards the end. Never, as far as our experience goes, has
anything similar to a microscope, a musical instrument, a purpose-built house been
created by the mere unconscious action of material forces; how should an eye, a
organ of speech, or even the whole, purposefully coherent, organization of man be
conceived thereby. Where the intention directed to a particular goal is removed, the
game of chance, which is subject to the probability calculus, begins; but infinitely
more inappropriate than expedient combinations are conceivable on the basis of
merely accidental interaction of the forces, that is, the probability of the first
afterwards being infinitely greater. Not only do useful organisms exist in countless
numbers, but the whole external world is also appropriately furnished with respect to
them, and they are appropriately furnished in relation to the external world; how does
that fit with a mere play of chance. Although the possibility of disease and other
evils, to which all organisms are subject, prove that there is an object of expediency,
obstacles, and limitations in the nature of things, there is nothing to prove that there is
nothing in this respect has been achieved and that what has been achieved could be
achieved without intention in the direction of the purpose. Rather, we compare what
is accomplished by the creative forces preceding man's existence in the institution of
man himself with what man in the same sense can add externally, so we do not know
how to admire that achievement enough shall, and finds therein the manifestation of
one, the human unspeakably exceeding wisdom and power, which may well tune man
to the worship of his Creator. The device can not be sufficient for all possible
conditions in which man can come; and so man has to help what he has permanently
learned with changeable ingredients according to the changing circumstances. He can
only do so by deliberately and so it will not have lacked conscious intention even in
its own institution; indeed, its conscious intention itself is grounded in this institution
from the outset, thus completing the aspect of expediency.
It does not change anything in this respect, if we go back from the now so
complicated organization of man to the simpler germs of the same in prehistoric
times. Simple as one might imagine, they already included the ability to develop into
the whole present entangled organization, and the same impossibility that such an
event happened at once coincides with a slow generation of it through a succession of
generations.
Our microscopes, too, did not suddenly come into being as we have them
today; rather, so to speak, a simple lens was the Urei of the same. But the gradual
advances in the setup of the microscope have as little to do with the operation of
conscious activity, with a view to the end to be attained, as if the microscope had
been invented by an ingenious artist all at once. The conscious activity has only
spread more or less in the sequence of time. So it has been with the creation and
development of the organic creatures.
 This approximately the previous approach. But have you found them compelling
and can you find them that way? Is not first of all contradicted the conclusion of
analogy by facts of experience? In fact, it is true that the embryo in the womb, the
chicken in the egg with all its functional devices, are formed by unconsciously acting
forces of nature; For what comes into the picture of consciousness is insignificant for
education. Of course, the formation of both presupposes a conscious mother; it was
also necessary for the parents to consciously drive for the generation of the new
creature; but neither does the consciousness of them need to be specially directed to
the formation of the embryo or chicken in the egg, nor do the peculiar provisions of
the formation of these new creatures depend on particular determinations of
conscious activity of the parents, as is the case when man creates an expedient
device, a useful tool, and the analogy does not fail in the essential points. It is only
the existence of conscious life in general, and a conscious impulse to procreation in
the creator, who has nothing to do with the creation of the new creature, to bring it
about. but both could be omitted for the very first generation of organic creatures, in
that, after conscious beings have once existed, they evidently continue only by
inheritance from the already conscious into the following or repeated in it without
being considered for the creation of the creatures themselves get,
To be sure, it might occur to someone to seek consciousness with a special
direction for the proper formation of all parts, rather than in the parents of the embryo
or chicken in the egg, in the embryo or chicken itself during its development; but then
the embryo, the chicken in the egg, would be wiser before birth than afterward, and
the whole state of these creatures before birth, as far as he falls into observation, is
too much like sleep after birth, to seriously embrace such an idea cherish. Or one
could seek the concepts of purpose which belong to the formation of the embryo in a
spirit of the world outside the embryo and the parents; but with that they were
preceded by the proof; and in any case these are like other hypotheses that can not
justify, replace or support any empirical evidence,
Secondly, it may be objected that from the outset it is irrelevant to conceive
unconsciously acting forces eo ipso as accidental, and to give the judgment of their
successes to the probability calculus of chance. The forces of nature are lawful but
non-accidental; and in the most general causal law itself, to which the natural forces
obey, it could be justified that they lead unconsciously to institutions to which
consciousness attaches themselves, which then receive and reemerge under the
influence of the same forces through which they first emerged , Or it could be a
coincidence, if in a certain sense it is considered to be an infinitely complicated and
therefore for every single case unpredictable action of the forces1) , special conditions
come to the rescue, which, limiting the indeterminacy of success, necessarily lead to
expedient institutions, without the necessity of using this prior consciousness.
l)In fact, by accidental action of the forces, it is possible to understand such an
action instead of a lawless one, that, depending on the indeterminably manifold
and varying points of attack of the forces and constellations under which they
operate, the directions which depend on them are indeterminably varied; Goals
 come without a principle exists. Which everywhere favored some before
others.

In fact, therefore, the teleological argument for a conscious creative action in

nature, as we may call it, has not been able to gain any penetrating power in either the
above or any other aprioristic or theological version, by refuting any of these versions
against the previous objections protects. And so some of them prefer to inherit from
nature a kind of unconscious wisdom in their legal activity, by virtue of which it
creates usefulness, a wisdom which only later becomes conscious in its own products,
man; but others, now more popular, come to the aid of chance through the struggle
for existence and inheritance in such a way that by this means appearances are
deliberately created for the purpose of the products produced. Of all the products
which have been produced by chance, only those who, according to the laws of
nature, are able to maintain and repeat themselves in the struggle for existence with
others receive and repeat themselves; the others pass away; but the conscious beings
who have themselves arisen in this way then find the institutions which contribute to
their own preservation and repetition useful.
In the meantime, the analogy of useful devices, which man inherently acquires,
with those which he subsequently manages to create, seems so great that one
involuntarily invokes again and again the same argument, which is equal to the same
results, to similar ones Which presupposes causes, will be traced back; all the more
so as to satisfy even more general demands, which are otherwise the cause, better
satisfied than by the opinion of the adversaries. On the one hand, it satisfies our need
for unity in the fact that it conceives of man the production of expedient devices from
the same point of view, as the production of man's expedient means, which he sees
only as a continuation and supplement to this in the expansion of the world. which at
the same time contains the created man with what he further creates. Second, it helps
our religious need for faith. So the opponents are just as unable to penetrate the
argument; as often as it is rejected by them, so often does it return; and then, of
course, the same objections return. Is there now no way to get beyond this fruitless
back and forth, and to reinforce the argument that remains weak after the above
version?
In my opinion, this really leads to a kind of reversal of the opposing view, with
which the teleological argument empirically comes under a new point of view. But
before going into it, we first realize what we have to understand by expediency,
otherwise the whole question should have a clear meaning.
If there were no sentient beings, or even conscious beings, it would be a matter of
indifference what and how something in the world existed, went on, repeated itself or
did not repeat itself. One could speak of regularity and irregularity, permanence and
transience; but what mattered to one or the other, if no one had an interest in one
rather than in the other? in short, the concept of expediency would not find a
basis. And even if some would like to grasp the concept of expediency so far that the
relation of the latter to conscious beings is completely eliminated, and only the
relation to the preservation, development, recurrence of something, but of what then,
remains, then the concept would nevertheless come with the Question in question
here, not in such breadth into consideration.
So here we call something useful at all, insofar as it serves for the prosperous
preservation, actuation, and development of conscious life, with the adjective
flourishing in the near future, that the institutions in question should possibly - a
possibility which is of course very limited -, relieving pain and possibility of lust are
leaving room. For who wants to call facilities for the longest duration and the most
vigorous development of a life expedient if they were aimed at making life
unpleasant; Only the conditions of the longest possible and prosperous preservation
of life are in fact related to certain limits. In itself, the more general concept of use
does not mean that the more durable or durable it is, the more convenient it is to find
something but the more it unites with the conditions of durability those of
fertility; and even the most fleeting seem expedient if its fleetingness contributes to
its viability. It is to speak of external or internal expediency, depending on whether it
is something external or internal to a conscious being, which serves to its prosperity,
but even the externally expedient does render service to him only through dependent
inner effects.
These simple definitions, against which nothing should be objected, can suffice
here; but factually in our question nothing is decided; rather, it follows from this that
something serves conscious life in the former sense, not in itself that it had arisen by
conscious direction to this end. Now we recall the opposing view to confront our
conversion.
From the point of view of the opponents, the institutions of the organisms, which
we call useful for the prosperous preservation and development of their conscious
life, require not only a special direction of conscious activity for their origin, not to
their creations their purpose, nor the details of their formation; but even the weak and
general participation of consciousness, which is still necessary today for the
repetition of creatures, was presuppositely not necessary for the first origin, by
continuing or repeating itself, according to conscious beings once produced, only
through heredity; and thus the first production of the creatures, with all their
endowments, came about entirely through the unconscious powers of nature.
Against which our conversion is: institutions for the service of conscious life,
which we call appropriate, be they external or internal, for their first emergence must
always be aware of the special direction toward their purpose, but for their repetition
only a general co-operation has arisen of consciousness, in which a traceable
relationship to the purpose has more or less disappeared. In short, the special
consciousness necessary for the first production of appropriate facilities is more or
less spared in its repetition. Thus the means of endowment with which the creatures
are now born needed their first emergence of a special participation of the
consciousness, which they nowadays contribute to their purpose and their proper
formation no longer need their repetition.
 Now one wonders which of the two sentences is better for the experience. The
reference to the human embryo and the chicken in the egg, with which the opponents
first struck the argument, no longer suits them in the present version, but does not
decide at all between them; for the lack of special activity of consciousness in the
present repeated emergence of these creatures occurs, only from different points of
view, under both the one and the other sentence. But insofar as our experience can not
go back to the first appearance of the creatures, it is important to win the decision
from other cases, to which it goes back. And there are also expedient institutions
whose first emergence, like repetition, falls into our sphere of experience today. and
from which we can draw a conclusion. But all the experiences that we can and still do
today in this respect confirm our sentence rather than that of the adversary, and after
the performance of ours by the most varied of cases, the inference takes on the
character of an inductive rather than mere analogical.
First of all, let us talk about the means of endowment which man creates at the
expense of his conscious life, as the argument in its original form already referred to,
but we are now doing it in accordance with our new version. What great strain of
consciousness and special direction on the design of all the individual parts with
respect to what they have to perform for man, required the first emergence of a steam
engine, a clock, or even a saw, a hammer. Once these institutions are present, the one
who imitates them no longer needs to think of the purpose of them, and even, having
given themselves a general conscious impetus to imitate them, may themselves think
of other things in imitation. Admittedly, it must be admitted that the imitator still has
to watch what each individual part looks like, in order to imitate him, the particular
employment of consciousness is hereby very much tuned down, subtracted from
achievement and purpose, yet not yet spared in a manner as is the case with the
repetition of a creature by successive generations. But if one takes the casting of a
statue, the impression of a copper engraving, of a writing, then this special
occupation also falls away. Who z. If, for example, a script is printed, it also needs a
drive of consciousness to do it, but all its conscious activity is so unrelated to
restoring the details of Scripture as that of the parents, when they father children, to
produce the details their production. but it is not spared in any way, as is the case with
the repetition of a creature by successive generations. But if one takes the casting of a
statue, the impression of a copper engraving, of a writing, then this special
occupation also falls away. Who z. If, for example, a script is printed, it also needs a
drive of consciousness to do it, but all its conscious activity is so unrelated to
restoring the details of Scripture as that of the parents, when they father children, to
produce the details their production. but it is not spared in any way, as is the case with
the repetition of a creature by successive generations. But if one takes the casting of a
statue, the impression of a copper engraving, of a writing, then this special
occupation also falls away. Who z. If, for example, a script is printed, it also needs a
drive of consciousness to do it, but all its conscious activity is so unrelated to
restoring the details of Scripture as that of the parents, when they father children, to
produce the details their production. so this special employment still falls away. Who
z. If, for example, a script is printed, it also needs a drive of consciousness to do it,
but all its conscious activity is so unrelated to restoring the details of Scripture as that
of the parents, when they father children, to produce the details their production. so
this special employment still falls away. Who z. If, for example, a script is printed, it
also needs a drive of consciousness to do it, but all its conscious activity is so
unrelated to restoring the details of Scripture as that of the parents, when they father
children, to produce the details their production.
It may be remarked, however, that children repeat themselves by other means, than
writings and other manufactures. But every product of a different kind requires at all
other means of repetition; and now it is especially important that in the most varied
ways of repetition, as well as the first genesis of expedient devices, insofar as they are
accessible to our observation, the validity of our proposition remains; precisely
because of this he becomes the basis of an inductive rather than an analogical
conclusion.
To complete this basis, we now turn from outside to inside, from inorganic to
organic devices of convenience, directly approaching the trap we ourselves have to
infer.
For it is possible for a man already born to develop into the functional devices
which he receives at birth, or which develop spontaneously from the innate system of
inherited equipment, to create new ones in themselves with a special sense of
consciousness, or to modify the inherited ones appropriately. Any learning of a skill,
spinning, knitting, playing a musical instrument, riding, reading, memorizing, etc., all
presuppose an internal device acquired with a special consciousness directed toward
it, which man does not know at birth which, without such intervention of
consciousness, is able to develop from the bodies it has learned in the course of its
growth. These manifold institutions can not all exist at the same time; Spinning
involves an arrangement other than playing the piano; If an institution is no longer
used, it makes room for another, or in the resting state of a middle one between all
places. But again it is generally shown that the special conscious activity which
belonged to the first genesis of any of these functional devices is spared the more it
has been evoked, and finally requires only a general impulse of consciousness to
return, or even in the flow of habit to repeat itself without such when the same
external conditions are repeated. What cost of special directed attention does the
spinner need to learn spinning, the knitter, to knit; if she has learned it, she sits down
at the wheel at the usual time, or picks up the stocking, inwardly, by the act of a
simple decision, sets himself up for spinning or knitting, and spins or knits by
thinking of other things; for, as well as the coming about, the performance of such
internal devices requires the less a special direction of consciousness, the more often
the repetition of them has taken place; and in a sense, both are not different. The
spinner's achievement is that the device, to which she gives a one-off impulse when
sitting down to the wheel, is always passing through new, but periodic, phases; the
foot raises and lowers, the hand moves along the thread, dives, etc .; To all this the
institution must change, in short it has to go through a period of time;
 It may be remarked that, unless the spinner learned to spin by herself, but under
strange guidance, she was spared much of the effort of consciousness which cost the
very first learning of spinning, or invention. Any learning by transmission is already a
repetition of the original, sparing something of the original activity of consciousness.
A third case, in turn, immediately brings the trap we are dealing with one step
closer. The useful institutions with which the creatures are born, have inherited them
through inheritance from their forefathers and can inherit such to their
descendants. Does our sentence also apply to such heritable facilities? Well, who will
doubt that the shepherd dog and the chicken dog possess the physical-psychic devices
which are innate to them without the help of their own and parental consciousness,
and on which their peculiar instincts rest, because their forefathers possess them in
the same way with tension and special direction have acquired the attention, as even
today similar facilities can be acquired after childbirth. It's true, the German shepherd
and the chicken dog still need some but very little dressage to learn what he is
responsible for. But that only means that the device which enables him to achieve his
purposeful functions is not quite finished at birth, but insofar as it is not, it now needs
again the special tension of the consciousness in order to be completely finished; The
greatest part of this tension is spared the now-born dog by the fact that he was not
spared his forefathers. And so man will be spared the greatest part of the tension of
the consciousness which was necessary to construct his brain, his nerves, his muscles,
all in connection with purpose, in that he was not spared a creative power before
him; the biggest part,
It does not change much if one points out that the forefathers of the German
shepherd dog and chicken dog have acquired their skills through dressage on the part
of humans, without even knowing anything about their purpose for humans. The
consciousness of it then had to be in those from whom they received the dressage,
with which the functional device of the dog acquired by dressage comes under the
aspect of an external one for the man, while the preceding case remains valid for the
applicability of our sentence to internal purpose , By the way, however, the special
consciousness of the dog in the Urdressur was involved in a certain way. Not only did
he spare himself the pain of the blows by appropriating this dressage, which would
bring him every accident, and without that he would never have gotten this
dressage, but also had to spend much more time with his attention on dressage than
later on when he was learning. So it was basically the first case of a purely external
and the second case of a purely inward expediency the third case of a union of the
two, or division between the two, which we have here before us.
Now one may ask: but why does not the inherited skill of spinning and knitting
from the human mother to the children inherit, why not every art that one teaches a
dog has on its offspring? In fact, these are questions worth examining, but they are
not relevant to our present question, and therefore we need not concern ourselves
here. Enough that in all cases of the repetition of expedient devices in which our
experience or the certain inference of experience permits to go back to the first origin,
the special participation of consciousness proves essential. The necessity of
repetition, however, can not exist as such with the existence of an expedient device,
nor must it be deduced from the saving of consciousness and the repetition that takes
place. Innumerable external and internal functional devices arise and pass without
repeating themselves; For the repetition, special conditions are required, and the
whole man himself needs to repeat his meeting of the parents in the act of
procreation. Nature has only brought it to the repetition of certain expedient devices
in living organisms; from the beginning the germs may have arisen to others, which
could not be repeated. But we do not have the conditions of this here. Nature has only
brought it to the repetition of certain expedient devices in living organisms; from the
beginning the germs may have arisen to others, which could not be repeated. But we
do not have the conditions of this here. Nature has only brought it to the repetition of
certain expedient devices in living organisms; from the beginning the germs may
have arisen to others, which could not be repeated. But we do not have the conditions
of this here.
Against all this one may argue: everyone creates with consciousness, even the first
time, only for his own purposes; Man, however, was not able to create himself
consciously for the attainment of his own ends until he was present with
consciousness.
But it is not true that everyone creates with consciousness only for his own
purposes. And that brings us to a fourth case. A benefactor of humanity creates
facilities for the devout and other; A mother prepares cribs and diapers for a child
who is not there yet. But they can do so only with their own consciousness at the
service of the alien consciousness, and save the more of their own conscious
ingenuity, the more they follow strange patterns. So our sentence also extends from
the own to the alien consciousness.
Now it must be admitted that the interest of others who create for the benefit of
others must be involved in their use. If the benefactor did not enjoy the welfare of
others, and his mother did not enjoy the prosperity of the future child, they would do
nothing for it. And so the creative power would not expediently set man up for the
good of his, if that goodness did not accompany him. But the meaning of the
ideological argument is precisely that, a consciousness, which can not be sought in
man before its emergence, before him in the creative power, on which his origin
depends, seek, in order at the same time to justify the idea that with the prosperous
existence of the human purpose of the creative world being itself, which then benefits
him, the created man. exist in any case.
After all, we can give back to the opponents of the teleological argument their
empirical rejection. In the first version of the same they appeared in the right when
they said: the analogy would like to speak in such a striking way in favor of a
conscious creation of the organic devices; but the fact that the human embryo and the
chicken in the egg develop by unconscious forces is the proof. We now say that the
ways in which utility devices could develop through the unconscious action of natural
forces seem to be so profound and ingenious (Hartmann, Darwin), but the more valid
and more fully conceived fact that they constitute the first emergence of a special
participation of the Need consciousness, rejects the proof.
 If, however, one thinks afterwards that the question can be dealt with better
aprioristically, then it is not necessarily proving logically compelling, but from the
outset it must be regarded as predominantly probable that in the emergence of
institutions which serve the prosperous preservation and development of conscious
life Even if conscious life had been causally involved, its cause and effect did not fall
into disparate areas. In fact, it would be a curious causality, to be brought from no
reasonable point of view, when unconsciously acting and creative forces favored
consequences that have a preferential meaning for consciousness, before those which
have no or an unfavorable meaning, those before that stock or repetitiveness. Can
ever cause a cause effects, of which not something is already given in the
cause? Such things are only accepted if one must, or is not clear about what one must
do. But what one on the logical side can still miss with regard to the must, is
supplemented by the preceding general empirical hint.
Now it is true that the induction on which we base ourselves is still not
complete; for the conditions that take place at the first formation of the organic
creatures, we can not draw into our circle of experience; but there is no induction at
all that would be complete; if it were, we would no longer have an end, but direct
experience. Never and nowhere do the same conditions ever return; one has to be
content if the probation a general set appears regardless of the differences of all
Mitbedingungen through which he can trace 2) .
2) VgI. on the induction conclusion Sect. XVII.
According to this, it would be a clumsy and, in the essentials, quite erroneous
rejection of the preceding considerations, if one were still to say: well, if human
beings and animals once have consciousness, then of course, whether external or
internal, can be functional only under the influence of consciousness they arise; the
creatures can not dismiss what they once have; but it does not in the least implies
that, before consciousness was present, it was necessary for the first formation of
such institutions. Rather, the valid point of view is that if men now, in spite of having
consciousness, and the natural forces in them are no less legally active than they are,
they can not produce either internal or external means of endowment without
specially directed consciousness, In this way one can not keep consciousness
completely dispensable for the very earliest emergence of such devices; that is,
conclude that because there is little enough now, at first nothing will have
sufficed. Incidentally, man does his consciousness in his sleep; and when, in spite of
all the wisdom which may be attached to the unconscious, has ever a new functional
device been created in sleep?
Like man, his fellow creatures are also endowed with innate functional
devices. The objects attainable by these means for the various creatures are partly
interdependent, partly confused, and the external relations of the creatures suitably
coincide with their internal arrangements. If we look at this whole purpose-relation
from the point of view of our argument, we thereby become led to the view of a
creative world-being which goes beyond all individual creations and which
consciously purposely prepares and orders, and thus enters into the general aspects of
the day-view thus, in support of the latter, even while, conversely, the whole
teleology could be justified from the propositions of the day view.
After that, only a few additional discussions on the previous considerations.
It is certain, of course, that with all the world-wide striving to prevent unpleasure,
to clog or destroy its sources, it still passes through the world; but is striving idle, and
does not the purposive institutions afford anything in the sense of this endeavor? On
the contrary, it is equally certain that without the tendency to eliminate it and without
its success, the pain would overrun everything in the world. In fact, if man did not
purposely prepare food, clothing, dwelling, fire with purpose, if he did not set himself
up inwardly for the purpose of producing these external devices, nature would not be
in the main to counter this tendency, the sun would not shine Trees do not bear fruit,
man would not be equipped with appropriate organs from the outset, if, I say, all that
would not be so, the whole life of the human being, if it could still exist, would be in
disgust. The positive pleasure, which man knows how to procure on the basis of all
his endowments, is merely a surplus here and there over the compensation of
discomfort sources, which would remain uncompensated for without purpose
tendencies aimed at. Now it may be argued whether this compensation is not
generally too incomplete, so as not to make the unpleasure on the whole overweight,
and whether a prosperous advance, that is, in the sense of decreasing reluctance,
growing pleasure, takes place at all. But how to always address these difficult
questions concerning the general pleasure economy of the world Depending on the
pessimistic or optimistic tendency to answer - we shall refer to it in the following
sections -, then, without the end-purposes and their success, the quantity of pain in
the world would be unspeakably greater than it is; and it is erroneous to assert
anything that is still lacking in purposefulness as evidence against a world-directed
action in the world, since, on the contrary, only everything that has been
accomplished in this respect can be asserted as proof.
The point of view is quite irrelevant, but it is sometimes taken for granted that the
teleological principle contradicts the causal principle, indeed, that it demands
absurdity. One cause could bring about the future and drive consequences, so to
speak, ahead of him; but that a future purpose can work backwards on the present and
put means of achieving it into action, is unthinkable. But that does not demand the
teleological principle. According to him, the future purpose does not conflict with the
causal principle, but the present-felt impulse, or the present purpose, with what is
subject to it by material forces, affects the attainment of the future purpose; and the
concept of purpose itself, with what it is subject to, has not been created by anything
of the future,
Deterministically, the following explanation could also be given. In the sense of the
causal law, the future functionally depends on the past. But what hinders, in the sense
of the mathematician, the reversal of functional consideration, that is, the past states
after a reversed pursuit of the direction of the event? 3)as a function of the states to
which they lead. For a being that is timelessly eternal, or that summons time into a
present, as some think the divine being, this dual approach may even be almost self-
evident. It always remains an absurdity to think of the past as the success of the
future, because the concept of success is in the true direction of temporal events,
whereas it is no absurdity to think of the past and the future in such an
interdependence that of the what happens in both, one can not be without the other.
3)It is very peculiar to think, instead of following the course of the world
merely imagining backwards in time, that a return of events in reality is
actually taking place. (Mises kl. Schr. 273 ff. 339 ff.)

The following approach is related to this. In space, the effect of a point a on the
point b is always counteracted by the point b on the point a. Why should not the
effect of b on a also take place for the action from one time a to another b, ie the
quality of what happens at both times is governed by legal reciprocity? 4) , but this
does not hinder us, since we what is happening in the future time b, not yet know, the
effect factually and practically rather only from time a backwards from b follow.
4)If I am not mistaken, the mathematician Neumann has already expressed the
same or a similar idea somewhere.

In the meantime, the considerations that do not lead us further in our subject
remain, which is why no weight is laid here.
Nor does it contradict the fact that the establishment and order of the world was
conscious, and that it developed according to a fixed lawfulness, because
consciousness and lawfulness are not at all contradictory (see Sect. XVI), and in
particular nothing is more lawful in that unpleasure triggers a desire to overcome the
displeasure, which undoubtedly dominates all teleology. From this point of view, one
can try in part to deepen the teleological view of the world psychologically and
psychophysically, partly to develop it further; but in so far as we have to deduce man
from the world, more questions remain, of course, than can be decided so far.
In ourselves, the impulse to discomfort instantly attaches to the sensation of
discomfort, which, if the discomfort is bodily conditioned, also causes bodily
changes, which in the simplest cases are immediately sufficient to bring about the
abolition; whether it is that an inner, unsatisfactory movement is thereby tuned or
reversed, or an inner disagreeable relationship is retuned, or an adverse substance
excreted, or else that an organ involuntarily closes itself against an external
discomfort stimulus, or turns it away from itself or from it , In all such simple cases,
there is no such thing as what one may call a purpose before a position, but always
consciousness with a sensation and a perceived urge, even a simple idea of the cause
of the displeasure. involved. But in complicated cases this is not enough; Rather, if
pain can only be removed by means and ways that reach far away from time and
space, then instead of such simple physical determinations, the idea must appear of
the means and means which lie in time and space until the end is attained, to get
there, and the same is necessary if a future discomfort is to be reliably prevented or a
future pleasure to be achieved. If there is no or no proper conception of the
appropriate means and ways at all, the purpose is not or only accidentally
attained; but the same necessity, which in this respect exists for the attainment of
human ends, necessarily also exists for the attainment of the wider purposes of the
general conscious world-being,
But now there is a difference. The inventor of a steam-engine had to imagine the
whole material arrangement of the machine to be made out of it, with reference to its
purpose, as it ought to appear externally; but if there is an inward expedient device
which does not have to appear externally, nor needs the outward appearance for
functional action, then it also need not be presented as something externally
appearing for its origin. Thus one can not acquire one skill or teach another by
education, without the nervous system, and also the muscular system and circulatory
relationships of the person who acquires the skill, undergoing modifications; or they
do not need to be presented objectively for their origin, but Insofar as every psychical
activity naturally carries with it a physical law, the purposeful own or psychologically
awakened activity, which belongs to the acquisition of every skill, carries with it by
itself internal physical processes which lead to the intended internal institution. Here
too, however, it is necessary to elicit intricate devices of developed ideas. In fact, if
z. If, for example, the spinner does not have to imagine the internal physical facilities
which belong to the acquisition of her craft, she can do so only on the basis of
developed purposeful conceptions of the external matters to which her craft is related
and consequently conscious coming drives, which receives them from the outside
train. It is undeniable that this dual way in which purpose-concepts can come into
play has always been valid in the world; but neither is it necessary for the general
position and justification of our argument to elaborate on this, nor is it in itself
capable of offering a suitable starting point for it.
It may well ask one: why are no organic creatures with useful devices emerging
from the inorganic world under the influence of a presupposable world-
consciousness, if they could emerge from it in prehistoric times? But this is a
difficulty that rather strikes the opponents, which is why they never tire of
experimenting with them, even today to oblige the inorganic world to the same
productivity that they attribute to prehistoric times. For us, the thing turns out that
way.
If a hot salt solution decomposes into a mother liquor and crystals when the
temperature is lowered, no one will compare the state of the solution before
crystallization with the state of the mother liquor after that, and no one will expect the
mother liquor to give up crystals again after the which could give the solution by
divorce of the mother liquor from the crystals already given. Thus, the state in which
the earthly system existed before it gave up an organic kingdom with sufficient
depression of temperature, hereby decomposed into an organic and inorganic realm,
can not be compared with the state of the inorganic realm after decomposition, and
can be expected of it , as happens from the other side, once again give an organic
empire,5) . But, in the foregoing considerations, the grounding of the earthly system
in the first place is to be part of general inspiration, and insofar as that divorce has led
to appropriate institutions of the organic world, as well as to its proper relations with
the inorganic; Influence of a specially directed consciousness to see existing. But
since it is undisputed that the decision led only to a very simple preliminary
development of the organic world, so the consciousness belonging to it could reduce
itself to a comparatively simple act, which later became more specialized. But it
would be unfortunate to get involved in more specific ideas about this.
5)On the original state of the earthly system before the separation of the
organic kingdom and the conditions that strike it at all, certain ideas can be
grasped, starting from the Kant-Laplacean hypothesis, which in my book
"Ideas on the History of Creation and Development," etc. (p. 41 ff.) Are
discussed. Of course, they are only hypothetical; but not because of this - for
everything is hypothetical here - because they are neither suited to Darwinism
nor any other system today, they have been hastily dismissed, and have since
been ignored. They just fit the day view

What remains after all in favor of an unconsciously done primordial creation of

conscious creatures? Nothing but materialistic dogmatism or profound speculation in
order to speculate the consciousness necessary for the creation of the conscious.
The older naturalists, among them those who did not pretend that they were exact,
did not doubt at all that God had ordered and ruled the world according to
purposes. The naturalists of today are generally considered to have overcome their
position. Only exceptionally, some still hold him or have come back to it (like Bear,
Volkmann, EH Weber, Zöllner). Also, Krönig, who is known as an exact physicist,
has lately also represented the dependence of the utilitarian institutions in nature on
an intelligent being with ingenious considerations in his work "The existence of God
and the happiness of man" (1874. Berlin, Staude). But they are just exceptions. More
numerous are those who regard a direction of the forces of nature to expediency as a
legal, no longer consciously looking beyond people and animals, and thus adopting a
kind of middle position. But most, at least the loudest voices, have been applauded by
Darwin than the one who, at last, thoroughly broke all teleology by engaging every
kind of endeavor in the creations of nature, and thus freed the world from an old
superstition unworthy of the true scientist. This is Darwin's most fundamental merit
and the most important new advancement of philosophy, which Darwin himself has
not rigorously pursued to the extreme. which, after all, has thoroughly broken the
neck of all teleology through the participation of every kind of endowment in the
creations of nature, and has thus freed the world from an old superstition unworthy of
the true scientist. This is Darwin's most fundamental merit and the most important
new advancement of philosophy, which Darwin himself has not rigorously pursued to
the extreme. which, after all, has thoroughly broken the neck of all teleology through
the participation of every kind of endowment in the creations of nature, and has thus
freed the world from an old superstition unworthy of the true scientist. This is
Darwin's most fundamental merit and the most important new advancement of
philosophy, which Darwin himself has not rigorously pursued to the extreme.
Without entering into discussions that would be in vain, if it were the previous
considerations, unnecessary when they find place, I conclude with a parable.
He wanted to build a wall. He did not lack the material of building blocks,
machines and workmen; Nor did he care about the time when the wall would
finish. So he said: I want to spare myself teaching the stupid workmen how to build
the wall; but merely wants to tell them that they are gradually taking the building
blocks and the lime to every imaginable position; among them must finally find those
who make the wall, if such a one is ever producible, and it will continue, if it can
continue at all. Since the man lived incredibly long, it finally came to the wall in this
way. Since, however, according to his principle that it will persist, if it can persist, it
will be superfluous to tell the workmen to stop,
But since he thought it was too long, he said to himself, "It does not work that
way." you have to give the workers a hint. I do not even care about a wall at all. I will
give the workmen wood, metals, stones, in short all sorts of materials from which
useful things can be made, and say: they should do so again in an indifferent manner,
but not once again destroy the once made, but only gradually change it and always
prefer to repeat something of the old as new to it, so, since all sorts of useful devices
are really contained among all possible arrangements of materials, I shall come to all
possible ones, and the stock of those who matter to me, not just secure enough for a
long time, but also gradually to even more durable hereby better can come. But if
useless and damaging things go along with it, that is bad, but it can not be
changed; Unfortunately, the world is so bad and it is good to realize that it can not be
changed. In the course of a few billions of years on my way - a trifle in relation to
eternity - one comes to the best possible end, which is what one can come up
with. He clapped himself to applause, and his plan of planlessness was being lost. But
as there are infinitely many purposeless and inappropriate things to every possible
arrangement of given materials, he found, after a long time, again looking over, his
entire possessions covered with a raft of useless and harmful things, which claimed
all, to persist and repeat itself; indeed, they even claim that they are just so useful that
they have the property of persisting and of repeating themselves; What does it matter
to her that it annoys him? His neighbor, whose house and garden stood there beautiful
and prosperous, had done it differently, and asked him why he did not do the
same; whereupon he naively replied that he thought it would work that way.

XV. The world questions of pleasure and aversion. Optimism and pessimism.

(More general , beliefs about pleasure and aversion, Christian, personal.)

l. More general aspects.
 Gladly one compares unconsciousness, death with darkness, darkness,
night; however, consciousness, life with brightness, light, day; Also, one likes the
same comparison for the opposition of evil, bad, and good, in this sense speaks of a
dark side or night side and a light side of things. And so the first-black-looking night-
philosopher sees black in the second relation as well. The world is one for him, in the
main, dark and at the same time bad in the main; he is basically a pessimist; and if he
is not, it is because he is not much, which would be in consequence. The philosopher
of the day, for his part, would like to see everything bright, but of course he can not
do as he pleases, and with all his philosophy he can not deny the evil in the world,
nor can it bring it away; but he will be careful not to shut the eye for the light, to
close the day, or to oppose it halfway, to keep it open only for the darkness, the night,
the shadows, and will finally be comforted by the fact that he understands the
tendencies and On the whole, it finds itself directed from the night to the light, rather
than in the opposite sense, in the sense of the forces of the world-process acting on it,
and finds its own faith in the success of this direction contributing to its
success. Because a pessimistic faith only helps to make the world sad, to darken and
to worsen it; the belief, on the other hand, that striving for the better will also do
something to please, to comfort, to mend. With this optimism, the day view faces the
pessimism of the night view, here, as everywhere else in these things, the negative
beliefs of the same with a positive conclusion. But now it is also necessary to support
this belief; and for clarity we start with a few definitions.
Apart from dogmatic theories, which fit the concepts according to their dogmas,
and even on the part of these dogmatists themselves in the real use of terms,
something is better or worse in proportion to what it is more appropriate to maintain
the state of happiness of the world with regard to its consequences. or to damage or
destroy on the contrary; and even the morality and religion of one is then preferred to
the other. The concepts of happiness and unhappiness are ultimately dependent on the
concepts of pleasure and pain; One only has to grasp both pleasure and aversion to
the extent that, with the most sensual, the highest spiritual pleasure and displeasure
occurs, so as not to succumb to low and narrow points of view in conceptual
usage. according to which the bliss of the good conscience and pain of the evil
conscience are still pleasure and aversion. But in the case of the question of kindness,
not only the presence of pleasure and displeasure, but also the consequences, and thus
a bad pleasure, is that which, according to general principles, gives the world more
unpleasure in the consequences than it does At present, as is true of every immoral
lust, the punishment of evil, in spite of the displeasure which it awakens to evil, is
good, on the presupposition that by this greater disobedience is defended in the world
than it itself is; yes, the principle of justice itself can be founded on this. These
conceptual preliminary discussions must suffice here as regards the relationship
between pleasure and unpleasure, good and evil But in the case of the question of
kindness, not only the presence of pleasure and displeasure, but also the
consequences, and thus a bad pleasure, is that which, according to general principles,
gives the world more unpleasure in the consequences than it does At present, as is
true of every immoral lust, the punishment of evil, in spite of the displeasure which it
awakens to evil, is good, on the presupposition that by this greater disobedience is
defended in the world than it itself is; yes, the principle of justice itself can be
founded on this. These conceptual preliminary discussions must suffice here as
regards the relationship between pleasure and unpleasure, good and evil But in the
case of the question of kindness, not only the presence of pleasure and displeasure,
but also the consequences, and thus a bad pleasure, is that which, according to
general principles, gives the world more unpleasure in the consequences than it does
At present, as is true of every immoral lust, the punishment of evil, in spite of the
displeasure which it awakens to evil, is good, on the presupposition that by this
greater disobedience is defended in the world than it itself is; yes, the principle of
justice itself can be founded on this. These conceptual preliminary discussions must
suffice here as regards the relationship between pleasure and unpleasure, good and
evil which, according to general principles, attributes to the world more of unpleasure
in the consequences than it is at present, as it is of every immoral pleasure, while the
punishment of evil, in spite of the displeasure which it awakens to evil, is good,
according to the presupposition, that thereby greater disgust is defended in the world
than it is; yes, the principle of justice itself can be founded on this. These conceptual
preliminary discussions must suffice here as regards the relationship between
pleasure and unpleasure, good and evil which, according to general principles,
attributes to the world more of unpleasure in the consequences than it is at present, as
it is of every immoral pleasure, while the punishment of evil, in spite of the
displeasure which it awakens to evil, is good, according to the presupposition, that
thereby greater disgust is defended in the world than it is; yes, the principle of justice
itself can be founded on this. These conceptual preliminary discussions must suffice
here as regards the relationship between pleasure and unpleasure, good and evil yes,
the principle of justice itself can be founded on this. These conceptual preliminary
discussions must suffice here as regards the relationship between pleasure and
unpleasure, good and evil yes, the principle of justice itself can be founded on
this. These conceptual preliminary discussions must suffice here as regards the
relationship between pleasure and unpleasure, good and evil1) .
l)Incoming of this in the book "About the highest good", and in the second
section of the "Preschool of the Aesthetics". The oft-feared reluctance to make
the concept of good and evil dependent on the concept of pleasure and
displeasure depends partly on a too low and narrow conception of the concept
of pleasure and pain, and partly on the fact that pleasure is measured in the
measure of goodness and its opposite - and discomfort does not draw into
required consideration, which leads to theoretical and practical errors.

In general we speak of a different kind of pleasure and aversion, according as it

attaches itself to various determinations or relationships of our soul, as to sensual
sensations, ideas, thoughts or their relations. Because pleasure or non-air makes
different mental determinations pleasurable or unpleasant, it itself at the same time
receives an opposite determinateness through it, and let us call it different. But so
many. Determine the determinations of our soul only by the nature of its origin, this
also applies to the pleasure and pain associated with it; and the species name of
pleasure and displeasure coincides largely with the relationship of its origin,
according to which B. the pleasure of well-being is different than that of the
fragrance,
In general one attributes to pleasure and aversion the lower the character, the more
it is based on the simple excitement of the senses, simple perceptions, perceptions in
general, and the more it appeals to the conception of relations, relationships,
connections, or activity of the spirit is based in such and the higher they go. In
ordinary life, of course, height is often mistaken for pleasure.
Lust and aversion are subject not only to a qualitative co-determination, but also to
quantitative self-determination. As difficult as it may appear to compare one pleasure
with another, or one discomfort with another quantitatively, and with the quantitative
relations of pleasure and displeasure in general, lead to clear determinations, one
actually goes everywhere to estimates of the kind says z. For example, that this or
that more or less pleasure or aversion gives us something else; And pretty much the
whole practice of life depends on it, as long as one seeks to create and produce
everywhere the more pleasurable or more pleasurable, less disgusting or
promising. Thus, neither theoretically nor practically can be done without reference
to quantitative relations of pleasure and displeasure; and so at least it may be tempted
to say so much about determinacy and clarity as can be said.
One can distinguish an intense and extensive measure of the pleasure and pain or
measure of intense and extensive pleasure and displeasure, the former according to
the degree, strength or intensity of pleasure and aversion, the latter by the time
through which it extends and the number of Individuals through which it
spreads. Their overall size, so to speak, is a product of both.
The distinction of pleasure and displeasure in the sense of the first measure, of
degree, of strength or intensity, can be made directly by inner comparison of the
feelings themselves, by becoming aware of whether one or another case has had
stronger or weaker pleasure; without, of course, this estimate being very sharp and
sure, provided it can only be done by means of a more or less uncertain memory. But
to this subjective measure, through internal comparison of one's own feelings, there
comes into being, admittedly even greater insecurity, more objective, partly after
direct expression of feeling through speech and expressions, partly according to
preference of this or that pleasure and the greater or lesser expenditure of activity or
means. which is made to obtain the same. Despite their insecurity, we can not do
without both theoretically and practically; and must only strive to reduce the
uncertainty in the individual case to the smallest possible, partly to win on the
average or all the relevant provisions.
In general, it is much easier to compare lust of the same kind and height as of
different kind and amount of strength, e.g. For instance, it is easier to say whether a
dish tastes better to us than another, than to say whether a dish tastes better than a
flower smells, and it is easier to say whether we like one painting more than another,
as if we are A painting more pleasing than a piece of music, easier to compare sensual
lust among each other, as well as higher spiritual pleasure among themselves in
strength than sensual pleasure with higher pleasure. Yes, one might think that the type
or amount of different desire is not quantitative, but comparable only by type or
height.
In the meantime the comparison of the strength of pleasure of different kinds or
heights is quite as much in comparison with the comparison of the brightness of
different colors or the strength of different tones. While we are able to state with
certainty which of the two similar surfaces is very small, and which of the two are
brighter than the other, and also to state with comparatively high tones of relative
certainty which sounds stronger or louder, the judgment becomes in this respect very
difficult, if the colors of uneven texture, the tones are of uneven height. But it is
enough that blue is much lighter or darker than red, a high tone much stronger or
weaker than a deeper, so the distinction of strength becomes unquestionable.
For no one doubts that a blue, which is very clearly visible, may be called brighter
than a red, which only just emerges from the darkness, or to name a barely audible
low tone weaker than a loud high. According to this, some also prefer a tasty dish to
an enjoyment of art, and another to a decidedly opposite, according as this or that
decisively grants him more pleasure; and since the pleasure in every kind of
enjoyment is temporarily exhausted by its duration, it soon soon becomes that kind of
pleasure in the preponderance of strength.
With the estimation of a greater and lesser extent in the degree or strength of
pleasure and displeasure considered up to now, there is still no proper measure of it
which would presuppose that it can not merely be stated whether one pleasure or
aversion is in general stronger than the other. but how many times as strong one is as
the other, or what proportion of strength has a given pleasure or displeasure to any
degree of pleasure or discomfort, as the basis of unity. At such a degree more of
theoretical than practical interest lacks for pleasure and pain; but it is to be hoped for
the progress of psychophysics, after it has been found by the latter a very general
principle of measure for the sensation, that the extension of it to pleasure and
aversion may still be found, without, however, that clear points of view are already
present in this respect; Therefore, although the concept of a quantitative relationship
determination between different degrees of pleasure and aversion can generally be
stated here, detailed discussions of such determinateness can not be made. Also, for
most of the questions to be dealt with below, it is not only the actual comparative
measure of pleasure or discomfort that is of interest, but just the estimate of whether
more or less, whether growth or decrease. but it can not be discussed further in such
discussions. Also, for most of the questions to be dealt with below, it is not only the
actual comparative measure of pleasure or discomfort that is of interest, but just the
estimate of whether more or less, whether growth or decrease. but it can not be
discussed further in such discussions. Also, for most of the questions to be dealt with
below, it is not just the actual measure of comparison of pleasure or pain that matters,
but just the estimate of whether more or less, whether growth or decrease, interest.
 Difficulties of the same kind as to stand in the way of the quantitative comparison
of pleasure and displeasure occur when pleasure is to be quantitatively compared
with pain. But inasmuch as we do not consider taking a small discomfort into the
purchase, if it gives us great pleasure, if we weigh up the pleasure and pain of the
successes in our plans, and not infrequently fluctuate between the equivalents of both,
then pleasure must be involved To compare discomfort quantitatively; and we will,
generally speaking, have to see equivalents of pleasure and aversion, where equally
strong impulses in the opposite sense depend on which impulses in turn are to be
measured according to their effects.
The increase of pleasure can be regarded as equivalent to diminishing discomfort
and diminishing pleasure by increasing discomfort from the following points of view.
The conscious instinct goes just as much in the sense of the augmentation of
pleasure as a diminution of unpleasure, and just as much against the diminution of
pleasure as the augmentation of unpleasure. The ideas that we meet with an increase
in pleasure and that we encounter a diminution of unpleasure are both pleasurable;
the ideas that we encounter a diminution of pleasure, and that we encounter an
increase in displeasure, are both unpleasant. After that, one needs rules and laws that
apply to both equivalences in common, but only in relation to the one.
Immediately more evident than that there is an intense measure of pleasure and
aversion, it can be said that there is an extensive one, provided, of course, that a
pleasure of double duration is twice as great as the average or constant of simple
duration, the pleasure of one twice large number of people in total twice the size of
the average or equal to the simple number.
So it will be said that 6 apples distributed to 6 children are able to produce 6 times
as much pleasure as a single apple assigned to a single one - that when a crowd
of m individuals watch a pleasurable spectacle, and each one of them should have the
same desire in mind the overall desire the same m times as large as the desire of each
individual is; and since one can speak of a more and less of pleasure, one must be
able to speak of equal pleasure. But if pleasure is unequally distributed among
the m persons, as is generally the case of reality, then the total pleasure becomes mbe
as big as the average lust of each one; however, the drawing of the average already
presupposes the intensive measure. According to this, however, all operations that
can be carried out with measures will allow for the extension measures of pleasure
and discomfort.
With regard to previous determinations, the following very general questions can
be raised, which I call the world questions of pleasure and pain, and which, even
apart from the reference of the concepts of pleasure and pain to those of good and
evil, retain their interest only without these references would not reveal their
connection with the interests represented by the conceptual circles of good and
bad. In short, it is the most general questions about the pleasure and displeasure
economy in the world; and, at the same time, the questions, which may in the first
place arise in the dispute between pessimism and optimism, may be formulated more
precisely than one usually finds.
 l. Are the basic conditions of pleasure and unpleasure such that the sum of pleasure
(as the product of intensity and extensity) in the whole of time and space is equal to
the sum of the displeasure, or is one sum outweighed by the other. In short: on the
whole, equivalents of pleasure and aversion are required; but not in the case, what
prevails?
(2) On condition that the sum of pleasure and discomfort is variable with time, the
relationship between the two does not remain constant, or the one progressively
grows stronger than the other, or finally there is a change in the sinking and rising of
one against the other Another is that periodically the equality or a certain relation of
their quanta is always restored anew.
3. Does the same relationship of pleasure and displeasure, which exists in the
whole of time and space, also take place for every single creature on condition of an
over-duration of the soul after death? or, on the whole, some of the creatures remain
at a disadvantage or advantage against the other.
4. What is the initial state and which is the definitive state of the world as a whole
and of the individual in particular as to its state of pleasure and pain? or, in so far as
we do not speak of a beginning and an end state in a world without beginning and
end, which state is the more near to thinking the further one pursues their states
backwards or forwards in time.
In any case, the first of these must be the most fundamental of the previous
questions, provided that the answer to the others is already more or less prejudiced,
and in part already given, by its answer. And certainly it is a question of great
interest; for if it were to be shown that in the whole of time and space no more
pleasure than displeasure could be, one time would be happy only at the expense of
others, one man only at the expense of other people or another time of his own
life. The eternal blessedness itself could only be the equivalent of an equal hell of the
damned, or an equally eternal backward state of unhappiness. But should necessarily
be more displeasure than pleasure in the whole, so would any desire to deplore every
happiness in the world,
It is undeniable that many will be inclined to decide this question according to their
wishes or religious precepts, without bringing it beyond a subjective decision. For if
it were only for the desires of man, he would wish to desist evil from the world at all,
and since evil is factually at issue, an unwanted answer to the first question of the
world could also be one of the evils which he must accept. And once God permitted
pain in the world in the face of pleasure, without our understanding the reason for it,
who would prescribe the weighing of the two; yes, whoever decides, since even God
can not make two or two five, whether there is not an equally strong metaphysical
impossibility of producing pleasure without the same reluctance, which, incidentally,
God would not hinder, the eternal pleasure of the good, the eternal discomfort to the
evil as finite remuneration to allocate. And this may be enough for many a theologian
to allow himself to accept a necessary equivalence of pleasure and displeasure as a
whole, while it may not yet be enough for another who desires ultimate happiness for
all his fellow-men. And so you will probably have occasion to dispute, but no
decision in this way.
A philosopher may easily be based on points of view of the following kind in favor
of the necessary equivalence of pleasure and aversion. Lust and aversion are in
contradiction; Everywhere, however, opposites demand equivalents. So the positive
and negative series of numbers, the positive and negative electricity, the possibility of
movement in one direction and the same motion in the opposite direction. Indeed, if
one thinks of the world as having emerged from an indifferent state, it could not
otherwise proceed and can not exist otherwise, than in such a way that opposites,
including pleasure and pain, diverge in equivalents and persist forever in equivalents.
And certainly, if the presupposition of an indifferent primordial state of the world
were correct, the conclusion would also be correct. But if the premise were really
correct, no real world would have ever emerged. Did it not emerge from the fact that
of the equally conceivable opposing factors one, which we may call the positive, was
from the outset in a real preponderance against the other and remains eternal, and
only in time and in place a diminution or a retrogression, but none experiencing total
annulment by the other. Of course, there are as many negative as positive numbers by
concept, but in fact not as many are counted; the added numbers are in immense
overweight to those subtracted, and there is unspeakably less debt than positive
fortune. Of course, any movement of the same size in the opposite direction may be
considered, but in spite of this same possibility, all the planets circle in the same
direction, we call them right, around themselves and around the sun, and all parts of
the planets take part of this movement, in that they reduce it only partly locally by
their own movement, and partly strengthen it. Of course, every planet in one half of
its orbit around the sun has the opposite direction to the other; but who wants to
assert that the antithesis of pleasure and pain is more like that of that kind of opposite
movement? Any development, of course, can, once it has been raised, be pursued just
as well backward as forward in thought; but the world, on the whole, is always
developing in the same direction, and never a child returns to the mother's womb, the
plant in the seed, a people back to their original state, although partial regression is
not lacking. The comparison of pleasure and displeasure with positive and negative
electricity, however, does not apply in the most fundamental respects either, why
should he meet with regard to equivalence. Thus a body can not become electrically
positive without another in its immediate vicinity becoming negative, or at least
losing positive electricity. On the other hand, a person can become happy without his
neighbor becoming unhappy; yes, he can make happy, thereby gaining in pleasure
himself, and without there being any demonstrable misfortune for those still alive.
Apart from all analogy, it may be said that we can only feel pleasure with
reluctance on the basis of its contrast; and it is true, the longer bad weather was, the
more we enjoy the good weather; the more hunger plagued us, the more enjoyment it
gives us. Any source of pleasure dulls off in the long run, and the inconceivability of
it increases again through intervening discomfort. But this does not prove that
pleasure can only arise in the opposite direction and in opposition to
disagreement; and already Plato distinguished a pleasure that had arisen and an
independent one. We can taste something good without having a bad taste, a work of
art pleasing without consideration that we displease another;
Finally, one might want to base the fundamental equivalence of pleasure and
aversion on a psychophysical hypothesis. Set z. If, for example, there is a desire for
growth, aversion, and diminution of the living force of movement - a hypothesis that
has recently been really put into place - then, according to the well-known law of the
preservation of power, there would be pleasure and displeasure throughout time and
of space, and even by distant relations pleasure in one place and in one time is
connected with the displeasure in other places and in other times. But in my opinion,
the experience of this hypothesis contradicts. Approaching sleep, the living force,
including the psychophysical, of the whole body decreases, but falling asleep does
not cause any displeasure; and the most violent passionate excitement can be both
unpleasurable and pleasurable. There is also another hypothesis which does not meet
the same contradictions in experience, and leads to quite different results (Sect.
XVIII); but here we leave psychophysical hypotheses aside.
With all the above general considerations, therefore, the first main question
remains, and with it the others are still undecided. Now one can seek the decision by
way of experience; only the experiential weighing of pleasure and displeasure in the
world is a matter of a more or less indeterminate and subjective estimation, which can
give a very different result, as one turns his attention more to the light or shadow
sides of the world, and those against each other appraises weighing
weights. Hartmann has put together everything worthy of appreciation, decent love
and frightening completeness, which in effect makes the world look like a bad thing,
unpleasure from the beginning and even today in preponderance against
pleasure. And if you look at the mass misery of entire folk classes, the mass
misfortunes of wars, starvation and epidemics, the mass atrocities of nature in the
daily struggle of creatures for existence, the thousandfold points of attack which body
and soul of each one offer to suffer, looks at us with a physical or mental one Pain
plagues days, weeks, months, years, does not want to dull, while every dullness dulls
soon, the sooner, the bigger it is, we become tired of every source of pleasure, while a
pain does not weary us, as it were ; if you put all this in a heap, and the desire only as
something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how should one not
find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-considerations. the mass
cruelties of nature in the daily struggle of creatures for existence, the thousandfold
points of attack which body and soul of each one offer to suffering, looks at the fact
that a physical or mental pain plagues us for days, weeks, months, years can, does not
want to blunt, while every dullness soon dulls, the sooner, the bigger it is, we finally
get tired of every source of pleasure, while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if
you put all this in a heap, and the desire only as something incidental and illusory
about it and want to appear, how should one not find the pessimism in the right. But
there are also counter-considerations. the mass cruelties of nature in the daily struggle
of creatures for existence, the thousandfold points of attack which body and soul of
each one offer to suffering, looks at the fact that a physical or mental pain plagues us
for days, weeks, months, years can, does not want to blunt, while every dullness soon
dulls, the sooner, the bigger it is, we finally get tired of every source of pleasure,
while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if you put all this in a heap, and the
desire only as something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how
should one not find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-
considerations. the thousandfold points of attack which body and soul of each
individual offer to suffering, looks at it, and considers that a physical or mental pain
can plague us for days, weeks, months, years, and not dull ourselves, while every lust
soon dulls, the faster, the bigger it is, we are at last weary of every source of pleasure,
while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if you put all this in a heap, and the
desire only as something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how
should one not find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-
considerations. the thousandfold points of attack which body and soul of each
individual offer to suffering, looks at it, and considers that a physical or mental pain
can plague us for days, weeks, months, years, and not dull ourselves, while every lust
soon dulls, the faster, the bigger it is, we are at last weary of every source of pleasure,
while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if you put all this in a heap, and the
desire only as something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how
should one not find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-
considerations. does not want to blunt oneself, as soon as all pleasure soon becomes
dull, the faster, the bigger it is, we are at last wearied of every source of pleasure,
while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if you put all this in a heap, and the
desire only as something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how
should one not find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-
considerations. does not want to blunt oneself, as soon as all pleasure soon becomes
dull, the faster, the bigger it is, we are at last wearied of every source of pleasure,
while a pain, so to speak, does not weary us; if you put all this in a heap, and the
desire only as something incidental and illusory about it and want to appear, how
should one not find the pessimism in the right. But there are also counter-
considerations.
Would the desire to live on the whole outweigh, if not outweigh the lust for life in
general? I myself can not escape the fact that the displeasure in greater masses is
more intrusive for attention than pleasure; but even if man had to take pleasure in a
whole gamut of displeasure for every whole thaler of pleasure which he takes, it
would be a false calculation to count only the thalers and theaters against each other,
if the man of the minute, hour , Daily wage of his life is usually paid in pleasure
groschen and pleasure pennies. Is not it really that way?
Let us imagine the greatness of pleasure, such as the displeasure in the various
places of the world, those by a red, this by a black contour line (ordinate) above a
level level; so we shall see great black mountain ranges comparatively frugal and
scattered red mountains opposite, and may easily be inclined to keep the black
heights in preponderance against the red ones; but the land between the mountains,
with a slight elevation above the level of the plain, will be able to redden to a large
extent, and the sum of the red heights may amount to the sum of the blacks or even
surpass them. In fact, it is one of the many points in which displeasure and pleasure
do not obey the relation of a simple antithesis, that the distribution of pleasure is quite
different from the discomfort distribution,
To this consideration belongs, above all, that, even if sources of discomfort do not
dull so easily as sources of pleasure in continual action, we can thus plague much
more sustainably, which is compensated by the fact that pleasure-sources can be
renewed after moderate enjoyment and moderate interim with ever new effect and,
because we seek the desire to be renewed as often as possible, while continuous
discomfort sources can only meet us against our will and therefore relatively less
frequently, because we do everything possible to avoid them. So one can enjoy his
morning coffee every day, though he can not continue to enjoy it as continually as a
toothache can plague him; Hundreds enjoy their morning coffee and lunch each day
with pleasure, of which only a few and these are only occasionally tormented by a
persistent physical pain. Yes, whoever says that the desire for a daily occupation, the
pleasure in love, honor, pleasure, etc. dulls in other senses than that one can not have
them continuously in the consciousness while there are inescapable sources of
recurring pleasure therein. Enmity, hatred can be very bitter and of very bitter
consequences; but they are only the exception, while the joys of love and conviviality
enter the regular course of life. What is worse than shame, but there is more honor in
the world than shame. For thousands who are starving, there are millions who are
satiated, and the foresight of satiety not only tends to relieve most of the hunger, but
excels them with lust. No man fears but almost everyone hopes throughout his life,
and whether hope fills or not, it contributes to the lust of life. In general, illusions that
bring pleasure are therefore no less pleasurable, that they are illusions; and the
pessimist unfairly eliminates them.
Man is somehow engaged in his work as long as he lives, and always it is the object
of positive pleasure, or is it the prevention or elimination of sources of displeasure,
what he strives for. But in the daily course of life more and more of the small
purposes which man poses for the day are attained than not attained, and where man
sets himself to greater ends, much more frequently every day takes a step forward as
a step backward in relation to it ; not only the attainment of the end itself, but also the
anticipation of the attainment in the idea that finally every approximation to it is in
the sense of pleasure. If I make a logarithmic calculation, then every classification of
a logarithm I have sought is accompanied in the account by a little exceeding of the
threshold of desire; and so with the one who digs up a bed, Every ground-breaking
ceremony, at the seamstress who is lining a cloth, at every pinprick, in short whatever
occupation one has in mind, every step, which leads to the achievement of the
purpose. Now, indeed, this surpassing of the threshold of the desire, by continuing
through the time of ordinary employment, is so small for the individual moments that
it easily escapes attention and memory, and one can be inclined to look back on
employment, but rather to slip to see on the threshold as above the threshold of
pleasure in it; but one can also be well aware that our habitual affairs receive our state
of mind above the level which we call indifference, and indeed I seek a major factor
in the pleasure of life. Of course, a job can get us too angry or obnoxious barriers, or
we can only work for foreign purposes, or we can not work in solitary
confinement. But all that is not the rule; For it is precisely because this would bring
an unpleasantness of repugnance into the world that the world has, by and large,
turned to the opposite. Look at a bricklayer or a stone-cutter to see if he gets too mad,
and if he finds Sunday more beautiful than the working day, he would soon realize
what he would lose if all days were Sunday. Also, soothing change from working
with rest is much more common than fatigue or boredom. Difficulties whose
discomfort is not immediately reconciled by the foresight of overcoming them, Only
exceptionally enter into the course of daily employment, and when they have been
overcome, the former reluctance is usually rewarded by the joy of overcoming it. The
work that someone does for others is almost always done for him at the same
time; indeed, it is one of the most effective levers of the pleasure economy in the
world, that the purposes of the individual in society are conducive to each other as
inhibiting and intermeshing, and where the best institution is still lacking in this
regard, society strives more and more same too.
And let us not forget, for all the pleasure which so to speak runs through the world
at a moderate height, to take into account also the summit points of the same, as such
exist. And what comes to mind? A cheerful evening in convivial circles, a look into a
beautiful or lovely face, the first time of a young love, the feeling of being in joy and
sorrow with one or one, the joy of the mother, the joy of receiving a great gift or to
give, the Christmas Eve, the beautiful prospects on a trip, the Raphael Sixtina and
Beethoven's C minor Symphony, and what not all; to have a clear conscience over
everything and the consciousness to be in God's hands. It would be a pity if a world
did not exist with all this.
Now, even with previous considerations, we can not refute in full severity the
pessimistic view of the preponderance of unpleasure over pleasure in the world, and
at least soften the sharpness of it and ward off its one-sidedness. I repeat, the
empirical consideration is too difficult to decide for sure. On the basis of all previous
considerations, I confess that it often seems to me that all in all, the unpleasure
outweighs it, and whoever I ask around it usually seems the same, while he still likes
to put up with life , But suppose it really were so, the main question to which we have
to answer is still nothing less than decided pessimistically.
In fact, even more than the question of the existing conditions of pleasure and
displeasure, we are interested in the question as to whether and in what sense the
relationship between them changes in the progress of time with which we ourselves
progress; and should we be able to suppose that the direction of evil is for the better,
and that we pass through all suffering, even if it is only with the transgression of this
world, we will reach a happy final state, we may ourselves be in a state of little
satisfactory satisfaction his improvement and the foresight to his goal.
Now the world does not stand still, and it is certain that, as far as the change of it
proceeds from conscious impulses, it is done to secure and increase the sources of
pleasure, to eliminate and to lessen the sources of displeasure; In any case, pleasure
presupposes a substantial advantage over the unpleasure, of which one should think
that, even if at first unpleasantness outweighs it, it would finally have to give pleasure
over the preponderance. Of course, countless attempts to improve the state of the
world fail or lead astray; but they are, generally speaking, continued until they finally
succeed, and every success is only the step to a new success. All useful and beautiful
arts are perfected in this sense, one invention always surpasses the other, and the
sciences always offer new advances to progress. Now, while the costumes of the
individual may come into conflict with the costumes of others, but above all
individual costumes there is also a more general aspiration, which more and more
balances these conflicts for the benefit of the good, the state of happiness of all. In
this sense it is that in the course of time - comparing only sufficiently long epochs
and sufficiently large spaces - religion and morality, laws, state and social institutions
become more and more perfect and the more perfect continue to spread over the
earth. which balances these conflicts more and more for the benefit of the good, the
happiness of all. In this sense it is that in the course of time - comparing only
sufficiently long epochs and sufficiently large spaces - religion and morality, laws,
state and social institutions become more and more perfect and the more perfect
continue to spread over the earth. which balances these conflicts more and more for
the benefit of the good, the happiness of all. In this sense it is that in the course of
time - comparing only sufficiently long epochs and sufficiently large spaces - religion
and morality, laws, state and social institutions become more and more perfect and
the more perfect continue to spread over the earth.
If, of course, the scales should be kept in check for the betterment of their
conditions by the worsening influences of unconscious nature, then the improvement
could not come about. But on the contrary, a great teleology of nature, or, let us say,
the spirit of the times, a causality that excels in success like teleology, works hand in
hand with the aspirations of man. How chaotic matter may have been from the
beginning; Now the sun and the moon are at the same time a clock, a lamp, and the
first an invigorating source of heat in a glorious blue or starry sky over the head of
man,
If one then asks why the world, in spite of this tendency for improvement, which
has always gone in the same direction, has not advanced further, it can still be
doubtful whether pleasure, whether unpleasance outweighs, or even inclines, the last
To consider as still predominant, it may be answered, that at every point where the
world has once arrived, one may ask why it has not brought it further; it will be that
it, the farther Looking backwards, the way backwards was. The transition point from
more unpleasure to more pleasure, however, can be a different one for each star, as
for every creature.
The pessimist, of course, will not find himself beaten by all this, but will argue
against it: first, that if man always seeks to open new sources of pleasure, it is only
because he gradually dulls himself against the old, yes, only at the expense of the
Appearance for the old receptive to the new will; secondly, that in accordance with
the progress of human culture the sources of pleasure increase and increase, and at
the same time those of unpleasure multiply and increase, thus we do not confuse the
raw condition of the past with a less fortunate one, the more cultivated one with a
happier one Thirdly, looking back in time, we can find just as striking regression as
progress in improving conditions. Short, that all striving to improve the state of the
world also brings it no further than to maintain the old relationship between pleasure
and pain only in a new form, at a new stage of development; however, without this
pursuit the condition would even worsen. And who denies that objections of this kind
should be taken into account?
In the meantime there are, as already recalled, sources of pleasure, against which
man never dulls himself, but to which he periodically returns again and again with
new freshness, insofar as he dulls himself against sources of pleasure, it is only
infofern as it is partly larger by sources, partly of higher pleasure, and the new
sources of displeasure which are conjured up with it are indeed disturbances, and
inhibitions of the new sources of pleasure, of which one does not can say that they
cancel and compensate them. Also, these disturbances and inhibitions, by the
discomfort they arouse, even more powerful impulses to lift them, the stronger they
are; in the activity which is related to it, there lies even a source of pleasure, another
in the foresight of finite elevation, and in this itself the culmination of pleasure. Any
regression in the recovery of conditions is finally just a fresh start to greater
improvement.
Of course, the fact that such retrogressions take place temporarily and locally
makes it difficult to draw a firm conclusion from the comparison of past and present
times for the whole time; but safety must grow as larger periods and areas are drawn
into comparison. And I do not think that anyone can find the time of the pile
dwellings for the cultural period in which we live today, and the conditions of today's
savages, which put us back in those times, for our cultural conditions or willing to
exchange. It is true, a rougher state is not necessarily a more unfortunate, but if not
everyone's feeling said that, generally speaking, the raw state includes fewer
conditions of happiness, more of suffering, than the cultured, so it would not let the
latter so decidedly prefer, and one can assert, but not prove, that this is only success
of an illusion, and may not say that we prefer the present condition, because it is the
present one; On the contrary, man always goes beyond the present state with his
wishes, and may then wish to return to simpler states, but only insofar as he imagines
them at the same time more idyllic, more harmonious with nature; while the original
states of men are the exact opposite, as long as their lot is a constant struggle with
nature. On the contrary, man always goes beyond the present state with his wishes,
and may then wish to return to simpler states, but only insofar as he imagines them at
the same time more idyllic, more harmonious with nature; while the original states of
men are the exact opposite, as long as their lot is a constant struggle with nature. On
the contrary, man always goes beyond the present state with his wishes, and may then
wish to return to simpler states, but only insofar as he imagines them at the same time
more idyllic, more harmonious with nature; while the original states of men are the
exact opposite, as long as their lot is a constant struggle with nature.
It would be strange at all, since everything in the world, knowledge and ability, is
in progress, if that for which it is ultimately to be promoted to mankind in all this,
would stand in the same state, not in the flow of this progress itself with one, that is
the happiness of humanity. But if every new advance encounters the same new
obstacles, causing partial backflows, the whole flow continues.
Meanwhile, what can the optimist reciprocate to the pessimist when he finally
raises objections against him as follows.
Have you well considered that if you want to accept an advance in the sense of
growing pleasure or decreasing unpleasure into the indeterminate for the future, you
must also reduce the pleasure backwards into the indeterminate, the unpleasure must
think in the indefinite growing; But it does not relieve you of beginning the world
with infinite displeasure, and going on with a tremendous preponderance through
aeons of unpleasure, until it has gradually come down to the present barely tolerable
state of the world. But even admitting what I do not admit, that after my death it will
gradually become better with the world, and those who live after me, will profit from
it, what will help me if, after a miserable life, I have no part in this improvement , For
me, this world was always a bad one,
In the meantime, the first inference, if one wants to close back into the indefinite,
has no binding force per se, for something moving forward or backward into the
indeterminate can asymptotically approach a zero or finite value without crossing it
in a positive or negative direction; Thus, a growth of unpleasure or a decrease in
pleasure in the indefinite must be pursued backwards, not to lead to an infinite
displeasure; but, at first, the prospect in the whole backwards may still seem
questionable; For the creatures, at any rate, this objection stands out itself, since it is
only in finite time that they enter into existence with a finite degree of pleasure or
pain, that is, to individualize themselves out of general existence; only the objection
regarding their future remains; and let us concede that, however useful and necessary
our previous reflections may have been, to counter the one-sidednesses and attacks of
pessimism, they do not oppose the first part of the objection to the past of the whole,
and are directed against the second the future of the creatures, still nothing. Only we
are not over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of
course, leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which,
however, all prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which,
therefore, it was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can
not defend this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just
take it along. However useful and necessary our previous reflections may have been
to counter the one-sidednesses and encroachments of pessimism, they do not oppose
the first part of the objection concerning the past of the whole, and are directed
against the second, concerning the future of the creatures. still nothing. Only we are
not over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of
course, leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which,
however, all prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which,
therefore, it was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can
not defend this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just
take it along. However useful and necessary our previous reflections may have been
to counter the one-sidednesses and encroachments of pessimism, they do not oppose
the first part of the objection concerning the past of the whole, and are directed
against the second, concerning the future of the creatures. still nothing. Only we are
not over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of
course, leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which,
however, all prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which,
therefore, it was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can
not defend this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just
take it along. To counter the one-sidednesses and encroachments of pessimism, they
still do not oppose the first part of the objection concerning the past of the whole, and
yet do not judge the second, concerning the future of the creatures. Only we are not
over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of course,
leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which, however, all
prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which, therefore, it
was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can not defend
this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just take it
along. To counter the one-sidednesses and encroachments of pessimism, they still do
not oppose the first part of the objection concerning the past of the whole, and yet do
not judge the second, concerning the future of the creatures. Only we are not over yet
with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of course, leads out
of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which, however, all prospects
of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which, therefore, it was also
referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can not defend this step,
which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just take it along. They
do not yet oppose the first part of the objection concerning the past of the whole, and
yet do not judge the second, as regards the future of the creatures. Only we are not
over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which, of course,
leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which, however, all
prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which, therefore, it
was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can not defend
this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just take it
along. They do not yet oppose the first part of the objection concerning the past of the
whole, and yet do not judge the second, as regards the future of the creatures. Only
we are not over yet with our Gegenbetrachtungen yet. One last step remains, which,
of course, leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with which,
however, all prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to which,
therefore, it was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the night can
not defend this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it does not just
take it along. One last step remains, which, of course, leads out of the realm of
experience into the realm of faith, with which, however, all prospects of breadth and
depth must at last be closed off, and to which, therefore, it was also referred from the
outset. The pessimistic view of the night can not defend this step, which the day view
does not take here only here, it does not just take it along. One last step remains,
which, of course, leads out of the realm of experience into the realm of faith, with
which, however, all prospects of breadth and depth must at last be closed off, and to
which, therefore, it was also referred from the outset. The pessimistic view of the
night can not defend this step, which the day view does not take here only here, it
does not just take it along.
Well, says the pessimist, since you can not refute me with experience, you try to
put it into the blue with a belief. And of course, the pessimism of the night view and
the negation of a belief that leads beyond it are naturally related. In the meantime, the
belief in God and hereafter and the world's highest and ultimate goals set by it is not a
faith in the blue, since it finds its other supports in the daily view, even without
optimistic demands. But here too the practical advantages of the day view are shown
to be the practical advantages of relieving us of the necessity of falling victim to
pessimism, and this, according to the practical principle of faith (chapter IX), can
itself help to support it.
The thing is this: if there is a more general life above the life of the individual and
an otherworldly of the individual after this worldly life, then the world questions of
pleasure and displeasure may be made only with reference to it, and only insofar with
conclusions from what We can experience in our limited worldly life, to be answered,
as we see in what sense the conditions of pleasure and discomfort already on this side
change with the expansion and increase of the general conditions of existence. But
the question of the world, which is the relationship between pleasure and displeasure
in general, and whether and in what sense it changes, falls for the view of the day
with the question as to what relationship between pleasure and displeasure on the
whole consists for God, and how far for God changes. For by bearing in himself all
his creatures, God carries with him all his pleasure and displeasure at the same time
with all that which can be sought in the more general and higher determinations and
relations of existence between and above the creatures. If, from our lower points of
view, we are unable to pursue these determinations and relations with clarity and
certainty into the most general and highest realm of the divine existence, we must
contemplate, as follows, the basis of faith, that in God not at all only conditions of a
higher pleasure exist than for the creatures, but that the change and subsequent play
of pleasure and displeasure in the creaturely region itself belongs to these
conditions. He also carries all his pleasure and displeasure at the same time with all
that which can be sought in the more general and higher determinations and relations
of existence between and above the creatures. If, from our lower points of view, we
are unable to pursue these determinations and relations with clarity and certainty into
the most general and highest realm of the divine existence, we must contemplate, as
follows, the basis of faith, that in God not at all only conditions of a higher pleasure
exist than for the creatures, but that the change and subsequent play of pleasure and
displeasure in the creaturely region itself belongs to these conditions. He also carries
all his pleasure and displeasure at the same time with all that which can be sought in
the more general and higher determinations and relations of existence between and
above the creatures. If, from our lower points of view, we are unable to pursue these
determinations and relations with clarity and certainty into the most general and
highest realm of the divine existence, we must contemplate, as follows, the basis of
faith, that in God not at all only conditions of a higher pleasure exist than for the
creatures, but that the change and subsequent play of pleasure and displeasure in the
creaturely region itself belongs to these conditions.
If I look at a painting merely for the impression of the individual lines and colors
and their simple connections, I may think that it is a bleak tangle and smear. But if I
look at it as a whole, I can attach meaning to it, which gives me a pleasure which I
can not derive from the sum of the individual that I have grasped for myself, and
against it not only the lower unpleasure, that from the intuitive Disorder of lines and
colors would come to its own, does not arise, but also outweighs the unpleasure that
might emerge from the view of the meaning of many larger parts of the painting, it is
only the right painting. In general, as the conditions of pleasure and pain are in
relation to each other, beauty's inheritance is required in detail, yes, the antitheses in
this regard, to achieve greater greater and more varied beauty throughout. The same
as for the one who takes in the view of the painting, applies to the artist who produces
it in himself. It's not just with the painting, it's the same with all artworks. Instead of
the work of art, the world is set; instead of the artist and the spectator, God is at the
same time placed, except that he has a more inward relationship to the world he
expresses as the artist in his work.
Of course, one wonders whether the world is comparable to a right work of art, or
what the same thing says, whether a right work of art is a true image of the world. If
there are enough bad works of art in the world, not everything in the world is a work
of art. It is true, but why are there bad works of art? Because the artist has neither the
feeling of all the pleasure and pain that will result from the contemplation of his
work, nor the knowledge to use all conditions of pleasure and aversion, nor the power
to use them all in the sense of his endeavor. But the farther and higher his feeling, his
knowledge and ability in these relationships, the more perfected his works
become; the God of the Day View however presents all artists in this regard. And if
not everything in the world is a work of art at all, Not everything in the artwork itself
is such a thing. Thus, the whole world can behave quite well as a predominantly
pleasing work of art for an all-encompassing consciousness, and thus for a higher
relationship-consciousness, without acting in such a way for the narrow and lesser
consciousness of the individual beings.
More direct and general leads to the same consideration. In fact, the tendency of
everything conscious goes to pleasure rather than displeasure; only the conditions of
one's own pleasure, and hence the tendencies of the individual, often conflict with the
pleasure and tendencies of others. The larger the area, the more one is controlled by
his feeling, knowledge and ability, the less he can counter external influences and the
greater is his ability to transform internal conflicts into the best of what he controls,
from which he draws pleasure and pain Discharge. But the god of the day-view, while
at the same time uniting and controlling the whole realm of existence, surpasses all
creatures in it.
To the desire, which can be drawn from the existing conditions of the world, there
is a desire to increase the pleasure, reduction of the displeasure, promotion of the
sources of pleasure, elimination of the discomfort sources, in short as active pleasure
of the first as a receptive to distinguish. The pleasure of giving, benefiting, healing
physical and moral infirmities; the desire to create beautiful works, to improve useful
facilities, etc. belong here. In addition, a desire for foresight of the success of such
action and a, but later (see below) to be considered increase in pleasure by the
direction of success. Even after all these relationships, God gains an increase of
pleasure over all his creatures. if the guidance of the creatures, even in this direction,
and the improvement of the conditions of the world beyond them, by and large suits
the foresight and direction of success; in fact, all his aspirations and actions from the
highest elevation take this direction.
Let us return to the question of the world given in advance, even though it can not
lead to a safe decision, whether and in what sense the state of pleasure changes for
the whole area of existence, that is, for our view of God; Thus, we could imagine
from the preceding that the pleasure quantum on the whole remains constant and that
only the relation of its moments changes, in that the active desire to promote the
sources of pleasure and the pleasure in foresight of success always proceeds just as
much for the sequence as through the Success of promoting itself to receptive
pleasure or its sources is gained; But we might also think that the state on the whole
is approaching all the more, be it an indifference state, middle between pleasure and
pain, or a state of equilibrium between existing pleasure and pain, the farther
backwards it is pursued, the more space there is for greater pleasure overweight, the
farther forward it is, that this overweight is asymptotically pursuing a certain goal or
even giving space for growth beyond any particular goal. But who can decide the
question, whether one way or another or another? Let us therefore leave it undecided,
and content ourselves with finding no reason, according to the former, that the
pleasure quantum of the world as a whole, whether pursued backwards or forwards,
ever descends below the quantity of pain - for what is lacking in this respect, It will
always make one think balanced up or outbid - to find a general and not unsuccessful
tendency to find the world, to improve existing conditions. On the other hand, there is
room for so much greater pleasure overweight, the farther forward it is, that this
overweight is asymptotically pursuing a certain goal or even giving space for growth
beyond any particular goal. But who can decide the question, whether one way or
another or another? Let us therefore leave it undecided, and content ourselves with
finding no reason, according to the former, that the pleasure quantum of the world as
a whole, whether pursued backwards or forwards, ever descends below the quantity
of pain - for what is lacking in this respect, It will always make one think balanced up
or outbid - to find a general and not unsuccessful tendency to find the world, to
improve existing conditions. On the other hand, there is room for so much greater
pleasure overweight, the farther forward it is, that this overweight is asymptotically
pursuing a certain goal or even giving space for growth beyond any particular
goal. But who can decide the question, whether one way or another or another? Let us
therefore leave it undecided, and content ourselves with finding no reason, according
to the former, that the pleasure quantum of the world as a whole, whether pursued
backwards or forwards, ever descends below the quantity of pain - for what is lacking
in this respect, It will always make one think balanced up or outbid - to find a general
and not unsuccessful tendency to find the world, to improve existing conditions. let it
be that asymptotically this overweight strives for a certain goal or even gives room
for growth beyond any particular goal. But who can decide the question, whether one
way or another or another? Let us therefore leave it undecided, and content ourselves
with finding no reason, according to the former, that the pleasure quantum of the
world as a whole, whether pursued backwards or forwards, ever descends below the
quantity of pain - for what is lacking in this respect, It will always make one think
balanced up or outbid - to find a general and not unsuccessful tendency to find the
world, to improve existing conditions. let it be that asymptotically this overweight
strives for a certain goal or even gives room for growth beyond any particular
goal. But who can decide the question, whether one way or another or another? Let us
therefore leave it undecided, and content ourselves with finding no reason, according
to the former, that the pleasure quantum of the world as a whole, whether pursued
backwards or forwards, ever descends below the quantity of pain - for what is lacking
in this respect, It will always make one think balanced up or outbid - to find a general
and not unsuccessful tendency to find the world, to improve existing
conditions. whether one way or the other, to decide for sure; Let us therefore leave it
undecided, and content ourselves with finding no reason, according to the former,
that the pleasure quantum of the world as a whole, whether pursued backwards or
forwards, ever descends below the quantity of pain - for what is lacking in this
respect, It will always make one think balanced up or outbid - to find a general and
not unsuccessful tendency to find the world, to improve existing conditions. whether
one way or the other, to decide for sure; Let us therefore leave it undecided, and
content ourselves with finding no reason, according to the former, that the pleasure
quantum of the world as a whole, whether pursued backwards or forwards, ever
descends below the quantity of pain - for what is lacking in this respect, It will always
make one think balanced up or outbid - to find a general and not unsuccessful
tendency to find the world, to improve existing conditions.
But as far as the creatures are concerned, in order to remind us of the second part of
the objection, we at least let the unpleasure at the beginning of their existence - and
all of this worldly life belong to it - prevail, then the following is due to a future life
Consideration.
In the direction of progress from conditions of unpleasure to those of pleasure, let
us call it the right direction, there is in general a condition of the augmentation of
pleasure; in the reverse of the same conditions, we call them the unjust, and one of
the augmentation of unpleasure, of which one The simplest example of this can be
found in the various successes which one obtains, according as one dissolves a
disharmonic chord into a harmonic one, or hears the same chords in reverse
order. What a contrast between the feeling of satisfaction at first and the
dissatisfaction at second. But that is just one example of a general fact. Let us
imagine any two living conditions of a person which, apart from their consequence,
contain conditions of equal pleasure and displeasure for him; Thus, depending on the
right or wrong consequence, pleasure or aversion will predominate on the whole. In
the case of the right-hand side, the pleasure is enhanced by the opposition to the
preceding unpleasure, without it being possible to increase the displeasure, because
the contrast was not there yet; we not only feel the pleasure of the present state of
pleasure, but also the difference of the same from the previous discomfort condition
with pleasure. In the case of the wrong consequence, the reverse is the case. Now,
since the world can not have pleasure without pain, its tendency, both in detail and in
its entirety, is to bring the discomforts and sources of pleasure on the contrary in an
unjust order, and thus to achieve a pleasure in themselves. So also according to the
direction of, not only across all space, but also across all time, To the creatures with
their coming, most general endeavor in this sense, to expect the hereafter as a
consequence of this world in the favorable relation of the right sequence to this
world. For this, however, the following consideration occurs.
Not every disharmonic chord can be resolved by any harmonic, but only by one
which, apart from disharmoniousness, resembles it. Even a bad concert can not be
reconciled by a good painting; every area, however, tends towards harmonic
conclusions; and so also a reconciliation of the unhappy life course of one man can
not take place through the happiness of another; and if there is a general
reconciliation of evil at all, everyone will be able to expect such for his own evil as
well; To be sure, many have to wait for this on the here and there, and the bad
assumption must first go through the evil in the afterlife itself in order to arrive at
reconciliation.
Of course, in the life of this world we too often encounter unjust consequences for
the individual, since the right consequences for the individual may be wrong for
others. But if our daily view is right, then as our ascension to the hereafter widens
and widens our circle of life, we gain a share in the more general and higher relations
of things, in which these conflicts are more and more resolved, we ascend, as it were,
to the more general and higher pleasure conditions that exist for God with. Of course,
not only are there conditions of increased pleasure, but also displeasure in the more
general and higher relations of things. But no less a condition for the greater
adjustment, reconciliation and outrage of the evil. And so we can think well, to
demand something from a practical point of view and to support it by other reasons,
that the evil perceives the counteraction against the evil that has come into the world
through it, in the expanded and exalted sphere of life of the hereafter, with pain as
punishment, which constrains him in his narrow-mindedness Life span did not touch
yet, but that it is finally forced by it to a reversal, what the resources of this world
were not enough. But by entering into the direction of the good with it, he also gains
part in the enjoyment of the higher goods of the hereafter, whereas the present good
has an immediate right to enter into the hereafter. Thus, the pleasure progression from
this world to the afterlife happens in good enough. In the extended and exalted sphere
of life of the hereafter, he relishes pain as a punishment, which did not yet touch him
in his narrow life span, but that at the same time he is at last compelled to repent, for
which the resources of this world were not sufficient. But by entering into the
direction of the good with it, he also gains part in the enjoyment of the higher goods
of the hereafter, whereas the present good has an immediate right to enter into the
hereafter. Thus, the pleasure progression from this world to the afterlife happens in
good enough. In the extended and exalted sphere of life of the hereafter, he relishes
pain as a punishment, which did not yet touch him in his narrow life span, but that at
the same time he is at last compelled to repent, for which the resources of this world
were not sufficient. But by entering into the direction of the good with it, he also
gains part in the enjoyment of the higher goods of the hereafter, whereas the present
good has an immediate right to enter into the hereafter. Thus, the pleasure progression
from this world to the afterlife happens in good enough. But by entering into the
direction of the good with it, he also gains part in the enjoyment of the higher goods
of the hereafter, whereas the present good has an immediate right to enter into the
hereafter. Thus, the pleasure progression from this world to the afterlife happens in
good enough. But by entering into the direction of the good with it, he also gains part
in the enjoyment of the higher goods of the hereafter, whereas the present good has
an immediate right to enter into the hereafter. Thus, the pleasure progression from
this world to the afterlife happens in good enough.
After all, there is no obstacle, which calls for the practical interest of believing that
anyone who enters life can more and more approach a permanently blissful state by
the manner in which he sets up his will and action - on average the best works best
here, the safer it is to pass over to the hereafter, and that when newly emerging beings
are always subject to the danger of overwhelming pain, they in turn have the capacity
to reverse this relationship by sacrificing their lives and pursuits more and more, in
the sense of the most general and highest tendencies, to contribute as much as
possible to the happiness of the whole; but if they do not willingly, they will finally
be forced to do it.
It is an old speech that is heard often enough, especially in pious songs, and that the
earth is a vale of tears. And if she already offers too much beautiful, good, and dear,
in order not to wrong her, then one can not deny that she is for many. If earthly
existence, what we call it, were the second and last after a first, there would be no
consolation not only for those many, but no help whatsoever against pessimism. But
the fact that we have the prospect of a second life after our present life, and that there
is a general tendency to make every second better than the first, can offer us this
comfort and help.
There are some already here who wonder, after having gone through long and hard
trials, when they have finally led to a satisfactory conclusion, and would it be towards
the end of life: would you rather have lived or not lived? If he looks back at the past
with a clear conscience, he will not say: I do not want to. This suffering has just
passed away, this happiness he has, and has increased it by the opposition to the
former sorrow, the better, when he combines the hopeful prospect into a future life
with it. Of course, if one wanted to ask the question: if you had the whole sum of the
body with the happy ending before you, would you for the sake of this conclusion,
the whole lifetime to live through, or rather not live, Some people would like to think
about that and start to calculate. So it may well be that the world order guides people,
without them, through suffering, which they can not spare them, to happy goals, after
which they are happy to have lived.
 And so, after an often-used picture, I think of the entire world-course as that of a
symphony, in which, of course, more and more serious dissonances are undermined
than in the symphonies of our concert halls, but which are no less contrary to
dissolution as a whole and to each one Dissolution even increase the joyfulness over
that of a symphony, which only wanted to move in consonances. In part, the
dissonances from the here and now reach into the hereafter; but the hereafter does not
tire of working on their dissolution and reconciliation.
Is everything then what has been said and demanded here by God and the hereafter
proven? None of this is proved because nothing can be proved in these things; but
there is a reasonable connection between this and that which can be shown, and that
is the whole theoretical wisdom of the day-view. Still more effective than the
theoretical reasons, the practical ones speak for their optimism, and if there are any
doubts left on that side, they are not likely to be against this side from the outset. For
it is certain that the world is more served by our optimistic conception of its course
than by the pessimistic one.
First, inasmuch as with it man can look more joyfully into the future; in seemingly
unchangeable sufferings, instead of gloomy or dull resignation, he can still find
consolation and hope, and understand the whole course of the world from other
points of view, whereby the state of fortune in the world is directly
promoted; secondly, inasmuch as man is thus preserved more fit to continue his work
in the happiness of the world, than if he must in the end find this work in vain, with
which the fortune of the world is also served in consequence. Hereby our optimistic
view of the world not only enters into the actual tendency of all conscious life to
increase the happiness, but also helps to fulfill it; while the pessimistic contradicts
her, and still claims she has with this contradiction the right of existence for
herself. The consequence of this contradiction, however, will be the factual fact that it
will never be able to penetrate in some generality and duration, and thus can not
acquire any historical right - but bad fashions here and there are among the real evils
of the world which must be overcome.
It is well to see that in the preceding there is no more complete answer to the world
questions of pleasure and displeasure which could be established; but the answer
would be given in relation to the points that can interest us most, as far as they are
given in the sense of the day view.
From quite different points of view, as discussed here at all, the considerations of
the 18th section lead to a rather optimistic rather than pessimistic conception of the
course of the world, and thus add support to the previous ones.
2. Beliefs in relation to the evil. Relationships of these with the
Christian ideas.
Contrary to the pessimism of the night view, which sees the world understood in a
wild jumble of pleasure and pain with a constant victory of pain, I derive the
following from the points of view set forth above and elsewhere (v. VI, XVI, XVI,
XVIII) Beliefs in relation to the evil from, equivalent to physical, moral and
intellectual evil, short for evil as a source of displeasure at all 2) .
2)Physical evil is understood as physical affliction and suffering, moral egoism,
immorality, sinfulness, under intellectual evil stupidity, error,
madness. Another common point of view for all kinds of evil than that, with
regard to the context and the consequences, they lead to an increase of
unpleasure as pleasure, for the individual or the whole, according to the
relation in which the concept is grasped , you will not find, if you want to have
a clear and practical usable otherwise. But the field of evil is not fully covered
by the above three categories. Loss of wealth, loss of reputation are evil for the
one who suffers the loss without letting himself be accommodated among those
categories;

First, that the existence of the evil in the world and its growth are, to a certain
extent, grounded in the necessary fundamental and primordial conditions of
existence, and grounded in the same fundamental and primordial conditions, but also
a tendency against evil and its related tendency to good whose success is gradually
taking place over time.
Secondly, that there is no contradiction between the origin of the evil and the
counteracting tendency insofar as that from above, that is, from the individual and the
particular, works from above, that is, from the general and the whole ( 3) .
3)Thus the moral evil is based on the fact that man prefers his own particular
pleasure to the consideration of the general state of pleasure, the present or
obvious pleasure of consideration for the entire consequences; the intellectual
rests on contradictions of individual knowledge and conditions of knowledge
with general ones; the physical on the one-sided predominance of special living
conditions over more general.

Third, that the tendency toward the evil and in the sense of the good predominantly
dominates the whole, that a continuously advancing improvement of the existing
world states takes place on the whole, one in the other, without raising the whole evil
at once can.
Fourthly, according to the interrelation of things and the laws of their succession,
progress for the better as a whole can not, without occasional regression, take place
individually or in particular, and with every new advance in the whole for the better,
new evils appear in the world but outweigh the progress on the whole.
Fifth, that these evils themselves later translate into a contribution to the general
improvement of the world, in that they become enveloped by the countervailing
tendency, and become the source of a new good, which could not have happened
without the previous evil.
Sixth, that, whether man brings good or evil into the world with conscious impulse,
he will sooner or later, if not already in the here and now beyond, find the
consequences of it repenting or punishing, reverting to his consciousness, whereby
the one in the direction of the good is preserved and promoted, the other is redirected
in the direction of it, and afterwards it also participates in the good consequences of
it.
Seventh, that if evil exists only with regard to conscious beings, 4 the way of its
uplifting is only by conscious striving, above all that of the highest conscious being,
so that the trust in the final upliftment and reconciliation of all evil is not one dead
world order, but to be directed to a conscious leader of the same.
4) Of course, since pain is only a matter of conscious beings.
Eighth, that the lawfulness with which the course of things proceeds from above
does not contradict it, that it takes place consciously and with conscious endeavor, in
that God is the supreme conscious representative of the legal order and sequence of
things and the firmness of the laws only serves to guide them with certainty to their
goals.
Ninth, that the ways of this guidance are generally too intricate and far-reaching,
but the human powers of knowledge and means are too weak to foretell the way in
which present evils will lead to the good, or to follow the ways to it completely
can; that, therefore, we must place our trust in God not in our knowledge of his ways
in particular, but in the general and firm direction of these ways to the salvation of the
whole world, including our own, and all that we still have in this regard in this world
miss, have to expect from the afterlife.
Tenth, that the trust in God's help helps us to this help, 5 and the stronger the
helping evil, and finally the good evil-producing power, the greater the present evil to
which it grows.
5)In this respect, the same considerations apply as under XVI. 4 concerning
prayer.

It may be remarked that, according to the fourth and fifth propositions, the
improvement of the states of the world as a whole can not be done in detail without
regression, and finally the evil itself becomes the source of a good, which otherwise
was not attainable Concept of evil for ever to take on a relative character. In fact, one
can speak of evil only to the extent that it has not yet come to its end in the good
through its consequences; but the evil man has to keep himself present after the sixth
proposition, that this envelope takes the way through his punishment.
If the previous doctrines are adhered to that of the Christian doctrine, then in many
things one can go beyond the dogmas of the orthodox version of this doctrine, or
even contradict it, with the propositions 1 and 4 of the origin of evil a conscious and
legal guidance of the universe, and the proposition 6 of the finiteness of the
punishments of evil; if, according to the orthodox doctrine, the evil stems from the
abuse of freedom, the legal course of things is broken through with miracles by God's
omnipotence, and the evil who once succumbed to the punishment of hell does not
come out again. But none of the doctrines that flow from the universal idea of
Christianity (Chapter VI), and therefore none of the salutary and consoling
implications of Christianity, are overturned by those doctrines, left or exceeded. In
particular, the Christian songs, which express "trust in God", "consolation under
tribulation", the "songs of praise and thanksgiving" to God, the songs which speak of
"preparation for death", among others welfare, offer themselves as a test In each
hymn book there are whole sections of songs so overwritten. Here are just some of
those who express the Christian's trust in God, the first verse that will easily
remember the following ones, since these songs are among the best known for their
comforting content.
Everything is due to God's
blessing
and to His
mercy , over all earthly
goods
who put their hope on God,
who keeps completely
unharmed a free hero's
courage
.
From the year 1676.

On God and not on my

advice
I want to build my fortune
And trust the one who
created me, With all my
soul.
Gellert.

Command your ways

And what hurts your heart,
The supreme care Of the one
who guides
heaven;
The Clouds, Air and Winds
Gives Paths, Runs and
Rides,
It will also find ways
Because your foot can go.
Paul Gerhard.

The Lord is my confidence,

my only consolation in life.
He never lacks comfort and
light,
Who surrender to the Lord.
God is my god; At His
Commandment
Will my soul be silent;
I am satisfied with the
father's will.
Storm.

In all my deeds
Let me advise the Most
High,
Who can and has
everything;
He must
do everything else, Should it
succeed otherwise,
even give good advice and
action.
Flemming.

Should it seem at times,

as if God left his own ;
Oh, believe me and I know
this;
God certainly helps at last.
Titius.

What God does that is well

done,
It will be fair His will,
How he begins my things,
Will I keep him silent.
 He is my God,
who, in need
, knows how to keep me
well, so
I'll just let him do it.
Gellert.

He who
commands only the loving
God and hopes for him all
the time, he will receive him
wonderfully
In all need and sadness;
Whoever trusts God the
Most High, Who
did not build sand.
Neumark.
Do these songs say something in their saying of trusting God that the above beliefs
were wrong? They say only the same edifying to the religious feeling, what those
sentences dry for the dry mind; and I am always pleased, both holding together, that
they not only agree with each other but also mutually support each other.
To the materialists and pessimists, these songs are a ridicule, but leave many of
those who are not or do not want to be, the question and the doubt left over, where
does the trust in God, which they claim after God, come from all the evils of the
world, including the one I am suffering from, have first admitted or sent. Probably to
whom such questions and doubts in the naive devotion to the consolation of those
songs do not occur from the outset; but if they come to his mind-and more and more
of that naive devotion-will he be able to save the consolation of these songs by a
different answer than in the sense of the previous doctrines? On the other hand, what
strong historical and practical support of these beliefs in the long-standing and
widespread validity of these songs,
3. Personal.
I would have stayed worse throughout. I do not want to go into any more details,
since it does not concern foreign interest, and there is more to internal than external
experience. But my comparatively simple life seems to me quite transparent in those
relations, and I am sometimes astonished, when, close to the end, I can overlook the
consequences of the causes, as I have in ways that were not in the realm of human
providence. Was better directed, which according to the existing laws of being and
events could not be achieved in other ways. However, the main feature of the current
life tells me the principle and the direction of the whole corridor, and so I put what
was so hard and dark for me to a future beyond this life, which I believe and would
not believe if everything had been done before. But the fact that one's own course of
life takes that direction easily keeps the belief in a corresponding direction of the
whole course of the world.
It is true that many others, whose life's thread is relatively easy and inwardly self-
centered as mine, may be, to whom the retrospect, if they want to do it differently
with seriousness, the same astonishment at the guidance of the past life, and
afterwards the same confidence the continuation of it could be aroused by a future
life and finite adjustment of the evil 6), But not everybody will be able to do the
same. For not every life-course is equally transparent, because not so easy, because
more interweaves in the outer world-gear, and many a person has always been worse
off through his whole life; for him, however, the opposite faith is closer and makes it
worse for him and for him. Thus, of course, the experiences of individuals in that first
sense can no more be regarded as authoritative for a belief of more than merely
subjective value, as such in the second sense, but only aspects under which the two
can be united. And for those I have just those who have spoken out in the preceding
considerations and sentences. Experiences of the first kind remain important in so far
as they have the counterweight to form against the others, and in so far more
important, as they seem more appropriate, reflect in the small and simple the
direction of the whole. Because one can not understand the simpler from the
entangled, but only vice versa. Everyone is drawn into the general progress according
to what suits and fits; it fits with everyone and everyone fits, it only asks for the
period in which it is and shows.
6)In particular, I remember a letter in which an uncle of mine, thank God
Eusebius Fischer, passed away as a superintendent in Sangerhausen at a ripe
old age and in the enjoyment of high esteem, to whom I, as a provider and
educator of mine, in my younger years the most thankful memory Zolle, the
description of his life completely under the above point of view, a higher
leadership of the same carried out. Unfortunately, however, I have lost the
memory of his title with the writing itself.

Faith, in the sense of those reflections and propositions which are based on the
view of the day, has not only found support for me in my own course of life, but on
the contrary my life has found support in this belief, and thus carries it from another
side to exemplify the previous one. Also a few words. The materialism to which I, as
a student of medicine, as to this day almost every student of medicine, had fallen, the
Schellingian philosophy of nature, which at first led me beyond it for quite a while,
only to let it sink all the more deeply afterwards. could probably help me to divert the
knowledge from the less satisfactory to the more satisfactory; but as they last left
themselves unsatisfied with thinking, If they did not bear fruit for my life, then the
need arose for it, a support that offered no knowledge of the near and the present and
of its reliance on looking beyond it. Only the belief of the day view with its return to
the Christian ideas of a divine guidance let me find this support. And even if the
darkest and seemingly most hopeless time of my life had not been preceded by the
first dawn of the day's view in the ideas of the "book of life after death", the
seriousness of that time would not have been due to the belief in the divine guidance
of this and of this life also brought with it the consolation of this faith, which
expresses itself in the song with which I conclude, and not the confidence that
perseverance in trust finally had to be rewarded one way or the other, I would not
have endured that time. Now a swallow does not make a summer; but the first
swallow would not come unless a summer came, and as of this summer I regard the
one-time victory of the day-view with the resurgence of the Christian ideas entering
into them and those dominating them from above, with the abandonment of many
oppressive dogmas (ch ), according to which this view can bring to their comfort
songs probably more joyful songs.
Comfort in tribulation (1841).
When everything darkens,
the
appearance is extinguished,
The lonely still sparkled
From the last starlet;
Think that a sun
is still alive,
a new day of bliss
before you.
Whether it's here or over,
do not worry.
If God wills to move,
To show you His light,
Certainly that your eyes,
Used on the night of earth,
are not yet fit to look ,
To look such magnificence.
Whatever deplores you,
Who leads
it, knows
how to direct it,
that it is well done.
Put on him your worries,
Who puts the burden on
you,
Who knows if you have not
delivered tomorrow
you.
What does it help that your
griefing
you call into the world.
 The world will not take you,
What God has ordered you;
Jammer grows in distress,
Silence, you are still,
Drum in your chamber
Only soft: as God wants.
Can you take such solace,
So you are no longer ill,
So you are not abandoned,
And can still say thanks
For what he sent,
To alleviate your torment,
If all you had succeeded,
So you would be stale.
In earthly hours of life,
Whom has never
hurt anyone ,
Who has found all that
the heart hangs on,
He will fear before death,
The bitter drink seems
to him , You may ask for it,
God sends the friend to you.
Have peace then, mind,
your eyes do not weep,
that God
breaks Mark before the
flower of life.
All 'bind together',
what gave and gives you
pain,
and put it where it may come
from,
into God's bosom.
XVI. The question of freedom.
(Controversy of determinism and indeterminism, responsibility, punishment,
prayer.)

l. More general aspects.

Is there freedom at all in the world? A freedom certainly, by virtue of which a
subject can decide one way or another out of an inner instinct or motive, which is the
object of his inner being, fluctuate with fluctuating motives before the decision and
can defend himself against external compulsion. Who could dispute the fact of such
freedom; you could not steal it from man without robbing him, as it were, or
passively flowing into the world. And if he were born in chains, then only his outer
limbs and the possibility to use them, but not his thoughts and his will, are internally
captivated by what he can continue to determine in himself from himself, and can
also make experiments to shake off the external constraint.
In the meantime, someone may be externally hindered from having to follow his
inner impulses or suffer from the outside, which he does not want to endure
according to his inner mood; so you differentiate between inner and outer
freedom. Wanting and striving is a matter of the inner, the possibility of execution,
the release of external compulsion the cause of external freedom; that can fully exist
if it is limited or suspended.
But also restrictions of inner freedom can be spoken in a certain sense. Somebody
may want something from a higher point of view, for moral motives, whereas his
sensual drives or selfish motives may run; and they do not always win
overweight. Thus one can speak of a higher freedom and a limitation or abolition of
the same by predominantly lower determinants.
After this there is an important question: do the self-determinations of a subject
free in our hitherto sense, and even his wavering before the decision of where such an
event takes place, emerge with legal necessity from the former state and the present
determinations of the subject. If one assumes the first, one assumes that not merely
the will, action and letting of man, but old events in the world, in the material as well
as spiritual realm with legal necessity from the former and the present co-
determinations (which in turn are just as legally follows) and can only follow in one
way, as it follows, one has the so-called deterministic view,
But is there not, in return, a freedom by virtue of which man, God himself, can
decide one way or another, without the external or internal determinations of his
former nature necessarily necessitating the decision? Rather, for all the preceding
reasons, it remains undetermined, not merely for knowledge, but for action, where the
decision will fall. If one assumes freedom in this sense, one gives free will the power
to break the necessity, and if one chooses two or more possibilities of decision for the
subject, one has the so-called struggle with the former Indeterministic view.
Even according to the deterministic view, man has his free will, but only in so far
as the will can not be imposed on him externally, remains the object of his self-
determination; but he will, as a necessary consequence, be forced upon him by the
previous internal determinations of his nature and its present external co-
determinations, insofar as such exist, and to translate themselves into internal
determinations; According to the indeterministic view, both together do not exert
such a compulsion on free will, but insofar as the will is really free, for him,
irrespective of all previous determinations and present external co-determinations, he
has the same opportunity to decide one way or the other. and insofar as it does not
exist, the will is not free.
If the subject is confronted with two ways, and if one is to go one or the other, then
the subject, in the first sense in which the determinist speaks of freedom, freely
chooses inwardly, provided that the one before the other according to any inner
Motives, somehow conditional inner pleasure, prefers, and sets free the chosen way
externally, if it is neither pushed on the one and the other by external force, nor held
by one or the other by such; but the inner motives, the inner pleasure, the walking
itself, have necessarily emerged from the earlier determinations and the co-
determinations of the subject, for instance through the preferential charm of one way
or the other. On the other hand, through all of this, the former or the outer becomes
for the other, the indeterministic, sense, Although it determines the area in which the
current decision is to be made, it gives an incentive to meet such people; insofar as
the precedent and co-determinator is not indifferent; but it is not sufficient to
condition the decision. Freedom, as something independent of it, so to say sublime,
adds to the decision to one side or the other; without all the former or the external,
and all the pleasure that has grown out of it, compelling man to make one choice
before the other. Supposedly, so to speak, to make the difference to one side or the
other; without all the former or the external, and all the pleasure that has grown out of
it, compelling man to make one choice before the other. Supposedly, so to speak, to
make the difference to one side or the other; without all the former or the external,
and all the pleasure that has grown out of it, compelling man to make one choice
before the other.
The indeterminist does not even consider the freedom of the determinist as
freedom, far as he does not find his indeterministic freedom in it, whereas the
determinist does not allow the freedom of the indeterminist, because he does not find
such a thing in the world at all. Conceptually, both types of freedom retain the
common feature that thereafter a subject determines himself in and of himself, from
within for one or the other, where it is possible to decide between; only that according
to the deterministic version this is done with necessity, after the indeterministic
without such. In the indeterministic sense, therefore, freedom and necessity are
already conceptually contradictory, and this contradiction is familiar to the ordinary
use of language and concepts.
In a nutshell, freedom in the first sense - if the name of freedom is still allowed to
apply to it - is legal freedom, insofar as self-determination, which establishes the
general concept of freedom, follows imperishable legality from earlier
provisions; freedom in the other sense, on the other hand, is unlawful or lawless
freedom, insofar as its distinguishing character lies in the fact that it is not bound by
any law of consequence from earlier determinations, but rather leaves the same
possibility, laws which exist apart from freedom, to obey or break. What does not
prevent the indeterminist, this lawless freedom, if it is rightly used to attach a higher
value than the legal, provided they improve or prevent, as it were, the damage or the
dire consequences of a law that has not yet been obeyed, and preserve the world
course from a purely mechanical process; whereas the determinist prefers unbroken
lawfulness, far as the breaking of a once well-designed law can only worsen the
world, not improve it. According to the indeterminist, God, in his absolutely free
spiritual being, is not at all bound by any particular laws, but has given such to the
material and creaturely world, and only intervenes at times freely in the legal course
thus conditioned. According to the determinist, all order in the spiritual and material
events is based on lawfulness, which God never needs in order to improve the order
of the world, to break its laws;
Of course, hereby only points of view are designated, which may determine the one
and the other to the advantage of one or the other view, according to which, however,
one must first decide between the validity and practicability of these points of view.
The common view makes neither the difference nor the consequences of both
versions of freedom quite clear, praises freedom in general, without quite knowing
what it praises it, and balks mostly against determinism, because it is a contrast to
freedom, Self-determination sees in it at all. Whoever can walk around according to
his will is called free; But if the will is free in deterministic or indeterministic sense,
then it does not ask, it does not interest it, it does not understand the question.
On the scientific side, most of the naturalists and, though by no means all
philosophers, but a large part of them, have opted for determinism, the former in the
interest of a full implementation of legality, the pursuit of which is their principal task
in the natural world, and with regard to the relationship of the law Conditionality of
what exists between the material and the spiritual realm; the latter in the interest of a
unified world view, as well as because of the aprioristic difficulties of the
indeterministic view of what will be discussed. In the meantime practical
considerations seemed to demand indeterminism, hence the opposite preference of
theologians and moralists, as well as of many philosophers.
There are modes of treatment of the question of freedom, which are to be overcome
by claiming the concept and the word freedom only for self-determination from a
rational or moral point of view; and that the latter can happen in a certain narrower
sense is discussed above. But what is achieved for the main question with it? Nobody
doubts that there is such self-determination; but can not it be just as determined as
self-determination through lower instincts and motives? It is important to take the
bull by the horns of the question, whether determinism or indeterminism, and both in
the dispute clearly had to apart.
Now, if the question goes to us in this respect, the next answer is this: it depends
essentially on whether the question is related to the day view or the night view. The
former has not been done so far, it should happen here; and thus determinism will
gain the upper hand. But let us first make indeterminism a little more definite than
before, and we represent determinism with equal certainty against it, by taking up
again shortly the previous determinations.
2. Representation of indeterminism.
That's the way the indeterminist speaks.
Whatever preceded in the world, all together is not enough to determine the
sequence in which the mind at any moment, by virtue of its freedom, re-determines
itself ruthlessly to the former, and through changes in the material world which
depend on it which can not be explained by any laws of nature. Hence the
unpredictability of the actions of a person who needs his freedom.
 God himself is absolutely free to this freedom; but from the first he also gave it to
man as a supreme good, at least with regard to moral things. By virtue of them, man
can choose between good and evil, without being compelled by any determinations,
whether internal or external, to choose one in front of the other, and thus to all
mankind the freely created and freely gifted Adam. Through repeated decisions in
one sense or the other, man limits, as it were, this freedom, as long as it becomes
easier for him to decide one way or the other; he also has to confine it more and more
in a good sense, so that he finally feels it necessary to act well, but in order to be
meritorious, this restriction has to be done even out of freedom, and never does he
have to give up the freedom completely, but rather to preserve it fully inasmuch as it
still remains entirely free for him to do so, even to greater difficulty, rather than to
oppose the greater difficulty, by opposing the greater difficulty to a greater free
impulse. It can not be denied that man is co-determined by motives that do not derive
from his freedom, but they are only suitable for the free man as an inspiration to use
his freedom in one or another area without ever forcing it can.
A decision and a proper action have moral value or worthlessness in so far as it
presupposes liberty and takes place out of freedom, therefore animals can not sin
when they are deprived of freedom. Freedom in the first place falls only into the
spiritual, and for man perhaps only into the moral realm, it is against nature itself, the
lower animated beings and the lower impulses of man himself, which therefore man
should rule with greater freedom. It is not denied that a legal course exists in the
spiritual as well as in the material. only that where there is freedom, a break in this
legality can be effected at any time. As a result, there are always new beginnings,
which have not been caused by anything from which the events up to again new
impulses obeyed his necessary legal course. It is possible, however, that in all events
under intellectual influence something of the full legality escapes through freedom,
except that the exceptions are most clearly manifested in the so-called acts of free
will.
In support of this view it is asserted that the beginning of things can be regarded as
deterministically dependent on nothing that precedes them, because nothing precedes
the beginning, a regressus in infinitumbut escapes imaginativeness or thinkability; So
there must have been an indeterministic free principle for the beginning of the world,
and why not for the progress? - Further, that only through the indeterministic view
does one declare the immediate feeling of being forced by nothing to decide one way
or the other in free choice. Moreover, that a strict legal necessity, if any, is not
demonstrable beyond the realm of nature, but free decisions are often made in one
direction, which scoff at any calculation from the given. - Further: that not only the
material, but also the spiritual world fall into a machine-like course through the
deterministic view; whereas, according to the indeterministic, the material world
itself is protected from this by the renewing interventions of the free spirit. Further:
if, with relentless necessity, only what has come, may man do as he pleases, he can
lay his hands in his lap, and all the impulses to work for him fall away. - Further, that
morality, responsibility and feeling of guilt can only exist if the guilt itself is not
driven by necessity. Finally, what could a god do to the world and a prayer to God, if
everything were to be done with unwavering necessity? Can God and a prayer to God
overcome the need? what should come, may man do as he pleases, he can lay his
hands in his lap, and all the impulses to work away for him. - Further, that morality,
responsibility and feeling of guilt can only exist if the guilt itself is not driven by
necessity. Finally, what could a god do to the world and a prayer to God, if everything
were to be done with unwavering necessity? Can God and a prayer to God overcome
the need? what should come, may man do as he pleases, he can lay his hands in his
lap, and all the impulses to work away for him. - Further, that morality, responsibility
and feeling of guilt can only exist if the guilt itself is not driven by necessity. Finally,
what could a god do to the world and a prayer to God, if everything were to be done
with unwavering necessity? Can God and a prayer to God overcome the need? What
could a god do to the world and a prayer to God, if everything were done with an
unbreakable necessity? Can God and a prayer to God overcome the need? What could
a god do to the world and a prayer to God, if everything were done with an
unbreakable necessity? Can God and a prayer to God overcome the need?
3. Representation of determinism.
What serious charges against determinism. The determinist first of all takes the
floor against them with counter-accusation, in order to counter later those
accusations, but thus to find occasion for further counter-accusations.
Let man be offered the choice between two possibilities. If the determinateness of
his present nature, together with the certainty which he receives from the outside
(which, incidentally, also translates into an inner determinacy), does not compel him
to decide on one side rather than the other, what choice decides in the first
place ? Does the decision, if such an indeterministic event occurs, not come as
something accidental, something foreign to the previous being, something
independent of it, as it were out of pleasure, into the being instead of coming out of it
and developing it consistently. Although indeterministic freedom should itself belong
to the present and subsequent existence of a being, to be its most valuable moment,
but according to its conception to the being, independent of his other
determinations, the same opportunity to decide one way or the other; But how can it
then decide and how can the decision from such a freedom, which does not concern
the whole existing being, make the same responsible? Yes, what does it matter to me,
when, instead of through indeterministic free decisions, I came to it through good
innate abilities, education, examples, etc., so that it became second nature to me, in
the sense of the general direction of the divine world order, what we are to call, to
feel, to think, to act in a good sense, that not the following free decisions will make
me prefer the bad for the good. All motives that emerge from the previous existence
should merely serve as suggestions to indeterminate my freedom, in which there is no
guarantee for the preference, indeed, for the probability of the preference of one over
the other. To be sure, there is talk (at least from a certain point of view) of a gradual
self-limitation of freedom in a good sense; but it could just as easily be in the bad
sense; and how can a clear concept of a limitation of indeterministic freedom be
grasped? Either it leaves equal possibility of deciding on two sides; then it is
completely there, and if no decision could actually be made, or if there is one reason
for determining a side, then it is not there at all. To be sure, there is talk (at least from
a certain point of view) of a gradual self-limitation of freedom in a good sense; but it
could just as easily be in the bad sense; and how can a clear concept of a limitation of
indeterministic freedom be grasped? Either it leaves equal possibility of deciding on
two sides; then it is completely there, and if no decision could actually be made, or if
there is one reason for determining a side, then it is not there at all. To be sure, there
is talk (at least from a certain point of view) of a gradual self-limitation of freedom in
a good sense; but it could just as easily be in the bad sense; and how can a clear
concept of a limitation of indeterministic freedom be grasped? Either it leaves equal
possibility of deciding on two sides; then it is completely there, and if no decision
could actually be made, or if there is one reason for determining a side, then it is not
there at all.
Aprioristic difficulties of this kind are probably not raised here for the first time,
without my knowing where they would be sufficiently raised.
Let us remember that indeterminism introduces into the world two principles of
action, that of legality and of freedom emancipated from it, while determinism knows
how to get along-that indeterminism, by permitting disruptive interventions in
nature's course through spiritual freedom, sanctioning the dualism between spirit and
matter without leaving the possibility of abrogating it in a higher unity - and that all
difficulties in reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of an all-benign and
almighty God remain, according to an indeterministic view, uninhibited (cf. V. 6).
In the meantime, with all these difficulties against indeterminism, those raised from
his side against determinism are still unhurt, and so we now turn to them.
Beginning with the beginning of the world, according to a well-known antinomy,
no conclusion can be made therefrom. If there was nothing, not even God, before a
certain time, it can not be thought that anything could ever arise, nothing will become
nothing; on the other hand, a decline into the infinite can not be completely carried
out in the imagination or in thought. But if we put it ideally in the concept of eternity,
according to which God exists from eternity and the world as his creature, then of
course he will have created it in an indeterministic or deterministic sense, according
to which his nature was or was anyway the question in question, which, however, can
not be decided by a presupposition.
What seems to speak most of all to the indeterministic view is that seemingly
instantaneous feeling of indeterministic freedom in resolutions which we now call
free. I can, I can pretend, and find neither outer nor inner determinants in me, which
compel me to one or the other, so can also arbitrarily fluctuate between the two, yes, I
am reluctant to think that I can only want what I want to have.
And yet there is nothing resounding in this. If the wavering of indeterministic
freedom speaks in the face of the decision, then the pipe, which varies more or less
long before it inclines in a certain direction, would have indeterministic
freedom. And when I take a closer look at how the freest decision, what I call it,
finally comes about, then it is a motive finally over-weighting motive, not out of
pleasure, but out of the earlier course of development and the present co-
determination that leads to a decision; But the feeling of being able to decide one way
or the other before that is just the feeling that none of the motives here and there have
been overweight; finally a motive triumphs, and if the quarrel falls like victory into
its own interior, We are not externally imposed, we count both as a matter of inner
freedom. But the reluctance to find ourselves necessarily determined is, of course,
natural, as long as one does not believe that it is a necessary destiny for the good and
finite reconciliation of all tribulation, that is, as long as one does not hold the faith of
the day-view; but in the sense of this belief, the good man will only be happy to be
himself a necessary tool of the world order to achieve good goals while being sure of
his inner future. as long as one does not cherish the belief of the day view; but in the
sense of this belief, the good man will only be happy to be himself a necessary tool of
the world order to achieve good goals while being sure of his inner future. as long as
one does not cherish the belief of the day view; but in the sense of this belief, the
good man will only be happy to be himself a necessary tool of the world order to
achieve good goals while being sure of his inner future.
It must be admitted that by experience alone neither determinism nor
indeterminism can be safely decided. Not even for natural events is a strict legal
procedure strictly proved, let alone for the spiritual event. Who can prove from a
sudden gust of wind, who from a sudden idea that someone has, that they are
necessary consequences of previous conditions. On the other hand, who can prove
that the complication of the preceding causes does not lie in the explicability of such
processes, except that one can not comply with them by observation and
calculation. Incidentally, the indeterminist himself will least of all be inclined to think
precisely of events of this kind, the causality of which we can not pursue, in his own
sense, whereas for the decisions of the will for good and evil, to whom, so to speak,
indeterminism is invented, the grounds in the past are almost always at least generally
to be found. It is certain that the further one has come in the knowledge of the
conditions of the happening and utilization of laws, the more determinism becomes
more probable from the experiential side, whereas in conceptual and practical reasons
the decisive point lies.
It is said that determinism turns the world into a machine, and many consider it
dismissed. And he certainly gives the world the most advantageous quality of the
machine. What would a machine be that would be as free to go as well as bad for
which there was no law that would surely lead its way to the right destination. But a
machine can not want, think, feel, not develop out of itself, not improve itself; this
also keeps the deterministic world ahead of the machine. Are love, friendship, trust in
God, so far as they are in the world, worse because they are necessary, and the
opposite, so far as it is there, would be better that it could not be. Rather, it is good
that it has to get better in the sense of the day view, and the only excuse for its
existence is the that it had to be there. You might want to curse determinism if it
struggles you to become better once, and to have it better once, because you are once
destined to be worse; that is the bad determinism of the night view, and not better the
indeterminism, which leaves the same possibility on both sides; but you can not want
anything better than that you are guided by imperishable necessity to become better
once and to have it better once. This is the comforting determinism of the day
view. Yes, as bad as it is in the world, and so bad things come from bad, but it can be
believed that according to the existing laws there is no shorter, even different way to
turn the bad thing for the better, as the world goes. One just has to have the belief of
the day view;
You say: let the world go, as it happens, when it goes by necessity, what more do I
need to work on it then; the criminal says: what are you blaming me for; I am by
necessity the way I am. - You may say it, he may say it; but necessity does not make
you idle; and if the warning does not suffice to induce you to work for him to
improve, then the punishment will finally do it; Good luck to you, if it already does
the warning. The warning, in conflict with other determinants which complement one
another, is often only a weak means; but the punishment can increase until it forces
you. And the longer the lethargy or malice lasts and the more it grows, the safer it
may be after that already felt in this world,
To give an example, which at the same time fits as an image.
Let's just put it, a boy who has naively committed his bad habits, hears that
everything in the world, including the will and action of man, follows out of
necessity. Stop, he thinks, so you can excuse your bad habits in the future; and soon
he commits one. The father beats him for it. What are you hitting me, says the clever
boy, I can not do anything for my bad luck, the need of my being brings it that
way. All right, says the father, but the need of my being also makes me beat you for
it. The boy thinks, what does this strange necessity affect me when my own inner
necessity drives me to commit the same evil? so he commits them again and
again; each time the father beats him for it stronger; and so the boy finally finds
himself forced inside not to commit the same kind of bad. For the boy, punishments
are inflicted on man, and punishments on the divine world order for the father, which
can not no less consciously be administered by the fact that it is necessary, and thus at
the same time necessary, because everything conscious is as good as unconscious
Laws of necessity.
Of course, without the belief in a punitive and rewarding hereafter, there would be
nothing in the previous view; because the beatings are often in the divine and human
education in coming. In general, however, human education shows that if a boy in the
house did not receive enough thrashing, he will afterwards receive all the more,
except in other forms, except the house; But that is not enough or shifts further from
here, so now is the hereafter another stage beyond which it can not move further. In
any case, the direction of the general course of things is already here below; but
because this is not yet over with the henching, here too one can only ask to see the
direction, not the end. It would be strange, if we wanted to drop an essential and
other-sided factor of the daily view, that is, belief in the hereafter, here or elsewhere,
where it naturally occurs as an otherwise absent complement. Rather, that he needs it
helps to support him.
Now, one can say, to go back to the previous example, it would have been better if
the father had excused the boy's excuse for being unworthy from the outset; and,
indeed, there is concern that the poor, in the deterministic view, will push everything
to necessity, a major motive of indeterminism. Morality must suffer with it, indeed
the concept of morality itself should be lost. And so determinism is still considered
from another side, and most thoroughly dismissed, so much so, that the third demand
in the highest and last things for God and immortality is also to establish freedom -
but we mean the indeterministic one. I would put for such freedom coercion for the
good.
How then would the father's indeterministic admonition to the boy be made instead
of the deterministic measure of it. To be consistent and open, I think he would have
something to talk about.
You are as free to commit wickedness as not to commit, and after so many blows
you will retain this freedom, without which there is no moral worth of man, unless
you treat yourself with freedom and not because of the blows of your freedom. So, if
I beat you now, I do not really know why I do it, because I can not and should not
shorten this freedom for you. If you were made to behave yourself well by the blows
or other punishments or rewards, that would have no value; rather the opposite, if it is
at all to blame, to be determined in moral matters by advantages and
disadvantages. So resist the temptation to keep yourself from evil; That may only be a
matter of your freedom. But if the blows can not help your true moral education, take
it patiently; It is in the world order that sin calls for atonement, though again I do not
know why she wants to know that the moral evil is physical. Ask the law teachers
about it; they will know. After all, penalties may help a little in moral education, at
least that's what it's all about, though theoretically you can not admit it. It at least
encourages reflection, but according to which man is still free to take care of the
punishment or not, and only insofar as he does not care, his action is good or
bad. Basically, dear son, you will probably feel well before the birth of a
metaphysical transcendental intelligible, Space- and appearance-less realms of things
in themselves for good or bad, hereby decided to heaven or to hell, no one can do
anything for it, not even the dear God; So let's enjoy what freedom has made of
you. If your intelligible character has finished there in timeless eternity, then in its
temporally empirical appearance everything necessarily coheres in the sense of the
character and thus looks quite deterministic, but you have nevertheless made the
intelligible character yourself with freedom; and if deterministic opponents of your
freedom are too much concerned with empirical facts, they need only to escape into
the intelligible realm; Nobody can follow that, and that's the main thing. But the
better you see, if you can even see any of this, that all empirical education can
basically do nothing to make you better; your character is already finished in timeless
eternity.
Let us leave the unfathomable profundity of the intelligible, but essentially
inintelligible, freedom, to which the father of modern philosophy is known to have
progressed, to rest and remain in the empirical field. There are some women in my
mind, in which there is no sin, so to speak, at least that's what they seem to me to
be. They are of good family, their parents honorable, living in adequate conditions,
they enjoyed the most careful education, all impure was kept away from them, they
had good examples of their parents, and good onesExamples were presented to
them. Beyond the terrestrial this side, they were given a view upwards and into the
hereafter. At the same time the satisfaction and development of their innate
tendencies was allowed free rein as far as health, morality, and custom were
concerned, but at every slightest deviation from them they became manifestations of
disapproval of their parents, menace, punishment, and anything above pointing to
favor and the displeasure of God and other-worldly consequences of sin were brought
back to the right path, so that finally they became the other nature, only to follow the
right path, and an inner resistance arose, even for the slightest departure from it. As
far as can be traced, education and congenital attachment did everything, and luckily
this facility was a happy one.
From the point of view of indeterminism, everything that has arisen has no real
value. For these women did not make themselves so virtuous from inner freedom,
which made it equally easy to turn to the good or the bad; they are made by the
means of the world order, to which their innate disposition belongs. But, as I do not
less appreciate a luminous gem or a beautiful work of art, that they did not make
themselves, only something of their own material given to them, such
characters. With gratitude and joy I greet them as proof that the world order can
already bring here to something that awakens pure pleasure; that she has, so to speak,
already coped with something in the sense in which she strives everywhere.
I have, of course, to imagine characters who have been born with the most
unfavorable faculties, educated in the most unfavorable conditions, and who, after the
necessary success of these preconditions, have only led to a vicious life and strivings,
and I must also regret that the world order can be used by all means but did not go
beyond the possibility of such characters here below. But while I have a sheer joy in
those characters, I have only one regret for them, that the world must still suffer as a
result, and that these people themselves have to face, nor have to be wise through
damage. I do not see a reason to spare them this harm, that is, their punishment, in
that they had to become so bad, but only the antecedent to the same necessity,
Now we both contrast extreme cases with each other from the following points of
view; extreme cases are most suitable for this purpose-to realize that the direction of
the world order is really to maintain and promote the morally good, to counter the
evil itself by the consequences of wickedness, and to strangle it.
Those women enjoy universal respect, love, everything comes to meet them, they
themselves enjoy the order and the prosperity of their household, the blessings they
spread about everything of a good conscience; and the feeling of not doing enough
for oneself can be borne and even more easily borne by them, if theology did not
inflict hell on them because of their sinful sinfulness. And the vicious
opposite? Everything is against him, one hates him, one despises, one rejects him,
one imprisons him, one has no inner peace, the indulgence or sinful lust takes its
revenge in consequences on one's own body.
Of course, in the eyes of the world, the bad is better than the good, and this is taken
as a reason to sue the world order. Externally, he may feel better; but inside too? Not
only in extreme cases, but also on average, the hard-working, moderate, just, honest,
benevolent, even outwardly better, than the opposite of it, and what initially did not
break through in this sense, beats on this side mostly before the end ; and if even the
best suffering can encounter it, the gaze helps him beyond the here and now; what
helps the vicious beyond?
It is true that education has neglected to use it for the good of the child, and this
includes punishments, although they are not alone in it. Reward and example also
belong to it - the later punishments are seldom sufficient to bring about the
improvement in this world. too much was neglected, indeed, man sinks into prison
with evil fellows, only ever deeper into vice. And while the righteous one,
surrounded by those who were dear to him, dies with a glance upwards, lastly the
vicious one hangs himself, is cut off and thrown into the pit, without having
improved; he has no choice; but this last means of saving oneself from the superiority
of the punitive consequences of his sins on this side not only does not save him from
the otherworldly, but throws it at him like hangmen, who wait for him, too; and if this
torture only enforces confessions, then the otherworldly will finally force
improvement. So hell is finally conquered by conquering evil.
And how do you prove that? one asks. Again I say: I do not prove it; I think it; but
it is a belief that is reasonably related to everything that I know and what I can
conclude and claim from a practical point of view. Do not believe it, which you prefer
to remain in vice; hang, but be afraid; Certainly anyway, to improve you in this
world.
After all, accountability is not lost by reasoned determinism; it presents itself only
from a different point of view than in the sense of indeterminism. Man is responsible
in so far as he has to expect punishment for injustice from the point of view that it
thrives in its consequences for him as well as for the world. That his sin is necessary
does not change anything in it. But the idea that a punishment which at last surpasses
sin enters as necessary, whether this necessity is fulfilled today or tomorrow, here or
there, on this or that other side, counts where it occurs, even under the means of the
world order, sins to prevent and thus to maintain a good status; and again it does not
change anything in the goodness of this remedy that it necessarily occurs where it
occurs.
Just as punishment is not the only means of improving man - including example,
doctrine and reward of goodness - it is not merely for the betterment of man; but
before she brings it to pass, and without her bringing it, she deters the evil itself, and
others from harming society, or deprives it of freedom; and these three points of view,
improvement, deterrence, and prevention, of which one or the other outweighs
circumstance, are united under the one: in that the sinner is again inflicted with evil
for the evil which he inflicts on society; Promoting the well-being of society as a
whole; the sinner himself makes of this only a small fragment, but that in the impulse
to reform also receives its fragment of the good of punishment. For if the individual
punishment does not succeed, it is nevertheless a fragment of the series of
punishments which must finally be punctured.
 With this principle, which is directly subordinated to the most general practical
principle , to serve by punishment for the good of society, and to measure its
application in such a way that this purpose is achieved as far as possible, the daily
view opposes the principle of the atonement of sin by punishment. which remains
groundless and useless as long as it can not be translated into that. But if his
translation into the most general principle should succeed, why should not they save
themselves by sticking directly to its clear statement.
Nor does the moral value and worthlessness of doing or letting go with
determinism, but rather, again, comes only under a more valid point of view than in
the sense of indeterminism. The indeterminist himself can not seek moral value only
in the fact that something happens out of freedom, otherwise the freely chosen evil
would be equivalent to the freely chosen good, but sees it with freedom, that which is
in the sense of the universal, ie divine World leadership is preferred to what is in the
opposite sense. And precisely in this, determinism seeks moral value and
worthlessness, except that it conceives freedom deterministically rather than
indeterministically in the above sense. To do something out of external constraint that
benefits the world, does not substantiate any moral value of the action in the sense of
determinism, because the action does not follow from the inner goodness of man; but
if the nature of a human being had such a strong inclination for the good that all
external enticements to evil did not counteract it, the inner necessity, out of which he
acts well, would not only not diminish the moral value of his action, but would set it
as high as possible to let.
Let us turn to another point.
Worthy of admiration and enviable is the patience, calm and resignation with which
the Turk endures every pain and tribulation that hits him. God wants it that way, it's
predetermined by Him; and after all, the believer's paradise is waiting. Christians too,
with that patience, rest and resign themselves to the gifts of God; but only as rare
exceptions, there it is a rule. This is the blessing of determinism, a blessing that all
could have, if not all Christians, imbued with the indeterministic doctrine of freedom,
held high above the Turkic belief and spilled its good element on its bad. For, of
course, he also has his bad element. Properly understood determinism only allows
one's hands to settle in inevitable fate, with the certainty that everything will turn out
well. But with the knowledge that failure to avenge itself on the leash, leads the
impulse to stir one's hands to avert the offensive evil. What man with the best of
knowledge and will can not accomplish on his own, only then does he have to seek
the supplementation in God. Because the Turk does not have this understanding, he
lets the fire devour the city and the plague the people, and will come a time when one
will seek the site of the Turk; for the necessity of the world order implies that it is not
the expectation of its action, but the handling of its forces and means that will
prevail. He first has to seek supplements in God. Because the Turk does not have this
understanding, he lets the fire devour the city and the plague the people, and will
come a time when one will seek the site of the Turk; for the necessity of the world
order implies that it is not the expectation of its action, but the handling of its forces
and means that will prevail. He first has to seek supplements in God. Because the
Turk does not have this understanding, he lets the fire devour the city and the plague
the people, and will come a time when one will seek the site of the Turk; for the
necessity of the world order implies that it is not the expectation of its action, but the
handling of its forces and means that will prevail.
You say, but then what does a divine world government, the will of God, mean to
God's provision for the world when necessity does everything? Is not that the whole
God superfluous? But how can one consider a god, who in his nature and work, the
necessity itself, superfluous. Necessity does not exist outside of God, not towards
Him, but its law is itself the bond of its essence and action. And as necessary as you
are in the care of a father in your upbringing, so necessary is mankind in its
upbringing the care of God. That the one and other care itself are necessary does not
change anything in it. The view of the night, of course, always happens as if the
spiritual life and activity ceased where necessity was concerned;
4. The prayer.
You finally ask: what else can a prayer use when it comes to laws that predetermine
everything in the world? Can it overcome the need? No, prayer can not do that; but
even taking their place under their grounds. Certainly it does work, first in the human
being and in the succession beyond; for nothing works in man, which does not affect
his effects indirectly or directly, visibly or invisibly, beyond him into the world
connected with him, even though we are not aware of these effects. Now, when I see
that a request directed by somebody to other people, parents, friends, even strangers,
can substantially contribute to determining them to grant something that would not be
granted without the request, In this I can certainly see cases of a general law, and
make it possible for a request directed to God as the representative of the world to
have a corresponding influence. It is only the difference that I have to pronounce
outwardly the request to other people, because they are outside of me, which I do not
need with God, because I am inwardly within him. But that only makes it easier to
believe in the efficacy of prayer. Probably even more than the effects which prayer
secretly extends beyond the praying person, and which can only take effect through
an unknowable intervention in a wider connection of things, take into account those
who express prayer directly in the person who prays if the manner in which he puts
himself against the exterior has so much influence on his destiny, as how the external
presents and turns against him; and without knowing how it happens, a prayer in him
can result in his putting himself more favorably on the terms of the fulfillment of his
request than would have been the case without prayer.
Of course, no one can force one to believe in the efficacy of prayer in one sense or
another; However, the faith is subordinated to all three principles of the faith and thus
enters as a moment in the religious side of the day view. From a theoretical point of
view, the only consideration given to him is that prayer in general has to affect
something in man and beyond him, which, by analogy, presupposes the appeal of
human beings to human beings, but rather in the sense of granting them as non-grant
is effective. From a practical point of view, man needs to pray, and he feels the
beneficial effects of a right prayer, and historically, there have been prayers as long as
there are religions. Take the prayer out of the world and it is as if you had torn the
bond of humanity with God, silenced the tongue of the child to the Father. But
without faith in the efficacy of prayer, prayer itself could neither express its practical
effectiveness nor gain its historical significance.
From the previous points of view on the efficacy of prayer in general there are at
the same time conditions of promotion and limitation of this efficacy; for
unconditioned efficacy is as little as to be ascribed to man's request to man. Of
course, according to this, a prayer will be allowed to hope for a more certainty, the
hotter it is, the more steadily it goes in the same direction, the more each unites in the
same direction, because with all this the reason for the granting strengthens; it is also
true with the general view of prayer; but these subjective conditions of granting are
still objective. A prayer will also be allowed to hope for grant more surely, the more
unanimous it is with the direction, which takes the divine world leadership as a whole
apart from prayer; It can not enforce it by itself, it is only an excitation for God to
fulfill the request, that is, sets in motion any resources, means in this direction, but
remains, what never to be forgotten, only a co-determination, which in the way things
are going. Granting can oppose too much in the world order; she has yet to care for
others, and for others, but for the suppliant, and to care for him beyond his own,
perhaps incomprehensible request. After all, even the most benevolent father rejects
some request from the incomprehensible child, because she goes from the impossible,
to the difficult, to the general considerations, incompatible, or downright harmful; but
who would say that the petition does not contribute, to appoint him for grant; without
the request he might not have thought of the grant; but now he can enjoy giving what
he has been asked, as he has granted the suppliant; so prayer can help to make
something that would not otherwise be allowable available; and if, in all other
respects, the pros and cons were the same, prayer would give the serve; a Gran prayer
is enough if two equal pounds are in conflict; Of course, a pound of prayer is not
enough if it is to give an empty bowl the rash against a hundredweight. to make
allowable; and if, in all other respects, the pros and cons were the same, prayer would
give the serve; a Gran prayer is enough if two equal pounds are in conflict; Of course,
a pound of prayer is not enough if it is to give an empty bowl the rash against a
hundredweight. to make allowable; and if, in all other respects, the pros and cons
were the same, prayer would give the serve; a Gran prayer is enough if two equal
pounds are in conflict; Of course, a pound of prayer is not enough if it is to give an
empty bowl the rash against a hundredweight.
So, as far as man is concerned, he does see what he asks, and he does not mean that
he can upset a wall drawn by God with his prayer; In short, I do not want to ask for
the impossible. Even what he can achieve by his knowledge and with his powers by
himself, therefore, he does not first have to ask God; He himself is for God, be it the
next or sole means of achieving or achieving it; He has only to turn to God when his
own means are exhausted; but he can daily ask God for God to enable him to do his
own, and for his own accomplishments help from without and blessings from above
should not fail. But if somebody wanted to ask for something in a bad sense, it would
mean that, in a good sense,
 However, as a prayer one has not at all only the request addressed to God, that he
may grant us a wish, but also the thought raised with confidence to him, that he will
turn to the best whatever our present and future needs that if, after the necessary
course of things, the means of this world do not suffice, those of the hereafter will
complete it. Whoever has felt the consolation of this thought only once in the most
severe suffering, and who has seen how this thought and the mood awakened by it
not only keeps the devotee himself inwardly through the heaviest trials, but also gives
him an outward attitude and action, by which he can best cope with the
circumstances, he will not say that such a prayer does not benefit. Did someone do
his thing, To help oneself and yet can not help oneself, the thought remains as last last
help: God will help and the request, God may show him the right ways. And with
what other calmness does he then move in the distressed circumstances, then does he
confront the events; and how much better help others who put themselves to their
destiny, than those who curse their fate and blaspheme or deny God. But it is not
necessary to direct that thought to a dead world order, but to a living God
participating in our lives, so that the thought should really become alive and thus
consolatory and effective. In other restlessness he then moves in the troublesome
conditions, then he faces the events; and how much better help others who put
themselves to their destiny, than those who curse their fate and blaspheme or deny
God. But it is not necessary to direct that thought to a dead world order, but to a
living God participating in our lives, so that the thought should really become alive
and thus consolatory and effective. In other restlessness he then moves in the
troublesome conditions, then he faces the events; and how much better help others
who put themselves to their destiny, than those who curse their fate and blaspheme or
deny God. But it is not necessary to direct that thought to a dead world order, but to a
living God participating in our lives, so that the thought should really become alive
and thus consolatory and effective.
There are also thanksgiving prayers; and when the indeterminist says, how can one
ask God for something that happens or does not happen according to necessity, he
may well say, how can one thank God for something he has granted out of
necessity; whereas the determinist asks: how could one thank God for something he
did not grant for a sufficient internal or external reason. Now we thank parents,
friends, benefactors, if they do us good, assuming that they do it out of love, without
asking if love for us was necessary or not necessary, enough, at the same time, we
presuppose that they enjoy our thanks; and it gives us joy to thank them, no matter
whether this favor, this joy is necessary; why should it be different with God? I
presume that God likes my thanks, and it gives me a sense of joy to thank. That's
enough of the reason.
One sees how the previous, though quite deterministic conception of the efficacy of
prayer leads to points of view with which one can tolerate oneself, and for which the
indeterminist can offer nothing better. According to him, God is indeterministically
free to grant or deny what the prayer is about; but even if, according to the
indeterminist, God always prefers the best for his perfect wisdom and goodness, it
comes to the same conclusion as if the determinist, because of this very nature of the
divine essence, bestows God to the best possible existence according to the
conditions of existence , necessarily prefer prefer; and it seems idle, if not as a
contradiction, of a freedom not to prefer nor to speak. Now one can indeed say: may
God prefer what he wants, so it is in so far as it prefers God, the best; but, indeed, one
demands, rather, the goodness of God, that what he prefers should also serve his
creatures. And from where does the indeterminist draw appropriate conditions of the
effectiveness of prayer as the determinist.
Since, according to the day view, the spirit of the earth is a middle being between
us and God, one may ask: should prayer not be directed first to that Spirit, instead of
claiming God for it. A subject also directs his request first to the central authority
before bothering the king with it. But in this respect the difference is made that man
is externally opposed to the king, that he has a long way to go, that the king can not
know all his needs and circumstances as well as the central authority, not mastering
all requests Conflict of the same all can weigh against each other; but all this is
different with God, and since in these relations no central authority can represent the
whole God, so man prefers to turn to the whole God, as to the central authority, which
is itself still deficient, and finds practically only in such a turn full enough. The
Gentiles, of course, worshiped the stars instead of the one God; but only so far as
they did not know the, some God in and over all the stars; and it is one of the points
in repealing the pagan Christian world view have to fall .
Against this it is only an extension and exaltation of the principle of the request
which we address to fellow-survivors, even if we address them to departing loved
ones or saints, in that in which they are particularly near or above us or the object of
the request in special relation to stand by, to stand by the hereafter and to represent
God. For, according to the doctrine of the day-view, the traffic between the living on
this side continues only in a different form with those who have entered the hereafter,
and these far-reaching means are at hand as this side. To be sure, Protestantism has
completely lost this beautiful and practically effective, albeit often misused,
custom; and the enlightened sees in the Catholic invocation of the saints nothing but
abuse. But the doctrine of the day's view of the hereafter makes space for other
thoughts; only here is not further discussed.

XVII. The causal law or causal principle 1) .

(More generally, the concept of power and the experience.)

Although the law of causality or causal principle 2) is no less concerned with the
spiritual than the material or natural sphere, it should be considered here first and
foremost with regard to the latter, thereby becoming a definite basis for the idea of
the outcome of the basic assumptions of the natural sciences material world, without
explaining the causal law in principle, because the reverse applies.
1)This section meets in the essential points with an earlier essay "On the causal
law" in the Ber. d. königl. Saxon Soz. 1849, p. 98 ff.
 2) The latter term, perhaps better than the first, is the general point of view at
issue here.

The inner state of a material system is determined at every moment: firstly, by the
extent, shape, density, and possibly to be assumed quality of the last parts, to which
one can take occasion to go back, which we briefly summarize as the nature of these
parts, secondly the relative distance and position of the same with respect to each
other, what we briefly call the arrangement of the same; third, by their relative state
of motion, the direction, speed, and state of acceleration of their motion against each
other; but relative movement consists in the transition from one to another
arrangement relationship. The sum total of these three determinants of the inner state
is briefly summarized as internal circumstances or internal relations of the
system; but we as external circumstances, external relations of a material system
consider the corresponding determinants of the material world outside it, with the
quintessence of their relations to the same. For the whole material world, of course,
there are only internal circumstances, for every finite system and every finite part of a
system, both internal and external circumstances. As long as one goes back to only
parts of finite size, it may be thought possible that all differences in their properties in
extent, shape, density depend on differences in the distances and arrangements of
even smaller, in the last instance, simple, similar punctual particles they are
composed, which probably have a place in space, but no spatial extent, no different
density, and that even the different basic qualities of matter can thereby be
eliminated. In any case, this would mean a great simplification of the nature
consideration. Now one is not yet so far in the knowledge of nature, in order to be
able to fully decide the question of such a traceability; but natural science seems
more and more inclined towards this simplification. On the assumption that this
would be the case with regard to the last atoms, there would be nothing but external
circumstances, and the so-called simple chemical principles, which are at present
differentiated, would have their difference simply because the simple atoms in them
everywhere would be molecules of different Number and grouping, possibly also
different states of motion, of their simple elements have met. The peculiar bodies
would merely be aggregations of the same matter of which the ether consists; the
various imponderables are merely based on different states of motion of this ether,
and for two electricity there would be only one. Even with reference to only two
different qualities of matter, as they seem to express themselves in contrast to the
electricity, a great simplification would be achieved, whereupon an ingenious recent
investigation of Zöllner leads.
For the following general considerations, however, the whole question of the
possibility and limit of such simplification can be left undecided. Whatever basic
provisions may be necessary to reconcile matter to the representation of the
phenomena dependent thereon, not only does the causal law or causal principle to be
considered below remain unaffected by these differences, but in the last instance
itself is decisive for what is considered to be basic determinations to record the
matter. By affirming to oneself undoubtedly definite determinations, one has to look
at dubious determinations as to how they must be accepted in order to obtain
confirmation of the law here as well.
But let us turn to these considerations, which were supposed to serve merely to
give the idea of the conditions to which the law of causation applies, to give a definite
indication, to the consideration of the law itself.
In general, the circumstances, conditions in the world, change and follow the other
given depending on the given one. Insofar as one wishes to speak of a general
lawfulness of this dependence by the whole of nature, and hereby of a general law of
causality, one must assume that, when and where the same material circumstances
and conditions recur, the same successes return; for, if somebody else followed other
than the other, it would not be a law, or a breach of the law, according to the universal
use of the concept of law. In short, that presupposition lies in the concept of legality
itself, or justifies its principle. Whether, of course, the concept, the principle, is
realized, whether a universal natural law really exists in this sense,
Of course, absolutely the same internal and external conditions can not be restored
at all to a material system, nor can such things re-occur naturally in nature; but it is
found that the more the preceding relations approach equality, the more successes
become the more equal, so that it can be concluded that the equality of the preceding
circumstances is complete, it would also be the equality of successes. In the process,
verifiability comes into play; indeed, such is basically possible only because the
influence which takes place in any given region disappears all the more from the
successes which take place in a given region, and thus the more remote they are from
the more neglected are, as evidenced in the decrease of gravitation with the removal
and imperceptibility of the molecular forces beyond appreciable distances. Although
the assumption of a universal natural law in the above sense always remains a
hypothesis because of the absolute influence of distant parts, which is absolutely
never completely vanishing, and the impossibility of restoring completely identical
circumstances in experience, the naturalist assumes this hypothesis because he finds
it all the more confirmed, the more thoroughly he pursues them in cases which
approach as closely as possible the equality, and because it enables him to reach
conclusions which are confirmed again in the experience, as far as a pursuit in the
same is possible.
As a corollary to the law that, when and where the same circumstances recur, the
same successes return, so to speak, as the second side of the most general law, one
can postulate that when and where different circumstances, conditions, different
successes occur. In fact, as to the verifiability and the remaining hypothetical
character of this second side of the law, the same applies as from the first side.
Often, however, it may seem that the same consequences produce different
consequences, or the same consequences from different circumstances; but one will
either always be able to prove or, as far as possible, be able to imagine that something
has escaped or neglected us from the preceding or subsequent provisions, upon the
receipt of which the law would be confirmed. Thus, the fall of a stone from different
heights always leads to the same success of landing on the ground, which seems to
speak against the second side of the law; but it hits at different speeds and shakes the
ground with different force. In any case, the law has been confirmed on both sides in
the most accessible cases for observation and assessment, that, conversely, we infer
the same or unequal causes from the same or unequal consequences, and, as already
touched above, even have to decide the basic question and really seek to decide
whether one can get by assuming a fundamentally identical basic matter in a different
state of arrangement and movement , It could indeed z. If, for example, we find that
the order and motion relations of even the last parts, up to those in the thinking, are in
two cases to be considered as equal, but that different successes result from them,
then one would have to make a difference in the density or In both cases, assume
quality of the parts. whether one can get along with the assumption of an identical
basic matter in different states of arrangement and movement. It could indeed z. If,
for example, we find that the order and motion relations of even the last parts, up to
those in the thinking, are in two cases to be considered as equal, but that different
successes result from them, then one would have to make a difference in the density
or In both cases, assume quality of the parts. whether one can get along with the
assumption of an identical basic matter in different states of arrangement and
movement. It could indeed z. If, for example, we find that the order and motion
relations of even the last parts, up to those in the thinking, are in two cases to be
considered as equal, but that different successes result from them, then one would
have to make a difference in the density or In both cases, assume quality of the parts.
The circumstances or relations preceding the legal successes are called causal or as
conditions of success, successes themselves as their effects; one hypostatizes the
legal relation between cause and effect in the concept of a force by means of which
the cause produces its effect, and characterizes the force qualitatively or formally by
the law, which indicates which consequence derives from the circumstances to which
the law relates; z. For example, whether attraction or repulsion, quantitatively by the
magnitude of the positive or negative acceleration, which follows the legal relation,
which the material parts experience.
In short, one can say with apparent evasion of the concept of law: force is the
relation, by virtue of which one follows from the other, not merely after another. But
what distinguishes "from the other" from the mere "after the other?" Only by the fact
that what follows here and then out of it everywhere and always, that is, legally
follows from it. Thus, in the attempt to clarify the concept of force, we come back to
the reference to the concept of law. Not unlike the following explanation which I
have found, and which one finds otherwise: "Effects are only such changes appearing
in one thing which would not have happened without the presence of another thing,"
and force "the nexus between the two things which makes the effectiveness ". But
that given changes of a thing can not take place without the presence of a given other,
is again to be assumed only in so far as always and everywhere from the same
relations of both things (assuming equality or absence of external co-condition) the
same changes would follow. Where the entry of changes in a thing into the existence
of another thing can not be subordinated to that law, it can not be made dependent on
the existence of the other thing.
It may be said, however, that the observance of one law proves that something
follows from the other, and thus proves the existence of a force on which succession
depends, but the concept of law in itself has nothing to do with the concept of
mediation the dissolution and thus the power to create; instead of grasping the force
as an operation of the law, one has to grasp the law as a determination of force. The
only question is then how the law comes to be a proof of the existence of a force and
characteristic of its mode of action. But as much as one wants to conceptualize the
relation between law and force, technically law and force cling to one another
through a more than merely insignificant relationship;
To think of matter as composed of forces, as is done by some philosophers, has no
clear meaning for the naturalist, and I do not know for whom it would have such a
thing. In order to have a clear conception of forces in the domain of material events,
one must already presuppose something spatially localized, what is called
matter; This is clearly expressed by clearly definable forces in a clearly defined way,
and thus the physicist knows how to create something. Forces from which or through
which the spatially localized itself is supposed to develop itself, have no traceable
connection with them, nor can they at all give them a clear idea. If one wants to speak
of the creation of matter, then one does not confuse it with the movement of matter,
and thus not with the forces of creation. if it could even speak of such, with
movement forces. Equally unclear is the identification of force and matter, to which
some benefit something without doing something good with it.
It is said, for instance, that we perceive matter only through the forces which it
expresses on our senses, so in essence they are forces which we perceive as matter or
interpret as such. But that is incorrect. What we immediately interpret as matter are
rather tactual sensations, sensations of the face, which appear to us localized in our
spheres of intuition, and the concept of forces first arises from relations between
them. That these sensations are causally dependent on something other than
sensation, what we call matter, and that they are themselves translated, is a matter of
its own; In any case, we can not identify the causal mediation between the
hypothetical matter outside and the sensations inside, ie the force, with matter itself,
without getting into a total confusion of concepts.
Insofar as one considers the legal success which arises from the combination of two
material parts a , b , neglecting or equating other co-determinations, 3 this success can
always be divided into two successes, the one concerning the one part a and the one
other, which concerns the other part b . This is thought of by the action of an external
force of b on a , that of aon bemerged. But both forces are not independent of each
other, but are themselves legally connected by the nature and mode of co-operation of
the two parts, and so the same forces are called internal forces of the system of both
parts, in so far as they reflect the fact that they both inhabit the system of both
regulate internal relationships in legal contexts. The difference between external and
internal forces is thus not a difference in the thing, but in the relation to the parts or
the whole of the system. Which of two parts is valid for any number of parts of a
system; everyone experiences external forces from the other parts of the system and
expresses these to the rest of the system; but all these forces are internal to the system
itself. In the inorganic realm successes are usually considered to be dependent on
external forces, in the organic as well as on internal forces, and probably mistakenly
mean that there is an essential difference between the inorganic and organic forces,
that they can only be so grasped , But the planetary system moves no less inwardly
through internal forces, which can be dismantled into external ones, than a human or
animal; and the nerve expresses on the muscle, the heart on the blood, no less
external forces, but which are absorbed in the interior of the whole organism than any
inorganic part on the other. These can only be understood in this way. But the
planetary system moves no less inwardly through internal forces, which can be
dismantled into external ones, than a human or animal; and the nerve expresses on the
muscle, the heart on the blood, no less external forces, but which are absorbed in the
interior of the whole organism than any inorganic part on the other. These can only be
understood in this way. But the planetary system moves no less inwardly through
internal forces, which can be dismantled into external ones, than a human or
animal; and the nerve expresses on the muscle, the heart on the blood, no less
external forces, but which are absorbed in the interior of the whole organism than any
inorganic part on the other.
3)
If one takes for a finite part of the material world, for b the entire outside
world, then there is absolutely no co-determination to be considered.

With the establishment of the principle of a universal law of nature in the preceding
sense, nothing is yet established as to which successes arise somewhere and at any
time from given circumstances, but only that whatever they are, they are repeated
when the preceding circumstances are somewhere and everywhere repeat
sometime. In the meantime, it is no idle or meaningless principle, once, as long as it
proves a connection of action, of action in the material realm, which reaches through
the whole space and the whole time, which links remoteness in space and time by a
common relation the experiential conclusions of induction and analogy in relation to
expected success depend on him, thirdly
Let's take a closer look at these three relationships. In the first place one can
observe that, of course, a general connection of action and action through the whole
material world is already proved by gravitation, which reaches across the entire space
and is characterized by a known law; but the effect of this force, that is, the
acceleration produced by it, weakens with distance into the indefinite; our law is
unaffected by distance, and deals with gravity itself; when everywhere and at all
times, when two masses of a given magnitude face each other in heavenly space from
a given distance, they fall into the same state of acceleration, so that the participation
of other masses can be neglected because of their distance. But if this is not the case,
the movement of both masses is changed in the same way, if the participating masses
occur under the same conditions. Thus, while the whole material world is externally,
extensively, connected by space and time in the same way everywhere, our law
establishes at the same time an inner coherence of this world, independent of space
and time and spanning all distance in it.
In the second place, it is generally necessary to go to induction for repeated
experience. But it is enough, according to our principle, that success under
circumstances is observed only once in order to establish upon it a law valid for all
time and space with respect to the success of the circumstances. So where does the
need for repeated experience come from? It does not seem to me that there is much
clarity about that. Therefore, that we are remarkably incapable of exactly restoring
the same external and internal circumstances which make a success somewhere and
sometime; so our law-principle would be illusory, allow neither probation nor
application, unless the complication of various circumstances, which could occur at
different times and in different places, be decomposed into something equal and
unlike, and one could not conclude that the equality of circumstances at different
times and places corresponds to a like in the successes, the unequal to an
unequal. Now you could indeeda priori doubt the possibility or the success of such a
decomposition. But that would doubt the possibility and successes of science
itself. For all natural science bases its successes on the performance of such
decompositions, 4 and now does it in such a way that it produces sufficient successes,
that is, conclusions are confirmed in experience afterwards.
4)I recall, for example, the decomposition according to the parallelogram of
forces, the decomposition of composite vibrations into the simplest possible
ones, the decomposition of the force through which the vapor or a balloon
ascends, into a force which drives it upwards and overweight who strives to
pull him down, etc.
In order to make an inductive conclusion, one has to change the conditions in
repeated cases, but in such a way that something similar remains in it, and watch
what remains the same in the successes. From this one finds then the legal connection
between the equal causal moments and its success. Usually, however, it is thought
that the only real point of induction is to observe a given success as often as possible
under as constant a condition as possible; but that does not work. In fact, the
observation of success should always be under the same conditions only at different
times and places, so the repeated confirmation of success in these circumstances
would mean nothing but confirmation of our most general law. but it is not to be dealt
with in the inferences after induction, as its validity is presupposed in these
conclusions. One wants to know, what depends on these, what of those moments in
particular. If the induction be complete, the variation of the one moment, the legal
influence of which is to be examined, must be carried out by whatever possible
remainder of the species and degree, in order to be sure that the equality of the causes
is as successful as in the Of course, if repeated instances are not based on a
composition of the moment in question with other moments, and if general laws
which embody the success of a momentary change are to be proved by induction, it is
of course also necessary to observe these amendments repeatedly under
circumstances which have been altered ,
It applies z. B. the discovery of the case law. Raise a body up to a certain height
above the ground and release it. He will go down to the ground at a certain speed. He
will do this at all times and everywhere, whenever and wherever he is let go, no
matter how one changes the color, shape, or substance of it, as long as no lifting
forces from below counteract or he does not show less weight on the scales than the
same Air volume, or he is not too small, provided that mist bubbles (fog droplets?)
Can remain suspended in the air. So, first of all, it will be possible to draw up the law
that the equalization of the elevation of the body over the ground, while maintaining
those conditions of co-existence, regardless of the variation of other circumstances, at
all times and in all places on earth corresponds to a descent of the body to the
earth. More can not be deduced by induction. But if one had not made enough
variations of those circumstances, eg. For example, always bodies of the same color,
shape, of the same material are used, or always let the fall take place on the same
place, characterized by a particular condition and distance from the center of the
earth, or always air of the same kind and tightness between the body and the Earth
could be accommodated, so could possibly have the constant descent of the body in
all cases of observation of the constant of this or that left unchanged co-condition
with which may be excluded by the variations made, if the success,
In the meantime, according to our most general laws, this same success will have to
be accompanied by changing co-determinations, which, incidentally, need not all
refer to the falling motion, just as with the color of the body only the wave motion of
its Surface of reflected light changes. From other conditions, however, there is also an
influence on closer determinations of the falling movement; if z. For example, with
the tightness of the air and the weight of the body at a given volume, the rate of
descent is variable. Now, however, natural science seeks laws for the simplest
possible conditions in order to be able to deduce their composite composition from
their composition, whereby our most general law remains authoritative in this
respect, as from the same composition of equal conditions is to be inferred to equal,
from unequal to unequal successes. In order to find the case law for simplified
conditions, we drop the body in a vacuum, and find that in this case we can also vary
the volume and density of the body in any ratio, without the speed changing. If,
however, we drop the body in different places of the earth where a different gravity
takes place, then even in empty space an influence on the absolute velocity of fall is
shown, but in the relation of successive velocities something similar remains, etc. So
one goes on inductive Ways forward. from unequal conclusions to unequal
successes. In order to find the case law for simplified conditions, we drop the body in
a vacuum, and find that in this case we can also vary the volume and density of the
body in any ratio, without the speed changing. If, however, we drop the body in
different places of the earth where a different gravity takes place, then even in empty
space an influence on the absolute velocity of fall is shown, but in the relation of
successive velocities something similar remains, etc. So one goes on inductive Ways
forward. from unequal conclusions to unequal successes. In order to find the case law
for simplified conditions, we drop the body in a vacuum, and find that in this case we
can also vary the volume and density of the body in any ratio, without the speed
changing. If, however, we drop the body in different places of the earth where a
different gravity takes place, then even in empty space an influence on the absolute
velocity of fall is shown, but in the relation of successive velocities something similar
remains, etc. So one goes on inductive Ways forward. that in this case we can also
vary the volume and density of the body in any ratio, without the speed changing. If,
however, we drop the body in different places of the earth where a different gravity
takes place, then even in empty space an influence on the absolute velocity of fall is
shown, but in the relation of successive velocities something similar remains, etc. So
one goes on inductive Ways forward. that in this case we can also vary the volume
and density of the body in any ratio, without the speed changing. If, however, we
drop the body in different places of the earth where a different gravity takes place,
then even in empty space an influence on the absolute velocity of fall is shown, but in
the relation of successive velocities something similar remains, etc. So one goes on
inductive Ways forward.
In analogy, as applied to temporal success, one usually concludes indefinitely:
similar causes will give similar results; but it wonders how similar. According to our
law we will conclude with perfect certainty: as far as the causes are alike, the results
will be equal, to the extent that the causes are not equal, and the results will not be the
same. The frequent rejection of analogy, as well as the no less frequent
misinterpretations of analogy, are due to a lack of distinction and adherence to this
twofold point of view. On the one hand one thinks that if the causes in two cases are
merely similar, and yet in some respects unequal, then a consequence of the first case
does not have to take place in the second case either. because it could rather depend
on the unequal as equals with the second trap. On the other hand, one often ruthlessly
infers this generally possible possibility of merely similar causes for the same
consequences. The certainty and fruitfulness of the inference by analogy, however,
would be greatly gained if the similarity of the causes were decomposed into like and
unequal, and then from the former to the same, and from the second to unequal
consequences, thus making the unequal serve the conclusion as well will, as the same
thing. But in so far as the proper separation of the same from the unequal causes and
consequences in difficult cases can cause difficulties, one will increase the certainty
of inference, and thereby give it the value of an induction, 5) .
5) The above points of view also remain relevant for the analogy, according to
which the same and unequal bodily conditions in two cases can be inferred
from the same and unequal spiritual accessories (not the consequences). Only
that does not really belong in consideration of the causal law.

On the other hand, one differentiates between different laws of nature and
accordingly forces, such as physical, chemical, organic, among the physical ones of
gravity, electricity, magnetism, elasticity, etc. But all this distinction depends only on
the fact that the respective laws and to refer forces to different causal relations, from
which, therefore, according to our most general law principle, different successes
must emerge. All are only special cases of the most general law and of the most
general force, according to which the same like, the unequal follows from the
unequal, for this or that difference of causal relations. The philosophers, of course,
have always been inclined to seek specific differences in the forces themselves, and
especially the so-called. to regard organic forces as being distinctly different from
those otherwise prevailing in nature; but as far as can be traced, material successes
are in fact only different between the organic and inorganic realms, insofar as the
material conditions are different, but insofar as some are equal, the others are
alike; B. the eye like oneCamera obscura , the heart like a pump with flaps, the bones
like levers, etc .; Digestion and breathing, however, can not proceed just as well as in
the organisms, because there are no corresponding apparatuses to do so.
According to the proviso that even more special relationships can be subsumed
under more universal concepts, the special laws which apply to the special relations
can also be subsumed under more general laws, which take into account the modified
success of the changed conditions, eg. For example, the laws of fall for each world-
body, especially under the more general law of gravitation, the laws of sound and
light under more general laws of material vibrations. Now one seeks a most general
law which comprehends all possible variations of material conditions. No naturalist
doubts that such exists without it being found. It is necessary to go back to the most
elementary conditions, in which every conceivable combination of circumstances can
be decomposed. and therefore it may be called the most general elementary law (it is
probably also called the most general molecular law), whereas our most general law
of nature so far envisaged is in principle applicable to the simplest conditions as well
as to every combination of these. In the possession of our most general law, without
regard to the elementary law and without knowledge of it, we can predict success for
any combination of circumstances if we have observed the success of the same
combination only once. In the possession of the most general elementary law, we can
predict success for any combination of circumstances at all, even without having
already observed their success, only to do this, apart from the law itself, the
elementary conditions of the complication and the calculation method, what is needed
to derive the successes, know. Since, however, the former can never be achieved in a
general way, and leads to insuperable accounting difficulties even with moderate
complication, even with knowledge of the most general elementary law practically
for the derivation of successes one would always more or less refer to special laws for
special cases and conditions, and while only submitting to the most general law.
Regardless of the fact that the most general elementary law is still unknown, some
are found to be comparatively very elementary laws, more or less all material
relations, which, without giving themselves to the complete certainty of success,
because they do not contain complete definiteness of the causal conditions. but allow
conclusions to very general relations, and require only the inclusion of more specific
conditions in order to lead to greater certainty of success, as: the law of equality of
action and reaction, the law of conservation of the center, the law of conservation of
land , the law of least action, the law of coexistence of small vibrations, the law of the
parallelogram of forces, the law of conservation of force or energy.
It used to be thought that all movement was legally dependent only on inertia and
forces independent of the speed and acceleration of the particles; By Wilhelm Weber
forces have become known in the electric field, which depend on the speed and
acceleration of the particles; and probably those apply to all matter; only that their
success in many circumstances, as in the movement of the heavenly bodies, is
imperceptible because of the remoteness of the effect, which depends on the
distance. In the past, it was certainly assumed that gravitation and even material
forces, without any loss of time, acted only with decreasing potency on the greatest
distances; Recently, the possibility has arisen that a certain amount of time is required
for the reproduction of the effect in the distance. To-day, to a certain extent, all
movements are still seeking to make the dependence of the effects of mere binary
forces, which depend on the interaction of two parts, with the persistence; In my
theory of atoms, I have tried to establish the probability of ternary, quaternary, and
even multiple forces whose effect is combined with the binary forces. In general, one
attracts to the representation of natural phenomena both attractive and repulsive
forces, and it does not seem that even when declining to elementary proportions one
can get along with the latter without involving the latter; but wonder if the repulsive
forces, where such occur, can be related to a different quality of matter as the
attractive (as in the assumption of two opposing electricities) or dependent on other
distances and arrangements of the last particles, for which a simple principle is found
in my hypothesis of multiple forces. The atomistic view, according to which space is
discontinuously filled with matter, prevails among naturalists, and, in my opinion,
there are also overwhelming reasons which I have discussed in my theory of atoms,
which is connected with the view that all forces are remote forces; but lately some
eminent scholars have advocated the view of a continual fulfillment of space, and,
hence, in connection, that all forces act merely between touching particles.
No matter how great the uncertainty in these fundamental points is, without the
fulfillment of which a most general elementary law, which would have to testify,
which results from any material conditions, can not be established, our most general
law of causality or causal principle remains unaffected not only by it The ultimate
settlement of those uncertainties will be sought only in the most general satisfaction
of this principle. It is necessary to modify the assumption about the basic constitution
of matter and the dependent forces until such satisfaction has taken place in the
simplest possible and most cohesive way.
If the forces of nature depend on the circumstances existing in each moment, but
change them through the action of the forces themselves; the success of any material
circumstances, and hence forces for a later time, can in principle be determined only
by successively following success through the series of new circumstances,
considering every earlier success of this series as the cause of the later. In this respect,
calculus offers short cuts in that it allows the whole range of successes to be summed
up from a starting point to a final result; but the difficulties of this calculation, as
already recalled in relation to the most general elementary law, are to be overcome
only in the simplest cases or for the most simple conditions, and so far it is
unthinkable that one can thereby experience what will eventually become of the
whole of nature through the action of its forces, to which endeavor it strives, and,
indeed, whether it strives for a definitely expressible goal, a final state. It is
undeniable that it would be desirable to know such a final principle in accordance
with our most general causal principle, which of course we do not consider as purely
a causal principlea priori as necessary would be able to hope to prove. But one
wonders whether such a final principle, like the causal principle, does not prove itself
to be such an empirical principle, that we are entitled to base it on our distant
foresight, as we base the causal principle on the next one. In fact, I believe that such a
principle can be established, and I will speak of it under the heading of the principle
of stability in the following section.
After this, the following question.
By what do we assure ourselves of the equality of material circumstances or
circumstances for given cases? With my senses, to which alone I owe the knowledge
of a material world, I can only perceive this or that directly from what I consider to
be causally conditional, I see of the material things only the external, only to see it
from this or that side, see the objects differently sized according to my distance from
them, see them differently according to the arrangement of my eye; and for every
other human being everything turns out differently again than for me; the sense of
touch does not reach beyond the immediate vicinity; and the help of the other senses
seems to involve the task only, not to solve it.
It is not disputed, but above all we must consider that the equality and inequality of
the objective conditions of appearance determines the phenomenal successes
according to the causal law only with the subjective ones; Therefore, we must not
draw our conclusions from the first alone in the sense of the same. If I look at the
moon, it appears to me as a luminous disk moving across the sky; If I turn around, it
does not seem to me, no matter how he walks across the sky. This would contradict
the law of causality, which demands equal consequences for equal conditions, if my
attitude to the moon did not change with my conversion; so he no longer appears to
me after turning away, and no one else appears after turning away from it; while he
appears to all after the attention of open, healthy eyes. This corresponds rather to the
causal laws. In remote places of the earth, the various observers will see the moon in
different position and motion towards the sun, hence z. For example, a solar eclipse
that is total for certain places is not everywhere; here, too, the objective conditions of
appearance are the same, but not the subjective, hence the different appearance of the
moon's course. But finally, for the natural scientist everything depends, while
preserving the equality of the subjective conditions of appearance, the temporal and
spatial limits of given phenomena with the limits immutable In remote places of the
earth, the various observers will see the moon in different position and motion
towards the sun, hence z. For example, a solar eclipse that is total for certain places is
not everywhere; here, too, the objective conditions of appearance are the same, but
not the subjective, hence the different appearance of the moon's course. But finally,
for the natural scientist everything depends, while preserving the equality of the
subjective conditions of appearance, the temporal and spatial limits of given
phenomena with the limits immutable In remote places of the earth, the various
observers will see the moon in different position and motion towards the sun, hence
z. For example, a solar eclipse that is total for certain places is not everywhere; here,
too, the objective conditions of appearance are the same, but not the subjective, hence
the different appearance of the moon's course. But finally, for the natural scientist
everything depends, while preserving the equality of the subjective conditions of
appearance, the temporal and spatial limits of given phenomena with the limits
immutable hence the different appearance of the moon's course. But finally, for the
natural scientist everything depends, while preserving the equality of the subjective
conditions of appearance, the temporal and spatial limits of given phenomena with
the limits immutable hence the different appearance of the moon's course. But finally,
for the natural scientist everything depends, while preserving the equality of the
subjective conditions of appearance, the temporal and spatial limits of given
phenomena with the limits immutable6) or to bring their changes according to
controllable space and time scales or with their departments to cover, and by applying
these standards always in the same way, from the smaller to the larger and vice versa
expands, and pursues the laws, according to which with changes in the measures If
the phenomena change in a given phenomenal region, and hence also infer from the
changes of the phenomena on the measures, he arrives with more or less certainty on
the equality or inequality of objective material relations.
6)This immutability, of course, can only be established for the equality of
subjective phenomena of appearance.

Recently the possibility has arisen and has been represented (on the part of Zöllner)
not only with ingenious considerations, but even with reference to experience, that
besides the three dimensions of the space in which our life is decided, there is still a
fourth, and if even exceptionally, powers from this fourth dimension play into our
world of three dimensions. Now, if the question remains to be settled here, our causal
laws would not be contradicted by having to extend it only to the world of four
dimensions; but the exceptional cases in which the intervention of forces of the fourth
dimension becomes visible in successes observable within our three dimensions
would at the same time be exceptions to the otherwise valid rule;
In all of this we have had only the area of material existence and events in
mind; but there is a spiritual area to look at. Now an important question arises: can
not the mind change the material successes, which would depend on mere natural law
in the previous sense, if no spirit existed, its forces itself as conditions to the
conditions of material events, its forces therefore, submit to the material forces; and it
can not afterwards be said that unequal, unequal, and equal successes emerge from
the same material circumstances at different times and in different places, provided,
at least, that different spiritual conditions contribute to this, secondly, the inequality
of material conditions would be compensated by mental work. In short, this would
have to be described as the intervention of the mind in the legal course of nature and
its disturbance by this intervention.
According to the dualistic conception of the relation between the material and the
spiritual principle, such an interference must in principle appear to be possible, and as
factual facts for the realization of this possibility one can move the actual power of
the will to move our muscles one way or another Power of emotions to distribute our
bloodstream one way or another.
In the meantime our general law of nature, with the laws subordinated to it, would
no longer become meaningless, because, on the one hand, it would still be absolutely
decisive for all cases in which the mind allowed matter to go its way, secondly, the
causal law should be involved only in the physical field In order to be able to say: in
accordance with the material and spiritual circumstances, conditions, together
somewhere and at some point the same or not the same, it is also the case with the
successes.
After all, however, the material event would then be able to take on different forms
according to the different involvement of the spirit, and consequently the causal law
would no longer permit pure persecution in the material sphere in such
participation. It is different with a monistic version, if one thinks the mental and
material events interdependent from each other according to the following
psychophysical basic laws interdependent. By the proviso that the spiritual
circumstances, relations are equal or not equal, it is also the case with the
corresponding material, or in other words: for the same and unequal in the spiritual
sphere, there is also something belonging to the same and unequal in the material
domain, according to which one can accept would have, that every same or unlike
volitional tendency or emotion corresponds to equal or unequal material conditions in
us, and, if the whole world is subject to a spiritual principle, that this would be the
case throughout the whole world. On this assumption, our most general law for the
material realm might go quite harmoniously with the laws of mental activity, without
interference by the mind. In the sense of every monistic conception of the
relationship between body and soul, this must even be taken for granted, and at least
as possible for a dualistic view, provided that body and soul, body and spirit are also
set up to suit each other according to this view. if the whole world were subject to a
spiritual principle, that would be the case throughout the world. On this assumption,
our most general law for the material realm might go quite harmoniously with the
laws of mental activity, without interference by the mind. In the sense of every
monistic conception of the relationship between body and soul, this must even be
taken for granted, and at least as possible for a dualistic view, provided that body and
soul, body and spirit are also set up to suit each other according to this view. if the
whole world were subject to a spiritual principle, that would be the case throughout
the world. On this assumption, our most general law for the material realm might go
quite harmoniously with the laws of mental activity, without interference by the
mind. In the sense of every monistic conception of the relationship between body and
soul, this must even be taken for granted, and at least as possible for a dualistic view,
provided that body and soul, body and spirit are also set up to suit each other
according to this view. without it being possible for it to be disturbed by intervention
of the mind. In the sense of every monistic conception of the relationship between
body and soul, this must even be taken for granted, and at least as possible for a
dualistic view, provided that body and soul, body and spirit are also set up to suit
each other according to this view. without it being possible for it to be disturbed by
intervention of the mind. In the sense of every monistic conception of the relationship
between body and soul, this must even be taken for granted, and at least as possible
for a dualistic view, provided that body and soul, body and spirit are also set up to
suit each other according to this view.
Regardless of the fact that the psychophysical basic law is understood in the
previous sense, just as it is unable to prove itself by complete induction, as the
physical law of causality, one can just as well hold the experience as favorable to it.
If one were to prefer the indeterministic view of freedom for the deterministic
sphere of thought, as discussed in the previous section, nothing would hinder the
assumption of a harmonious coexistence of natural law and intellectual lawfulness in
so far as one assumes, at the same time, that the law is the same The breaking of the
lawfulness in both areas occurs in the context of the psychophysical basic law.
It is debated whether the presupposition or requirement of causality is an
indigenous one or only results from experience. In my opinion, this question is not
easy to answer with yes or no, but one has two things to distinguish.
If bodily movements of our limbs depend on our will or on perceived instincts, it is
indisputable that those psychic impulses themselves are subject to some material
processes in our brain which legally follow the relevant external movements,
provided that the connection between the brain and the limbs and the limbs
themselves have the appropriate device. In this arbitrary use of our limbs, we have
immediately a probable innate feeling, which we may call the causality of the
motions we produce, as well as a sense of the strength of our psychic impulse and the
effort our movement takes. On the other hand neither the law according to which the
inner movement triggers the outer, that lawfulness is involved in this process at once
comes directly to our consciousness, but is only the subject of research on the part of
the physicist, physiologist, psychophysicist, if they wish to dare the task
differently. In the least, man is innately presupposed or demanded a legal relationship
between disparate events that take place outside him. What does the child ask about
whether the moon's course in the sky is legally conditioned or not? The moon goes
for the child as he is now walking; even the adult man lets pass many phenomena
without asking for a cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation, the answer to
that is a matter of inquiry. but it is only a question of research on the part of the
physicist, physiologist, psychophysicist, they want to dare the task differently. In the
least, man is innately presupposed or demanded a legal relationship between
disparate events that take place outside him. What does the child ask about whether
the moon's course in the sky is legally conditioned or not? The moon goes for the
child as he is now walking; even the adult man lets pass many phenomena without
asking for a cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation, the answer to that is a
matter of inquiry. but it is only a question of research on the part of the physicist,
physiologist, psychophysicist, they want to dare the task differently. In the least, man
is innately presupposed or demanded a legal relationship between disparate events
that take place outside him. What does the child ask about whether the moon's course
in the sky is legally conditioned or not? The moon goes for the child as he is now
walking; even the adult man lets pass many phenomena without asking for a
cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation, the answer to that is a matter of
inquiry. In the least, man is innately presupposed or demanded a legal relationship
between disparate events that take place outside him. What does the child ask about
whether the moon's course in the sky is legally conditioned or not? The moon goes
for the child as he is now walking; even the adult man lets pass many phenomena
without asking for a cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation, the answer to
that is a matter of inquiry. In the least, man is innately presupposed or demanded a
legal relationship between disparate events that take place outside him. What does the
child ask about whether the moon's course in the sky is legally conditioned or not?
The moon goes for the child as he is now walking; even the adult man lets pass many
phenomena without asking for a cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation,
the answer to that is a matter of inquiry. without asking for a cause; the question then
is a matter of deliberation, the answer to that is a matter of inquiry. without asking for
a cause; the question then is a matter of deliberation, the answer to that is a matter of
inquiry.
Meanwhile, an obvious analogy leads man to think that, as he himself moves his
limbs in response to conscious impulses, all movement in the world takes place in
dependence on such, and the daytime view leads back to this view, abandoned by the
night view. It seems, on the other hand, that there are enough movements in our body,
such as those of digestion, of the flow of blood, involuntary and unconscious; why
not beyond that? But our body is subject only in part to the influence of our will and
the impulses which become conscious of us; but insofar as he has grown up with the
rest of a more general material system, which carries a more general consciousness,
this part too is subject to the conscious influences that come from there, which,
incidentally, can quite well be reduced to more or less general impulses, dominating a
whole system of movements, since the institutions which belong to the completion of
these movements have been produced with special participation of consciousness in
the past (see Sect. XIV). And this does not only apply to movements in our body, but
also beyond that in the external nature.

XVIII. Principle of the tendency to stability as the final principle of the world.

Psychophysical hypothesis of pleasure and aversion 1) .

Through the forces in the material world, in short nature, forces are produced,
which, as manifold as they are, nevertheless, in the principle of a general legality,
which links causes and consequences, in short called the causal principle of us, find a
bond, of which in the preceding Sections were the speech. The question was raised
whether the ultimate success of the effect of these forces could not be determined by
a correspondingly general principle, in short the final principle.
1)Earlier in my "Ideas for Creation and Development History of the
Org." erected, but mostly pursued here for other relationships.

Of course, if time has no end, should the world's journey come to an end? One did
not have to accept this in order to speak of a final state, if one understands one by
means of which the world aspires to the indefinite (asymptotic) 2) without ever
reaching it. It could not be a retirement. As long as the law of conservation of force
applies. But it could be a way, a relationship of the movement.
2) By striving one understands in the material world in general a force or force
effect, which proves itself through its success. If no forces acting in the
opposite direction outweigh each other, or if no resistances cancel out the
effect. Thus a striving of every body to fall to the center of the earth, ie a force
that pulls it there, and it really falls in that direction, as long as no
predominantly lifting forces counteract, or the resistance of the soil does not
cancel the success of its pursuit. A rope attached to one end tends to rupture by
a pull applied thereto; but it does not happen as long as the counteracting force
of elasticity prevents it from tearing, etc. That a striving can be felt, the
spiritual realm goes to

However, it would be quite reasonable to think that effects and counter-effects in

the material world are generally so compensated or so indefinitely outweighed by the
striving of the whole material world for a definite final state, or even a success, of
this endeavor an approximation to such, not to speak. But there are actual
circumstances that make us think twice.
Be given a material system left to itself or under constant external conditions,
whose particles are held together by their forces in a limited space. The calculation
teaches for certain not too difficult cases; experience proves more generally that the
particles enter into such relations with each other, and through the force effects
dependent on these conditions, can move into such movements with respect to each
other, that they periodically, ie, for equal successive periods of time either to return to
the same conditions completely or with greater or less approximation, and thus to
repeat the same movements with respect to each other completely or approximately,
also because of the recurrence of the force effects dependent thereon,
Thus the relative motion of the sun and the earth, apart from the disturbances of the
other planets and any resistance of the ether, would be perfectly stable, and in view of
the disturbances it is an approximate stable. Thus, apart from the fact that the
particles make more or less irregular movements on the surface of the earth and even
in the inner sea of confluence, the rotation of the earth is quite stable, considering
that, in relation to the common rotation, it is only a small movement approximate
stable. The movement of a pendulum and a string attached to its endpoints would be
quite stable at the points of attachment, apart from the resistance of the air and the
friction, in view of these circumstances it is approximatively stable. The total masses
of our solar system are in an approximately stable motion with respect to each other,
as long as they never exactly return to the same relations with each other because of
the incommensurability of their orbital periods, and thereafter repeat nearly the same
movements. Our whole organism is geared to more or less approximate stable states
of motion in waking and sleep, breathing, circulation, peristaltic movement of the
intestines, and so on. Any kind of movement in general, insofar as it can be called
regular, is stable, in that the rule itself is a point of view of repetition; and one may
well assume, although the exact proof is yet to be found, that
If, of course, we arrange the particles of a system randomly from the outset, and
think their initial velocities to be arbitrarily large and arbitrarily directed, then the
most varied movements of them, against each other and below, will at first be able to
result quite instably. But a success of this instability itself is that the particles, instead
of repeating the same movements with respect to each other and thus returning to the
same conditions, are led indefinitely restlessly into ever new circumstances, until they
are under all possible circumstances in which they can come to such a degree which
are advised either which are precise, or should be such as may not be attainable in the
circumstances of the initial conditions, allow as close as possible an approximation,
according to which the former, when she is reached, she can never be abandoned
again; while the second designates a limit value from which no regression can be
expected in the approximation. Both, of course, only as long as the system is really
left to itself or remains under constant external conditions, and insofar as the former
applies in any case to the system of the whole world, one can speak of a tendency of
stability existing in the world, and the existence of such a tendency as a principle
pronounce. Indeed, stability, or perhaps an intangible approximation, denotes the
final state of the world to which the whole movement strives, but from which they do
not strive; which does not exclude
As an a priori side of this principle, one can assert that, if there is any question of a
final principle, it can be no other than our principle; for if the movements were to
change indefinitely, it would just say that there is no final state to which they are
approaching. So the question of the legality of our principle coincides with the
question of the legality of a final principle. Of course, it would be very desirable to be
able to derive the same thing as a necessary one from the general nature of the forces,
which is not yet the case. Of course, it is no less aprioristic that, once conditions have
arisen which lead to the restoration of earlier conditions, This state of stability can not
be reversed if external forces are excluded, and it goes without saying that, unless
there is full stability in this sense, the movements must restlessly change until they
are reached, if at all attainable. But until now it has not been proved by the nature of
the forces that, in the unlimited possibility of instable forms of motion, this restless
change really more and more approximates to a stable state under all circumstances
and under all circumstances, if not full stability, but an approximation can be reached
without stepping back. So we can only explain the principle of the tendency to
stability in the given sense to a certain extent as an aprioristic self-evident whereas
we have proved it in a few simple cases that fit the bill, but have otherwise been
regarded as a very universal principle of experience. In particular, as regards the
sentence that enters into the same sentence, that in a system left to itself or under
constant external conditions, there is no retrogression as to the approach to stability,
we can point to the planetary system, its masses remarkably never again exactly in
the same conditions but to do so in such an approximation that certain limits of
deviation are not exceeded.
As limiting cases of the stability and instability of a system, we may refer to the
case where the particles of the system always remain in the same relations to each
other, ie the state of rest against each other, which we call absolute (internal) stability
of the system, and the case of where they continually change their relationship
through dispersion into the indefinite. But the tendency to stability in the whole world
does not go to absolute, but only to full stability, or possible approximation of it. For
the attainment of absolute stability would presuppose a disappearance of the living
force in the world, which, remarkably, contradicts the law of its preservation, whereas
full stability of a system may be ruthless to the magnitude of the living force active
therein;
To sum up the previous one, the principle of stability for a system left to its own
forces or under constant external conditions, held together in a given space, consists
in the fact that, through the action of its internal forces, it becomes unrestrained more
to a so-called stabeln state approaches, that is such, where the parts periodically, ie in
the same time periods, return to the same position and motion relationships to each
other.
For the whole of the world the expression of this principle can be claimed to be
strict, but for partial systems of the world as a whole, insofar as they are subject to
outside influences from other systems, the following considerations are considered,
according to which such in favor of increasing stability of the whole is at times, but
only occasionally, In the end, they can regress in stability, but eventually they have to
submit to the tendency of the whole.
If we then look from the material world over to the spiritual world supported by it,
that is, in a relation of conditionality to it, we can arouse from the outset to satisfy the
general tendency of the material movement to stability first with the equally general
tendency or pleasurable states in the last, and thereafter also stability first with
satisfaction or pleasure in the last to think in relation. Somewhat more developed this
idea amounts to: psychophysical 3)To consider events in general to be all the more
satisfying or pleasurable, the more they approach a certain limit or breadth, that of
indifference, out of full stability; for the more unpleasantly, the more they move
below this limit or width down from the full stability. However, this is initially only a
hypothesis, and whether it is sustainable will depend on whether it is feasible. Subject
to a more general consideration, we shall take into account, with the following further
explanation of the physical side of the principle, its presupposable psychic
capacity. What is said about pleasure and unpleasure relationships in terms of stable
and unstable conditions,
3)
"Psyhological" short term for physical insofar as it carries something mental,
which stands in a relationship of conditionality to it.

One has to distinguish between internal and external stability conditions; inner
ones, insofar as they relate to the relative relations of motion of the parts of a system,
insofar as they relate to the parts of two or more systems with respect to each
other. According to this, two partial systems of the worlds A and B , each of which
contains a number of particles, may be internally unstable, in external instability, and
hence the total system of both internally unstable, by dividing both the particles
of A and B in itself, but not the particles of both in relation to each other, due to
incommensurability of their movements to each other, after the same time periods in
the same conditions to each other return. On the other hand, no system can possess
internal stability without its parts, insofar as they themselves contain parts, having
stability internally and against each other externally.
If we now try the psychic interpretation of these relations, then the psychic
beings belonging to the two systems A , B , by the inner stability of each, can be
satisfactorily in a satisfactory state, but in an unsatisfactory relationship to one
another, which depends on the psychic being the system a and B and general listened
to the entire system of the world is felt, and the occasion is, the state
of a and B modify until by growing stability throughout a commitment fuller ratio for
the whole occurs. For this, however, the internal stability state of A and B mustto be
temporarily relieved of what the unpleasure of accompanying one another is, until
through the successful adaptation, which, however, can not take place suddenly, an
external and internal stability-relation is established for both and herewith at the same
time for the system of both.
As long as two systems or parts A , B are in the internal stability of each, but
lacking external stability with respect to each other, out of relation to each other, no
mutual influence on the change of their state of motion can take place; hence a
tendency to bring about stability between them will not be noticeable. But just
as B interacts with A through increasing proximity or intermediation of middle links,
so too will the state of stability each undergo modifications individually, to pass
through instable states the system of either full or approximate inner stability,
wherein each of them owns itself is included again.
From the other side it may be in the sense of the principle, without, of course, that
there is any definite general proof that a difficulty existing in the existing
conditions, A and BTo approximate conditions to one another, to compensate for them
to a certain extent by entering a distance between them or breaking the mediators,
which maintain the relationship between them, and to subsume on the physical side,
that if a planet according to its relations to the sun does not become one To be able to
approach the state of motion in relation to it, according to the law of gravitation, it
moves away from it into the indeterminate, like a comet, until it comes into the
sphere of attraction of another sun, in which it is held fast; but psychically it can be
drawn here that hostile individuals, who are unable to conform to one another, or by
whom one is able to conquer the other, and thus to accept, avoid, as far as possible,
flee,
The imperfectly stable inner state of a system can, generally speaking, be
decomposed into a completely or as nearly as possible stable common state of motion
of all parts and an instability of the individual parts or thought of as being composed
of them. Thus the movements in which the parts of our earth are conceived can be
thought of as being composed of the common, stable, rotating motion of the earth and
the instable relative movements of the earth. Thus the centers of gravity of two
masses of a system, to which one thinks a joint movement of all parts, can be
understood in a stable motion relative to each other by orbiting in a regular period,
while the particles of both masses are in an unstable motion with respect to each
other.
And so we can also satisfy something from general points of view, according to the
main relationships, which, according to special provisions, gives us the impression of
being unsatisfied.
Insofar as all movements are periodic, it is essential that larger periods can
incorporate smaller ones, and that the stability ratios can be particularly followed
with respect to the larger and smaller periods. But if a full or approximate inner
stability of the system takes place with respect to its total motion, it is necessary that
not only the periods of each particle stand by themselves, but also that of the various
particles in all or approximately rational proportions. Two main cases come under
this term, once that the particles of a system all assume the same common motion in a
regular period, and that they make oscillations whose times are in rational relations to
one another.
But let us now, after the example of reference to the psychic side of the principle so
far, now make it more general.
On the psychic side, the state of pleasure is in solidarity with a consciousness
which, if it does not enter the reflective consciousness for itself, at least falls into
conscious life. Striving to maintain or increase the same state, the state of discomfort
with an effort to improve, eliminate, or mitigate it. To be sure, we can interchange a
pleasurable state with a dispassionate state from free conscious impulses, but then
only because of conflict with predominant motives in the above sense. The pleasure
of the good, the pains of the evil conscience, the pleasure of the sensation of
acquiring greater pleasure through present reluctance, the reluctance of the foresight
that we shall have to bear great displeasure, if we now allow ourselves not less
displeasure, belong to us such motives,
Desire and discomfort can be linked to the most diverse states. Every sensory area
has its peculiar pleasure and aversion; or, rather, pleasure and aversion can be given
various co-determinations by entering into different sensory areas, which has already
been discussed in Sections 15. It can make us feel like general relationships, which
makes us reluctant to have special relationships; z. For example, a painting fell for its
general composition, while we dislike special figures in it. There may also be
pleasure and discomfort in the most varied degrees of psychic activity, e.g. B. like a
quiet as noisy music just as much as displeased, only that the activity in any case
must exceed the psychological threshold of 4)because pleasure as well as pain are
essential determinations of consciousness.
4)The in m. Elem. d. The law of the threshold, discussed in more detail in
Psychophysics, consists in the fact that every physical process, which by its
nature is capable of carrying a given destiny of consciousness, must first
exceed a certain degree of its strength, the so-called threshold.

Let us first of all keep in mind the quite general point of view that, as instability
takes place, there is a striving, that is, the forces go to leave this state and bring it into
stability; in the sense of stability there is an effort to maintain this state or, in the case
of a mere approximation, to increase it to the extent that it is possible under the
conditions of the conditions; but further, that conditions of stability and instability
may occur in the most varied modes of motion, that they may consist of more general
and special relations, that they are not bound to any particular degree of living force,
we shall become the most general conditions of the representation of pleasure given
above and reluctant to find, when in general, with reservation of closer
determinations, placing pleasure with stability, reluctance with instability of
psychophysical states, or relations of movement above the threshold. In addition,
consideration of the most common examples of the development of pleasure and
displeasure serves this hypothesis, in that the common interpretation of these
examples is easy in the sense of the hypothesis, while another connecting point of
view for the variety of them seems scarcely imaginable; only that the impossibility of
direct observation of our psychophysical states in the examples in question hinders a
strict reduction to the hypothesis.
Let us take a pure tone. He likes us with his purity. What is it based on? The fact
that the oscillations take place in a regular period, apart from the gradual fading
away, in full stability. In the case of impure clay, vibrations interfere, which disturb
this regular return, and hence stability. If we take a harmonic chord, the state of
vibration becomes complicated, but returns to its output after not too long
intervals. In discordant chords whose notes have periods of vibration which are
rational but expressible only by large numbers, this is only the case after longer
periods of time, in those where they are in irrational conditions. Now, the ideal case
would be that the same relations are restored only after an infinite time, are
considered to be the case of instability, and it is indisputable that the length of the
periods in which stability proceeds, especially for beings whose life itself is subject to
a finite periodicity, is in pleasure and pleasure Consideration of loss in a more
specific way; the rhythm of the music and the tempo, meter and rhyme of the poem,
are subordinated directly to the concept of stability. The pure color behaves like the
sound. The regular pattern of color, the symmetry, and every regularity in general,
according to the remarks made earlier, indisputably give rise to stable movements. It
is at least easy to think
The well-known, very general aesthetic principle of the uniform connection of the
manifold indicates that pleasure grows the more and more varied periods are
integrated harmoniously, ie, in a stable relation to, a larger, more general period.
I suspect from the reluctance of boredom: it depends on the fact that, if there is
nothing to capture our attention and to keep it together in a certain direction, our
psychophysical process breaks down into small instable movements.
Insofar as phenomena of consciousness belonging to different parts of our
psychophysical system, such as facial organs, organs of hearing, organs of touch, can
be distinguished at the same time and combined in a unified consciousness, the
pleasure or aversion which depends on the inner stability of the parts, and which
depends on the mutual outer, both, being distinguished. Thus, when two pleasing or
displeasing colors perceived by different optic fibers constitute a pleasing or
disagreeable color connection, or when two well-sounding or dissonant tones
perceived by different acoustic fibers are consonant or dissonate with each other.
It is peculiar that discomfort stimuli, generally speaking, do not exhaust their effect
so easily, as delights and attention are not able to bind attention continuously, but
more persistently and more frequently, as delights; think of a toothache, a
worry. Without being able to fully explain the reason for this difference, I believe that
it is possible to claim a law of attention, which, of course, requires even further
reduction, according to which attention is particularly affected by changes in the
domain of phenomena to which they belong is attracted, as long as instability and
variability of a state of motion can be identified in some way; also at least in general
can be overlooked that the difference in question is in the sense of the tendency to
stability or harmony. When a disgusting stimulus attracts attention, it at the same time
draws attention to the means and the search for such means of eliminating it, and
determines our activity in this direction until it has been eliminated. A delight,
however, does not need attention on itself and the means to induce it to pull, because
it is already there. So it is more in the sense of the tendency to harmony to keep
attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as delights, which has the disadvantage for us
that unpleasure stimuli, generally speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure
pleasures, but on the whole brings the overwhelming advantage, that they are raised
the safer and more sustainable. When a disgusting stimulus attracts attention, it at the
same time draws attention to the means and the search for such means of eliminating
it, and determines our activity in this direction until it has been eliminated. A delight,
however, does not need attention on itself and the means to induce it to pull, because
it is already there. So it is more in the sense of the tendency to harmony to keep
attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as delights, which has the disadvantage for us
that unpleasure stimuli, generally speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure
pleasures, but on the whole brings the overwhelming advantage, that they are raised
the safer and more sustainable. When a disgusting stimulus attracts attention, it at the
same time draws attention to the means and the search for such means of eliminating
it, and determines our activity in this direction until it has been eliminated. A delight,
however, does not need attention on itself and the means to induce it to pull, because
it is already there. So it is more in the sense of the tendency to harmony to keep
attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as delights, which has the disadvantage for us
that unpleasure stimuli, generally speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure
pleasures, but on the whole brings the overwhelming advantage, that they are raised
the safer and more sustainable. At the same time, he draws attention to the means and
the search for such means of eliminating him, and determines our activity in this
direction until he is eliminated. A delight, however, does not need attention on itself
and the means to induce it to pull, because it is already there. So it is more in the
sense of the tendency to harmony to keep attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as
delights, which has the disadvantage for us that unpleasure stimuli, generally
speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure pleasures, but on the whole brings the
overwhelming advantage, that they are raised the safer and more sustainable. At the
same time, he draws attention to the means and the search for such means of
eliminating him, and determines our activity in this direction until he is eliminated. A
delight, however, does not need attention on itself and the means to induce it to pull,
because it is already there. So it is more in the sense of the tendency to harmony to
keep attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as delights, which has the disadvantage
for us that unpleasure stimuli, generally speaking, are more troublesome than
pleasure pleasures, but on the whole brings the overwhelming advantage, that they
are raised the safer and more sustainable. to bring him to draw because he is already
there. So it is more in the sense of the tendency to harmony to keep attention focused
on unpleasure stimuli as delights, which has the disadvantage for us that unpleasure
stimuli, generally speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure pleasures, but on the
whole brings the overwhelming advantage, that they are raised the safer and more
sustainable. to bring him to draw because he is already there. So it is more in the
sense of the tendency to harmony to keep attention focused on unpleasure stimuli as
delights, which has the disadvantage for us that unpleasure stimuli, generally
speaking, are more troublesome than pleasure pleasures, but on the whole brings the
overwhelming advantage, that they are raised the safer and more sustainable.
The fact that our principle is much more helpful to the optimistic than pessimistic
view of the world is obvious. For this does not lead to an inference for the existing
state of the world, but rather to a not unsuccessful tendency which has always existed
and continues for eternity, to improve conditions, which we have already
been guided from the other side by the discussions of the 15th section ; and it grants a
peculiar comfort to know a principle which guarantees this improvement, and
inevitably leads us to it in such a way that no regression in it is possible for the
whole, the regression in detail, and for the individual but only new attempts at more
lasting improvement are.
But the stable state of the whole closes everything by itself. For as long as this is
still being approached, the stable state of the individual, which is in an unstable
condition, may be lost again, according to previously pondered discussions, but only
in order to promote the whole in stability, and the individual itself to a new one to
lead states in a state of harmony in and with the whole.
I do not try to carry our principle further through the world's desires for pleasure
and unpleasure, since the preceding one must have sufficiently shown that from a
general point of view hardly anything would stand in the way of such an
implementation. However, in order to give a more definite and rigorous
representation of these relations on the basis of our principle, we can not stop at the
first brief and still vague expression of the relation of pleasure and pain to stability
and instability; The attempt to elaborate on more precise determinations, however, is
subject to difficulties and uncertainties, the development of which would only require
a further and more secure development of psychophysics than has hitherto been the
case.
It is not to be assumed from the outset that completely stable states should ever
occur in us; but a sound, a consonant chord, does not need to be absolutely pure to
please us; There are also many states of mind, of which we can neither say that they
are accompanied by pleasure, nor that they are accompanied by pain, but that the
underlying psychophysical process must either be stale or unstable. Taking this and
other considerations into account, we formulate our hypothesis more specifically as
follows:
Pleasure and aversion are linked to psychophysical activities, which are firstly
strong enough to exceed the threshold, and therefore to give consciousness of what
we consider to be the quantitative side of the process; secondly (according to the
remark already made above) the full stability to approach beyond a certain limit, the
threshold of desire, or to move beyond a certain limit, the threshold of pain, to what
we regard as the qualitative side to the quantitative, while between both limits there is
a breadth where neither pleasure nor pain enters consciousness but consciousness can
be there by virtue of exceeding the threshold on the quantitative side.
Accordingly, we also call the threshold, which must be exceeded by the power of
psychophysical activity (the elevation of which is included by attention), to be
conscious, as the qantitative threshold, the degree of approximation of the activity to
stability, which, in particular, becomes conscious of pleasure or displeasure must be
exceeded, as a qualitative threshold.
Psychophysical states, in which the qualitative threshold of pleasure is exceeded,
are called, according to earlier use, harmonic ones, those in which unpleasure is
exceeded, disharmonious, between both falling indifferent ones. Both harmonious
and disharmonious states can be conscious as well as unconscious, depending on
whether the quantitative threshold is exceeded or not. And so lust as well as pain can
disappear just as much because the psychophysical activity or determination of it,
which is able to carry pleasure or pain, sinks below the quantitative threshold, as if it
falls below the qualitative threshold;
According to these explanations, we can designate the principle of the tendency to
stability as the principle of the tendency towards harmony, and say that a tendency to
harmony dominates the world, which, after all, does not say that all the harmonious
movements in the world are with pleasure, all disharmonious with unpleasure,
because everywhere there is the question whether they also exceed the quantitative
threshold.
Should it merely arrive at the qualitative threshold, then a system whose parts are at
rest with respect to each other should be in the greatest state of pleasure, since this
case corresponds to absolute stability; but it is as low as possible below the
quantitative threshold. A simple particle on its own can, according to previous
determinations, neither feel pleasure nor aversion, for the state of pleasure and
displeasure is internal, and since a simple particle no longer includes parts that move
relative to each other, be it the quantitative or qualitative threshold For the same,
there is no occasion for the development of inner pleasure or displeasure, but only for
the system of any majority of particles, which is dealt with later in Chapter 22,
following considerations. Likewise, the motion of the earth around the sun, apart
from the small disturbances, can not be a cause of lust for it in particular, because it is
a matter of external stability for the earth, but it can be a cause for the system of sun
and earth to be of pleasure; except that, insofar as the system of both is only a
subsystem of the whole planetary system and this part of the whole world-system, the
relations of pleasure which depend on the relative relations of motion of the celestial
bodies are to be regarded as more closely connected, but over which more definite
points of view are lacking. One can think of the harmony of the spheres. In order to
speak of the pleasure and pain of a partial system in particular, it must at all events be
distinguished from its psychical content as something special in the general
consciousness.
Of course, with the above expression of the hypothesis, no full definiteness of it is
still achieved. For this would mean that we knew of a measure, or at least a measure
principle, of the approximation of given processes to full stability or deviation from
it, as well as a measure of pleasure and pain as a function of that measure, both of
which are not the case. But for more general determinations and for the drawing of
more general inferences, it is sufficient to acknowledge that there are greater and
lesser degrees of approximation to stability, greater and lesser degrees of pleasure and
aversion, and that these stand in general of those in the general dependence
indicated , At the same time, the first most general point of view for the search for a
measure of the pleasure and the air is on the psychophysical side.
Apart from the pleasure and aversion that ties up to the existing conditions of
stability and instability, which I call the fundamental source of pleasure and pain, we
also have to acknowledge a secondary source of pleasure and aversion that is
incompatible with both the previous one coincides with that which can coincide with
it in the same or opposite sense, and which lies in the fact that the progress towards
stability, if it does not fall through an existing threshold in this relationship, is the
desire to step back from it It awakens which pleasure or aversion adds to the pleasure
or pain which depends on the state itself, increasing or diminishing, depending on the
direction. In fact, it makes a big difference in the overall Lustresultate, whether a
disharmonic chord dissolves into a subsequent harmonic, or both chords follow in the
opposite direction. We can feel the pleasure of one thing, the reluctance of the other
in both cases, but will also feel a pleasure or aversion depending on the manner of
their consequence. The sick person who is recovering, the poor who advance to
prosperity, while ill and poor, feel a desire to improve their state, while the rich and
the rich, on the other hand, become displeased as their condition worsens the
deterioration, even before the condition is already bad to call. but they will also feel a
pleasure or aversion depending on the manner of their consequence. The sick person
who is recovering, the poor who advance to prosperity, while ill and poor, feel a
desire to improve their state, while the rich and the rich, on the other hand, become
displeased as their condition worsens the deterioration, even before the condition is
already bad to call. but they will also feel a pleasure or aversion depending on the
manner of their consequence. The sick person who is recovering, the poor who
advance to prosperity, while ill and poor, feel a desire to improve their state, while the
rich and the rich, on the other hand, become displeased as their condition worsens the
deterioration, even before the condition is already bad to call.
Now, one might think of making this source of pleasure and displeasure the only
one and fundamental for itself, that is to say, that pleasure and displeasure do not
come at all with the existence of a large or small approximation of stability but with
the movement of approximation and distance to it, and of it, and the greater the faster
the movement of approximation and of distance, and between which there is also a
range of indifference; and for the first sight the circumstance seems that the most
pleasurable influence on us, with constant support, loses more and more of pleasure,
and at last makes room for the reluctance of weariness, to interpret that the most
possible approximation to the stable state, that by continuous To achieve the effect of
the pleasure substance, instead of lifting the desire for the summit, picking it up; that
is, the pleasure exists and grows only so long as the approximation movement to
stability exists and accelerates, but diminishes when the movement slows down
towards the goal, and after the attainment of the inestimable goal of stability by
decaying it, succumbs to the displeasure. In the meantime the facts belonging to this
case may be explained more correctly partly by the fact that the internal agitation,
which depends on the action, according to well-known laws of blunting, more and
more sums up the quantitative threshold of strength, on which the degree of pleasure
depends, that as I fix the attention to a particular area, a particular object, The
tendency to stability may also be asserted in a certain part or side of the
psychophysical system, but the latter, moreover, the more easily makes irregular
movements, which produce the reluctance of boredom and thus stimulate the change
of occupation. For it is undisputed that such an arrangement of our psychophysical
system and the entire system of the world takes place in general, that an approximate
stable state of the whole system can exist only with a certain proportion of the
excitation between its individual parts, to which the unilateral excitation of any one
below it continues contradicts. In fact, when we finally get tired of the idea of the
most beautiful painting, it is not because the painting, but because the lack of change
begins to displease us, the need to engage differently becomes too lively. Moreover,
the complication of the fundamental and secondary source of pleasure and
displeasure in the sense above appears to be proved by facts such as the above; and it
would be hard to imagine that years of pain in a given area of sensation, as often
happens, should be able to depend on a steadily declining decline in stability without
previously leading to a border or destruction, if rightly so is that the organism finally
suffers from it. In contrast to this, long-lasting pain can be linked to a strong
deviation from the full stability that is not improvable under existing external
conditions, which does not exclude
In any case, it seems to me easier to make the representation of all the facts in
question, with reference to both sources, as merely one of them.
If we go back to the indefinite behind everything else, we shall be able to think of
the world beginning with a chaotic, that is, quite unstable state, without thinking of it
as an almost endless discomfort. In fact, if at first matter, which has now contracted
into circumscribed world-bodies with ordered motions, has been disorderly scattered
throughout space and understood in orderly movements, then the removal of the
particles from each other will result in the intervening forces and the consequent
movements of the individual particles were at first very weak, so that, to a certain
degree of development, the world could remain below the quantitative threshold, or at
least not far exceed it; and inasmuch as the first movements had to be in the sense of
increasing stability, the secondary desire, which was attached to the progress toward
stability, could outweigh the initial discomfort, which hung on the sum of the
unstable little movements, or it could be a stable one for the whole Resultant emerge,
which gave pleasure. But the circumstances in which one does better because of their
darkness, are not to deepen.
One can find a difficulty in the fact that pleasure can attach itself to the whole
duration of a movement process, while the stability of the process required for
pleasure demands a return of it to the initial conditions, which can only come about
after a certain time. But this difficulty is raised by the following consideration. In
every moment of a process of motion, the course which it will take is already to be
regarded as definite by the existing conditions and the law of motion, and with this
determination preserving itself by the duration of the movement, the provision to
pleasure must be regarded as given without that it requires the full execution of the
movement.
Perhaps the following aspect can contribute something to the mathematical
development of our principle.
After the Fourier principle, any rectilinear movement of a point can, no matter how
changing speed and arbitrarily repeated reversal of the direction, in one way as a
composition of linear simplest possible vibrations of different amplitude, in
general, a ,a ', a ".. of different periods T, T', T" ... and different outputs p, p ', p ", ...,
and are mathematically decomposed into them The general or compound period into
which all individual periods is then given by the product T, T ', T ".... On the other
hand, every possible curvilinear motion, be it carried out in one or more planes, can
be divided into straight lines by projection on three mutually perpendicular axes,
which further permit the previous decomposition; and extend this to all points that
contribute to a psychophysical process. Whatever the nature of this process, it finally
breaks down into a number of simple oscillations according to the three main
directions, generally of unequal amplitude, Period and exit, which may, however,
become coincidental in special cases. Now, the pleasure and aversion as a function of
a, a ', a "on the quantitative side, of T, T', T" on the qualitative side will have to be
determined, while the ratio of the initial values will only determine the shape of the
Process should be without influence on its aesthetic yield.
In any case, one will have only occasion to subject such a complex of particles and
such a continuation of their movement to this treatment, as they belong to a simple or
unified consciousness phenomenon or consciousness; but in the case of a uniform
one, apart from the total process, the partial processes, which belong to special
phenomena, may be taken into special consideration.

IX. What causes and entitles us to accept an external world,

and how far is a knowledge of its constitution possible.

Man speaks of external appearances or phenomena of an external, which he thinks

of a so-called material or physical external world, say, usually short nature or simply
outer world, causally dependent, while it is basically always only internal
determinations, appearances of his own spiritual being, sensations, intuitions of this
and that kind, which he points to the existence of the material outer world, as evoked
by it. What makes him even suppose that the inner world of these sensations,
intuitions really corresponds to a world outside, and what justifies it to such an
assumption?
Is it an instinctual coercion? If such exists, either instinct will, as with everything
else, either have no clear account of it at all, or it will only have to be sought in the
past; the expression itself does not explain anything. First, ask yourself in this regard
to ask for something actual, whether a newborn child already distinguishes an outside
world from himself. Of course, not in the same way as we can do or do it
reflectively; yet it could be as we involuntarily do without reflection on it, and find
ourselves determined by our actions outwardly 1), In the meantime, much of us has
acquired through experience and practice in life, which later involuntarily asserts
itself as something innate, instinctive. Could this not also be the case with the
involuntary differentiation of an outside world from us? Would or even the
involuntary distinction be innate to us, could it not have been acquired first from our
ancestors and passed over to us only through heredity? Who could safely decide these
questions? it's even hard to explain. But let's try with some considerations, if not
some light can be won in the question.
l)In any case, it seems to be their respect to the outside world acts so in
newborn animals.
 First of all, one may be tempted to state the reason why we keep our outer
perceptions dependent on an outside world, and in fact it is at least on several
occasions made similar. The phenomena, sensations, which become conscious to us
through the external perceptions, betray no causal dependence on previously
established determinations of our spiritual self in the same sense, as our memories of
our intuitions, our concepts of our memories, etc., while giving rise to new
determinations that betrayed such. So you're looking for a cause of it besides the
mind. To be sure, we can also assure ourselves of a causal connection between our
external perceptions through mediating considerations; and so it happens in
science, which bases its whole system on the causal connection between such
perceptions; but at any rate this causal connection is not so simple and immediately
conscious as that inner one which does not coincide with it, does not become part of
itto pursue continuo , has its own laws in it, stands, as it were, perpendicular to
that; so we distinguish what enters one from what enters the other as another; and
since the causal connection in the externally shining region is not directly inwardly
present to us, we unconsciously look for the cause beyond it.
According to this, the question of whether we innately differentiate an outside
world from us would in the first place depend on the question whether the demand for
causality is a priori a priori indigenous to us; conversely, some believe that there is a
strong proof that the latter is the case in finding ourselves involuntarily seeking a
cause to our outer perceptions outside ourselves. In the meantime it has already been
remarked that it is questionable from the outset whether we innately do what we
involuntarily do now, so it might be quite well-as is the opinion of others-that the
demand for the causal connection can only be made through experience of life, and
depending on this, the distinction of an external world from us can only have arisen
later. Yes, Is the demand for causality even today so unconscious and familiar to us in
order to be able to make of it the very involuntary and familiar distinction of an
external world dependent on us? Earlier remarks (chapter XVII) contradict this. Who,
as a rule, asks when he sees an expiration of external phenomena going on, whether
they are causally conditioned at all? this concept of relationship comes into being
only through special reflection, which we generally do not employ and do not need to
distinguish ourselves from the outside world; One follows directly only the sequence
of phenomena. And instead of involuntarily seeking a cause beyond ourselves to our
outer perceptions, we rather confusingly confuse what enters the perception with
something external.
Supporters of an indeterministic view of freedom deny even from the outset that
causality in the spiritual sphere is unconditionally valid; insofar as free resolutions of
the will can arise without sufficient conditionality from the preceding; yet these
resolutions appear as something intrinsic to the spirit, not imposed from
outside. They must then grant the same possibility to external perceptions, and could
not thereby make the appearance that they have come from the outside dependent on
missing inner causality. But apart from the question of freedom, too, we find sudden
ideas of which we do not know where they came from, but not immediately as
something external.
According to this, one can at least find it very doubtful whether the absence of an
inner causality is at all a factor in the distinction which we have made, so to speak,
with the other nature of a material outer world of ourselves; And let's leave the
question of the ultimate reason of that, after not quite clear it over.
A question other than the psychological reason that we involuntarily presuppose for
our external perceptions a really existing external world is the more fundamental,
because our objective knowledge itself is a questioning, questioning the justification
of this presupposition. The assumption of an external world will always remain a
matter of faith, since in fact we have what we have and know about it only as our
inner being and, on reflection, acknowledge it as such. But the very fact that one has
ever believed in an outside world and distinguished one from itself gives the
historical support, and that in order to act in an external world one must believe in the
existence of one, the practical support of this faith. Still asking for a theoretical
support.
If the very fact that we involuntarily distinguish an external world from ourselves
did not seem to explain it by the fact that we are involuntarily seeking out of our
external perceptions a cause which we do not find within ourselves, then the
justification for this distinction also remains not well based on it. On the one hand,
because through a thorough examination of the natural context which enters into our
outer perception, we more or less really discover a causal connection between them,
without going beyond our inner self; secondly, because we ourselves are not
completely aware of the causal connection of our thoughts without being able to deny
their purely inner existence. It would be conceivable that external perceptions such as
thoughts are both after a purely internal, only causal relationships that can not be
traced everywhere; for the fact that the one causal connection, following a short
expression used above, is, as it were, perpendicular to the other, would not hinder the
fact that one is as good as the other a purely internal one. On the other hand, the
following consideration reveals what, in fact, we in fact support in science and life
the justification for keeping external perceptions externally conditioned as well.
Hallucinations to which we do not conform externally make to him who has them
the same impression as to another external perceptions to which we obey something
externally. What makes the difference between the two? After all, the latter, the
external perceptions, are as well a purely internal matter as the former, the
hallucinations, and the hallucinating no more finds an inner cause for the phantasm,
which he considers external objects, than the external perceptor to the phenomena
more real, ie of all recognized objects. Could not the external phenomena, which we
relate to the existence of such, be but also subjective phantasms, like the
hallucinations. However, apart from the hallucinating person, we do not confuse both,
and that must have a reason.
This reason is evident in the fact that with the appearance of the real objects of the
outer world, which are offered by external perceptions, for others, partly
corresponding, partly legally observable, can arise in other human spirits, from which
we can receive communications about them. The same tree which I see may see
others; they may see it differently according to their different position and the
different arrangement of their eye, and in view of these differences the difference of
the phenomena may be explained; but the connection by virtue of which the
appearance of the tree is possible for a spiritual subject only to the extent that it is at
the same time legally possible for others, gives us the legitimacy or is valid for us, to
assume a common cause for what goes beyond each mind in particular, an authority
that lacks the hallucinations. And so we leave the phenomena, which pretend to be
externalities to the hallucinating, therefore, not to be considered dependent on real
externalities because they do not conform to the legal coherence of the ideas which
we all have of the external world. If such a connection existed for the totality, then all
theoretical justification ceased to see more than a sum of subjective hallucinations in
the phenomena of an external world. Therefore, do not count as dependent on real
externalities because they do not conform to the legal coherence of the ideas that we
all have from the outside world. If such a connection existed for the totality, then all
theoretical justification ceased to see more than a sum of subjective hallucinations in
the phenomena of an external world. Therefore, do not count as dependent on real
externalities because they do not conform to the legal coherence of the ideas that we
all have from the outside world. If such a connection existed for the totality, then all
theoretical justification ceased to see more than a sum of subjective hallucinations in
the phenomena of an external world.
Now, of course, that there are spirits outside of us, since we can only infer from the
influences of them which have become inwardly within us, and henceforth could
doubt so well the existence of a spiritual as of a material external world beyond
us; but to the historical and practical religious reasons for the existence of ghosts
besides us enters the theoretical analogy, what we are at similar body and bodily
expressions as our souls and similar expressions and soul, when our own form 2) .
2)Explained a little more detailed, so: I take my body and my actions
outwardly, as well as those of other people. The so-called external phenomena
gained by it are in any case only an interior for me, ie my spirit; but, finding
the external phenomena obtainable by my body and my actions in solidarity
with internal phenomena of the soul, I assume that analogous phenomena of
the soul are also in solidarity with the analogous external phenomena which I
have of the body and bodily expressions of others. which, however, do not
coincide with my inner phenomena of soul, and therefore do not enter my
consciousness, because the physical manifestations of both of us do not
coincide within me. So outwardly, these against each other, so externally the
corresponding belonging to it, on the one hand from my inner felt, on the other
hand added to me by my soul certificates. Of course, this analogical conclusion
does not become conscious of itself in such a developed form, but nevertheless
it can be developed into its own moments.
 With all this it is not said that the involuntary impression of the existence of a
material external world depends on our knowledge that others also have such an
impression; it is undisputed that it arises independently of everyone; but it is only
said that we must take away the passage through the belief in spirits in order to find a
theoretical justification for the belief in the belief that the appearance of material
external things for each one of us really matters objectively, ie for others exist.
In addition, our whole view of nature or the physical external world, as objectively
existing, rests on the presupposition that it appears not only to us but also to others, to
produce effects in others as well as in us, which we make of it as the cause of it ; and
our whole characteristic of objective nature rests not merely upon experiences made
by this and that, but of as many as possible, and used by the wisest among them to
inferences as to how the phenomena would change under changed circumstances.
However, there is still the possibility, generally speaking, that the legal connection
of external phenomena, though pointing beyond each individual mind, is mediated to
the totality of all by a pre-established harmony between them, without there being
anything beyond them. And it is undisputed that there is no logical and compelling
proof against it; but no one for it. It is certain that until now no clear and practical
understanding of the world of external things has seemed possible to men under the
form or presupposition, that there is nothing causal beyond the minds of the so-called
outward appearances, which give the individual spirits an outside world , therefore
neither the natural nor the naturalistic view adopts it, In fact, no philosophical system
basically represents the same purely. For even in the Leibnizian system of
preestablished harmony, the divine Monas is still considered to exist beyond the
individual spirits, which conveys their harmony, but without clear conceptions of it
existing in the system. Now that no decision is possible between several possible
views, be it purely logical or direct, it is preferable to choose the one which conveys
the clearest, most practical, and historically proven orientation in the whole field of
human knowledge-for what else? In order not to entangle the considerations from the
outset without success, we abstract from the logical possibility of that unfruitful
view. For even in the Leibnizian system of preestablished harmony, the divine Monas
is still considered to exist beyond the individual spirits, which conveys their harmony,
but without clear conceptions of it existing in the system. Now that no decision is
possible between several possible views, be it purely logical or direct, it is preferable
to choose the one which conveys the clearest, most practical, and historically proven
orientation in the whole field of human knowledge-for what else? In order not to
entangle the considerations from the outset without success, we abstract from the
logical possibility of that unfruitful view. For even in the Leibnizian system of
preestablished harmony, the divine Monas is still considered to exist beyond the
individual spirits, which conveys their harmony, but without clear conceptions of it
existing in the system. Now that no decision is possible between several possible
views, be it purely logical or direct, it is preferable to choose the one which conveys
the clearest, most practical, and historically proven orientation in the whole field of
human knowledge-for what else? In order not to entangle the considerations from the
outset without success, we abstract from the logical possibility of that unfruitful
view. what their consensus conveys, but without clear ideas about it in the
system. Now that no decision is possible between several possible views, be it purely
logical or direct, it is preferable to choose the one which conveys the clearest, most
practical, and historically proven orientation in the whole field of human knowledge-
for what else? In order not to entangle the considerations from the outset without
success, we abstract from the logical possibility of that unfruitful view. what their
consensus conveys, but without clear ideas about it in the system. Now that no
decision is possible between several possible views, be it purely logical or direct, it is
preferable to choose the one which conveys the clearest, most practical, and
historically proven orientation in the whole field of human knowledge-for what else?
In order not to entangle the considerations from the outset without success, we
abstract from the logical possibility of that unfruitful view.
Now ask yourself, if we have to admit an outside world beyond the individual
spirits, how far a knowledge of their constitution is possible. The Kantian doctrine,
which has become so influential, denies such a possibility, leaves the objective
quality of what the phenomena of an external world generates in us indefinite, speaks
of things in themselves, the nature of which in itself is completely unrecognizable, in
that all of them are dependent on us Phenomena, even the temporal and spatial form
of them, are essentially conditioned by the establishment of our subjectivity 3)In any
case, it is not clear what is not caused by it. Of course, one can ask oneself this point
of view; only one wonders what one wins by neglecting and rejecting in principle the
inferences which can give us a view beyond our own limited existence. Kant himself
can not deny that our own existence is part of the total existence; and it is a peculiar
postulate that this part is so incomparable with the rest of existence, so as not to be
able to draw any conclusion from one to the other, whereas everywhere else we draw
such conclusions with all the more fruit for our knowledge and the knowledge built
upon it make practical lives, the greater the certainty and scope we give these
conclusions. Missing now also all inductions, analogies, causal considerations, on
which we may base ourselves here, the logical evidence, and with it the results of
their absolute certainty, we otherwise do not allow ourselves to be prevented from
making use of these inferences, and could do without without branches of life and
knowledge; now we should even get along in our views on the most general and
highest things without it. In any case, it seems to me better to seek the most probable,
to orient ourselves theoretically and practically in the realm of existence, to make
explicit reference to the means available to it, and to bring it to the greatest possible
clarity, safety and development, as the missing possibility of absolute To confuse
certainty of knowledge with absolutely lacking possibility of knowledge,
3)That space and time are subjective forms of our intuition requires no special
proof whatsoever, since it is a simple fact of our experience, of the view into
ourselves. That they are only forms of our intuition can not be inferred from
them; and if one can think away from time and space all content, without being
able to think away time and space, it speaks for this rather than against the fact
that they are essential forms of intelligence in general.
 Now, of course, we must not, from the very outset, impose determinations
provoked in us by the external, directly on the external, as existing there, as the
common or natural view does. The glow of the sun, the rustling of the wind, the scent
of the flowers are to her something that falls not only in us, but in the objective outer
world itself beyond our soul. But whether it does not illuminate, exhale, or smell
outside, if at all, than in any one of us who merely receive an effect from outside, and
even if it still shines outside, smells, smells, if not merely effects in us they depend on
a very different certainty of the outside, then she does not ask, so she does not
care. And yet. can the,
but there can also be something common in the quality of sensation between inside
and outside. In order to use a picture from the realm of our ideas of the outer world
itself, the same ray of light may, according to the nature of the differently polished
glasses through which it is broken, different curved mirrors through which it is
thrown back, different colored surfaces through which it passes scattered, very
differently modified, brighter, darker, simpler, more scattered, or so colored, but the
quality of the luminosity remains in common with all these effects; and thus the
feeling of lightning in a more general spiritual being, which is linked to the material
outer world, could just as well be linked to the oscillating ray of light outside,4) .
4)Of course, what we as an oscillating ray of sight outside, like what we
perceive in it as an oscillating effect, are both only an abstraction from the
realm of external perceptions; but insofar as both are abstracted from
comparable perceptions, they also have the presupposition for themselves that
they objectively correspond to something comparable.

In fact, this is the view of the relationship between inside and outside, on which our
day's view comes back, as opposed to the night view, according to which the still dark
light only comes to light in us.
As we have recalled earlier, our day view hereby goes back to a natural view in
some way, but makes a clear distinction between what appears objectively in nature
itself or its associated spiritual being and what, depending on it, each of us which
natural or common opinion does not do, by not expressly rejecting it, but not
responding to it in its uncertainty and vagueness.
Let us now see in the following sections how this view of the sensible phenomenal
world or nature on the part of the day view is communicated with its scientific
conception.
 XX. Communicating the day view with the scientific
view of nature.

In order to enter into the following considerations with clear preconceptions, we

determine somewhat more precisely than hitherto what we, in substantial accordance
with the scientific as well as the general use of language and concepts, will here
understand under nature or even the same material world.
We understand it and generally it is understood as meaning that, as existing outside
of our minds, causes of the so-called outward appearances or perceptions, which are
really or can be gained by us and by others with the so-called external senses, that is,
of seeing, Hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling (keys) 1) ; In addition, nature is
commonly characterized by these effects produced in us, although scientifically
always with the awareness that these effects in us, our mind, are not the cause of it,
not nature itself. The reasons which cause and justify us to really seek a cause of
these effects beyond our minds have been discussed in the previous section and are
not to be referred to here.
l)The so-called common feelings, as hunger, thirst, pain, we also call physical,
or at least sensuous, feelings, but we do not use them in the same way as the
perceptions of the so-called external senses, to the characteristics of the
material external world ; since with the corresponding feelings of others they
are not in a legally observable legal relationship, as external perceptions; what
appears in the remark made in (19) is that it is precisely this connection
existing for many that serves us at all as the criterion of an objective nature
beyond the individual perception of each.

Our own body is in part included as the cause of external phenomena in the nature
or totality of the material world, insofar as it can be perceived externally by others,
indeed to some extent by our own external senses. Of course, from within a living
body, we can not have immediate external perceptions; but, according to the
investigations of the anatomist and anatomist, to formulate an idea of how the interior
would appear outwardly after the removal of external obstacles, and if the external
phenomena vary according to the subtlety and distinctiveness of our senses, we
conclude what phenomena we are as faint as possible Support the same by as
perfected as possible, would have external aids. For the characterization of nature or
the material world according to its external appearance, we must at least consider, in
scientific observation, what and how something would appear under such favorable
conditions, even though it obstructs our real perception because of external obstacles
or limitations of our means of observation. Enough that in this sense it is deduced
from the interrelation of what is really externally apparent, and presented in the form
of it, even if only as its limit, without contradiction in the causal connection of the
externally apparent, which can be traced by natural science, and helps to complete it
itself Conditions would appear, though it escapes our real perception because of
external obstacles or limitations of our means of observation. Enough that in this
sense it is deduced from the interrelation of what is really externally apparent, and
presented in the form of it, even if only as its limit, without contradiction in the
causal connection of the externally apparent, which can be traced by natural science,
and helps to complete it itself Conditions would appear, though it escapes our real
perception because of external obstacles or limitations of our means of
observation. Enough that in this sense it is deduced from the interrelation of what is
really externally apparent, and presented in the form of it, even if only as its limit,
without contradiction in the causal connection of the externally apparent, which can
be traced by natural science, and helps to complete it itself2) . This is for the
following, when speaking of external appearance, always to keep in mind.
2) In
this way, atoms and undulations of light, which distinguish an eye and a
microscope, enter into the scientifically recorded context of nature.

Closer watching, we find the sensations, intuitions, memories, determinations of

will, etc., which are linked in the unity of our consciousness, without being at the
same time a matter of a strange consciousness, and which we therefore regard as
appearances, determinations of our mental or spiritual being, through a relation
Contingent to the determinateness of the determinations of the external appearance of
our body, bound to it by customary expression, which can be recognized and pursued
partly by direct observation, partly by the conclusion of experience. One can argue
about the reason for this conditionality, how about the whole relationship of body and
associated soul; but here it is only necessary to keep in mind the fact of
conditionality,
These preliminary terms may suffice for the following. Without contradicting it, the
strictly scientific study and treatment of nature only enters into a certain restriction to
the determinations which are to be calculated according to nature. From the whole
externally sensible phenomenal world it holds only the countable or infinitesimally
summable, according to time and space Spatial Measures Measurable, let us briefly
say the quantitatively determinable, but abstract from all qualitative determinateness,
such as those of our sensible phenomena as perception of light, sound perception,
etc. 3), This leaves her with only the notion of spatial and temporal extension, the
notion of something contained in this space, whether it is split with extended or
discrete atoms, at least qualitatively indefinite or indifferent, something called matter,
and the idea of situations and positional changes (movements) of the parts of matter
in space left over. It adds forces to matter, which, in fact, can not be characterized by
anything else for the scientific point of view and natural scientific use, but in the fact
that, given the quantitatively determinable temporal spatial relations of matter, they
legally follow what they call the effect of the forces inherent in matter. She does so,
even if the philosopher can change the concept of powers as he likes, and thereby
make it as incomprehensible and useless to science as possible (see Ex. XVII). All
this, however, is no longer attached to the sensory qualities of the face, hearing, etc.,
for the strictly scientific consideration, which intricately enters into external
perception. and if it still establishes the possibility that different kinds of matter are
subject to the two kinds of electricity, it is only infofern, as about quantitatively
different motions of motions depend on them, without thinking of the senses qualities
of external perceptibility. with which it intricately enters the outer perception; and if
it still establishes the possibility that different kinds of matter are subject to the two
kinds of electricity, it is only infofern, as about quantitatively different motions of
motions depend on them, without thinking of the senses qualities of external
perceptibility. which complicated it enters the external perception; and if it still
establishes the possibility that different kinds of matter are subject to the two kinds of
electricity, it is only infofern, as about quantitatively different motions of motions
depend on them, without thinking of the senses qualities of external perceptibility.
3)The intensity of a sensation of light and sound for exact science is reduced to
living force (product of mass in the square of velocity) of vibrating
particles. Matter itself is conceived atomistically as something that can be
counted, not atomistically as something infinitely summable. The mass of
matter is judged by quantities of movement. The density is due to the relative
number or sum of particles of given mass in given space. The different basic
chemical constitution of the bodies can be traced back to the different shape
and mass of the last particles, or the different number and arrangement of
simple particles in the small groups (molecules) into which matter is thought to
be divided before its last fission.

After abstraction, however, of all these qualities of sensibility, the scientific view
acknowledges that, according to the different relations of the material world which it
has previously envisaged, to the part which our body forms of it for itself, and to its
own inner Conditions, qualitatively determined sensations of various kinds in the
soul, which is bound to our body, according to laws, which it pursues up to certain
limits in physics and physiology itself, leaves further and more exact to follow the
pursuit of psychophysics. And vice versa, it excludes from such sensations in us the
existence of quantitatively determined conditions in the external world, from
sensation of light in us to rapid vibrations of the ether.
In short, the scientific consideration objectifies merely determinable determinations
of our external perceptions as belonging to nature outside of us, or belonging to the
essential characteristic of them, and abstracts from the qualitative ( 4), Now it is a
matter of its own if the materialist, and not only this, but basically the whole of
today's world of science, infected with the night view, does not regard qualitative
determinacy as far as we are concerned, far as the naturalist abstracts from it. He
thinks it is only his task to occupy himself with the quantitative, although it enters
into his perception in inseparable connection with the qualitative. Should the world
beyond us, producing qualitative sensations in us, be itself qualitatively empty,
indefinite? Or is it to have qualities incomparable to those of our soul, which can not
be talked about, which one simply has to put aside. But that does not actually apply to
the part of nature, which gives the outward appearance of a living body, insofar as the
sensory qualities of seeing, hearing, and so on, are connected with it after direct inner
experience. Here we have a direct link in experience for the acceptance of certain
qualities to the quantitative determinations of nature beyond us, which must be
pursued and exploited. We conclude by analogies, inductions, causal considerations
of what belongs together in us by law, to what belongs together beyond us. Although
the execution of this conclusion in detail may be difficult and fall into uncertainty,
there is at any rate a principle and point of departure for the inference, and the
difficulty and insecurity do not affect both the general and the particular and
particular of the inferences.
4)Although the number of spacial and temporal extensions are all subject to
quantitative certainty, their difference is not traceable to a quantitative one; and
thus one could say: number, space, time are qualitatively different from the
beginning, and thus even very fundamental qualities would be absorbed by
science. Only this broad version of duality does not agree with the general use
of concepts, according to which, on the contrary, every one of us has the pure
number and time; Concept of space for quality is explained; but who wants to
defy the arbitrariness of the definitions. Be it so, these fundamental qualities
are not to be concocted with the qualities of sensation of light, sound-sensation,
etc., which are expressly dealt with here.

For, of course, our body is externally apparently arranged differently than the rest
of the material world, and the movements in it are different from those outside, but
are not incomparable to the quantitative determinations envisaged by natural
science; why comparability should stop on sites of qualitative positivity if it persists
on pages of quantitative. Vibrations z. B. There are outside like inside; however, as
mathematical physicists are well aware, every motion-system can be imagined as a
complex of the simplest vibrations of different amplitude and period, and thought of
as resolvable, that of external nature no less than our own internal system of
motion; and if higher mental phenomena in us may be linked to certain relations of
the combination of vibrations or movements, which can be thought of as resolvable,
then one can, for example, At a concert, for example, find similar circumstances of
the meeting outside; but if there are also dissimilar, then only dissimilar but not
incomparable or spiritual phenomena will be connected.
It is true that in the externally apparent fields of movement, as grasped by the
physicist, the simple movement of a handle by transference to a compound machine
can successively induce very manifold and complicated movements in it, while the
immediate transmission is only in a correspondingly simple movement in the
direction of the handle movement, or one by breaking it up in the other direction. It is
now free to compare the release of a movement which carries sensation in our
complicated brain with a relatively simple stimulus. But this explains only the
emergence of a somehow composed material movement in us through the external
stimulus, not the development of a quality of sensation in this composition;5) . And
for what the leap, since the natural science itself is obliged to make it only because it
abstracts previously from the qualitative determination of the external
perceptions; they restitute this certainty and it is no longer a cause for a jump from
the outset. But materialism and the whole night view makes the leap, as if there was
something in the peculiar complication of the brain's movements that could conjure
up sensation out of movement at once 6) .
5)Very worth reading and convincing in this respect are those of Zöllner in S.
Kometenbuche l. 230 pp. 230, or Wiss. Abh. I, 338 ff., Although I can not
divide the view relating to the psycho-physical justification of pleasure and
displeasure with the remarks of p. 139 and section XVIII. On the basis of other
considerations, even in the 40th Sect. Elements d. Psych. The psychic capacity
for the material movement at all claimed.
6)The fact that the great complication of the higher animals' and man's brain is
necessary only for the development of the higher psychic life built over their
sensory life, rather than for the triggering of the sensory sensation itself, is
proved already by the fact that the nerveless polyps, which consist of similar
organic substance, are very give vivid signs of sensory excitement through
external stimuli.

The dualist in the traditional sense says, of course, that the light-stimulus from
outside, to which nothing yet adheres to the quality of sensation, but can cause such
in the, attached to our body, soul, depends on our body, but not on the Nature beyond
a soul is linked. Well, but how does he come to this view? Nothing else than that he
moves the jump to another place. The bodies of two human beings are parts of the
general body-world, and between them both should be inanimate; In the transition to
them she jumps to the inspiration. If the possibility of a dualistic conception is
admitted, dualism will only be able to avoid the leap by being as good to our nature
or body-world as we are to our bodies-in short, to material existence in general.
Nevertheless, if one wanted to abstract from the qualitative determinations of
external perceptions, as the objective outside us nothing, falling only within us, then
Kant would at least be more consistent, insofar as he wants to be abstracted from
quantitative determinacy as the objective determinateness of a world beyond us , as
of the qualitative. But if we have theoretical and practical reasons for not keeping our
inner world of external perceptions the same in the same way, but something relative
to it from the point of view of equality, which makes a relationship of action between
the two possible, this will not be so less as to the qualitative than quantitative side of
existence, on the other hand, the objective quantitative side of external existence can
no more be confused with the particular subjective appearance of it for each of us, or
be regarded as identical with it, as the qualitative one. Nor does scientific observation
itself condemn such confusion, but it maintains the comparability on the quantitative
side, and the view of the day is only supplemented by the fact that it does the same
with regard to the qualitative side of existence.
But, one may ask, what reason does natural science have to abstract in full
contradiction with the natural from the whole qualitative side of the natural
phenomenon, in order to consider only the quantitative one with its final intervention
in our soul. This reason lies in its purpose of deducing from given conditions the
external world of phenomena not given with the greatest possible precision, or of
predicting as accurately as possible the success of altered relations of the external
context of appearance. She can not do otherwise than by laws drawn from the
combination of external perceptions, by the use of measure and account. But only the
quantitative, non-qualitative side of the natural phenomenon is directly accessible to
the measure and the calculation 7), And the proof that this really is the point of view
from which the scientific abstraction of the quality of perception of the externally
perceived happens is that where that purpose ceases, that abstraction also falls away,
that is, in the description of nature, where in fact the qualitative Side of the natural
phenomenon with the quantitative equal considered. It describes z. For example, an
animal according to its color, the sound of its voice, the odor it spreads, the roughness
of its skin; no less is a mineral characterized by qualities of sensation. Against this
there is abstraction for physics, chemistry, astronomy, Physiology (insofar as such
does not turn into internal psychophysics) and finds itself sanctioned in the purest and
most pervading mechanics in which they jointly dominate and penetrate. Actually, it
is only these parts of general natural science, when one has to reckon with the
description of nature in general, whose need has led to that abstraction. By actually
making calculations, even science abstracts even further, merely operates with
numbers, and in the most general accounts even merely with letters as representatives
of quite abstract quantities, without asserting that reality is covered with such
abstraction. whose need has led to that abstraction. By actually making calculations,
even science abstracts even further, merely operates with numbers, and in the most
general accounts even merely with letters as representatives of quite abstract
quantities, without asserting that reality is covered with such abstraction. whose need
has led to that abstraction. By actually making calculations, even science abstracts
even further, merely operates with numbers, and in the most general accounts even
merely with letters as representatives of quite abstract quantities, without asserting
that reality is covered with such abstraction.
7)Psychophysics also deals with the measure of the intensity of sensation
qualities, but in doing so presupposes the system of measurement of nature
presented without quality and makes its measure dependent on it.

This does not mean that it is only possible to draw conclusions from here to there,
from today to tomorrow, by means of the scientific abstraction of qualitative
determinateness on the basis of purely quantitative determinations. Without such
abstraction we infer with analogies, inductions, causal considerations, with more or
less certainty, that the sun which has shone today will also shine tomorrow, that other
people, as we have, have similar sensations as we do, that there is a God in
heaven ; but the pursuit on the side of quantitative determinability will not only be
necessary in itself for a sharp and precise understanding of the relations of existence,
but also necessary in order to draw firm conclusions on it; Of course, on the
quantitative side, the pursuit can not be immediate and in itself with the intervention
of qualitative determinations, but only in its own connection; therefore, as long as it
is abstracted from qualitative determinations, as it now applies to that pursuit, and
finally to the quantitative success in us, to add the qualitative as a definiteness of our
mind. This, however, does not exclude, and is not taken into account by natural
science in its concluding and calculating ways, that the quantitative cause causes us
no less a qualitative determinateness than is the case with the quantitative result in
us. And that's what our day's view transcends and supplements the scientific view at
the same time,
Lastly, the question still remains as to whether the material world, as the cause of
external phenomena arising in our minds, has to have an existence apart from the
spiritual sphere in general. As good as all outward phenomena of which we can speak
are something in our mind, what we have supposed to assume as a cause of causation
beyond ourselves, could only be something in a general spirit that includes ours; and,
indeed, neither a direct ground of experience nor a conceptual or causal ground seems
to oblige me to accept, as it were, something beyond the general and our spirit, of
which the whole spiritual depends again, since on the contrary all causality can be
thought of in the spiritual self-perceptible, if we consider that matter itself can only
be grasped for us by determinations that fall into our mind. To think of anything,
which does not fall or can fall into ours or comparably to another or more general
spirit, or is abstractable from it, means to think of nothing. In fact, in the last resort, I
commit myself to an objective idealism; what does not hinder, rather the coercion
persists, to distinguish a physical external world and spiritual inner world insofar as
the first by the legal connection of perceptions that fall or may fall into a majority of
individuals, the latter by the connection of mental determinations that already into
each individual for himself, or, more generally, the general mind, is charac- terizable.

XXI. Basic relationship between material and spiritual principle.

Dualism and monism.

With diligence I have left in the general presentation of the Day the basic
relationship between body and soul, matter and spirit vague to as taking place only a
correspondingly intimate relationship between the two principles through the world
in ourselves to bring to bear (chap. IV). In fact, this relationship may be such as
dualistic or monistic drawn here as long as there as there consistently in the same
sense and protest is happening here with the experience, the Day will be able to
tolerate it; I only knew how to make it neither accessible nor accessible to the
monadologist, as discussed in the following sections. If one understands the basic
view as dualistic, one will be able to speak of an embodiment of the whole world as
well as the embodiment of our body. by considering the psychic or spiritual being as
fundamentally different from the physical, yet connected with it and looking at
interacting and cooperating according to certain laws; it takes her monistic, one is
inferior to two principles a common reason being, and unless they both are to be
distinguished, depending on the more materialistic, idealistic or Spinozistic version of
the view in mind only one function, or a result of the material composition and
disassembly sequence, or in matter an external manifestation of the spirit, or in both
only different modes of appearance, sides, determinations, stages, attributes of one
and the same, fundamental being can see. No matter how much you only ever want
instead of one or the other basic view yet associated with it and looking at interacting
and cooperative according to certain laws; it takes her monistic, one is inferior to two
principles a common reason being, and unless they both are to be distinguished,
depending on the more materialistic, idealistic or Spinozistic version of the view in
mind only one function, or a result of the material composition and disassembly
sequence, or in matter an external manifestation of the spirit, or in both only different
modes of appearance, sides, determinations, stages, attributes of one and the same,
fundamental being can see. No matter how much you only ever want instead of one
or the other basic view yet associated with it and looking at interacting and
cooperative according to certain laws; it takes her monistic, one is inferior to two
principles a common reason being, and unless they both are to be distinguished,
depending on the more materialistic, idealistic or Spinozistic version of the view in
mind only one function, or a result of the material composition and disassembly
sequence, or in matter an external manifestation of the spirit, or in both only different
modes of appearance, sides, determinations, stages, attributes of one and the same,
fundamental being can see. No matter how much you only ever want instead of one
or the other basic view so it is inferior to two principles a common reason being, and
unless they both are to be distinguished, depending on the more materialistic,
idealistic or Spinozistic version of view, only one function, or a result of the material
composition and disassembly sequence, or in matter an outer in the spirit
Manifestation of the spirit, or in both, only different modes of appearance, pages,
determinations, levels, attributes of one and the same, basic being can see. No matter
how much you only ever want instead of one or the other basic view Thus, if both
principles are to be subordinated to a common fundamental being, and if both are to
be distinguished according to the more materialistic, idealistic or Spinozistic version
of the view, in spirit only a function or result of material composition and sequence,
or in matter an external one Manifestation of the spirit, or in both, only different
modes of appearance, pages, determinations, levels, attributes of one and the same,
basic being can see. No matter how much you only ever want instead of one or the
other basic view or in matter an external manifestation of the mind, or in both only
different modes of appearance, sides, determinations, stages, attributes of one and the
same, fundamental being can see. No matter how much you only ever want instead of
one or the other basic view or in matter an external manifestation of the mind, or in
both only different modes of appearance, sides, determinations, stages, attributes of
one and the same, fundamental being can see. No matter how much you only ever
want instead of one or the other basic viewa priorito go out, proceeding from facts of
experience, and going beyond experiences, will put what one finds in general
according to the other view as well as translate from one to the other, and thus to the
most essential aspects of the daily view in each Trap. Regardless of the fact that the
dualistic view of philosophy is less valid nowadays, the modes of expression and
imagination prevalent in life are kept in the same sense, and so I like to use the
subordinate expression of the soul, the soul of the human body, without itself to
combine a dualistic way of thinking, leaving it up to anyone, whether he wants to
associate such a thing with it. Only he will,
But now it is a general rule of science not to accept two principles for which there
is no mediation, if one can get along with what makes mediation dispensable, and the
monistic view retains, in principle, the advantage of a unified character before
dualistic ahead. To be sure, this advantage on the other side is countered by the
difficulty of making it clear how that which is supposed to be one in the fundamental
being can even be distinguished, indeed can accept the semblance of two completely
different basic beings. What inability in this respect among the materialists, and not
less with Spinoza; What ambiguity in Schelling and Hegel. And this brings with it
that dualistic representations, for which this difficulty is in principle removed, are
more easily understood, hereby more popular than monistic ones; they also remain
preferable to many monistic views insofar as the matter has not yet been dealt with,
since it is easier to translate a clear dualistic than unclear monistic one into a clear
monistic one.
In any case, the advantages of the monistic point of view remain predominant for a
genuinely philosophical interest, and I have represented it in my own way in earlier
writings. This was done in detail in Zendavesta II 312 ff., With some deepening in the
Scriptures on the Soul Question 198 ff., And very shortly after the main features in
the l. Cape. my "Elements of Psychophysics". I am allowed to come back here only
to the essentials of it.
When someone has the brain of a dead person or animal in front of him, he sees a
white, soft-feeling mass in it, which dissolves under the microscope into a network of
fine threads, cells and veins. He can not look directly into the brain of the living, but,
after conclusions based on externally perceived, imagine, under the form of the
externally perceivable, that if the obstacles of observation were removed and he could
refine the external means of observation more and more, he too ever finer parts and
movements would be able to differentiate; and by pursuing such inferences in the
sense of the law of causality, the physiologist finally reaches the point where the
smallest parts of the living brain are in motion, and these with overwhelming
probability in the form of vibrations, in any case in a form of externally
perceptible. But as long as the observer stands on the external standpoint of his body
against the brain of the living, he can not perceive anything of the sensations and
thoughts that he grasps as a matter of the spirit of this living, but conclude from
sufficient facts that a relation of the conditionality between that which he takes
externally against the brain as a material brain-process, and which still falls entirely
into his own soul, and the objective sensations and other mental activities of the
living being who is opposed to him. On the other hand, he can not perceive anything
of the material process of his own brain, while he perceives his own feelings and
thoughts, which are linked to this process.
Now two different ways of representing this purely factual relation are possible. It
can be conceived dualistically that the material brain, with its process of motion and
spirit in the relation of conditionality, is two distinct beings, the first of which, like
every other matter, has the property, only externally, that is, to a being other than
itself; to be able to appear, the other, the mind, the soul, the quality of being able to
appear only to oneself, or, more precisely, those who differ in that the first, the
material, is not for itself and of itself can be perceived by its own determinations, but
effects which depend on these determinations, in which it is capable of producing
spiritual beings linked to another part of matter, which are perceived by the latter,
while this other being can only know its own internal determinations, including those
who have been created into it by the first being. And from here one can come to the
day view by imagining, after further considerations to which we do not return here,
that, as well as the material brain process attaches itself to a spiritual being, also to
the whole material natural process, which is the brain process itself but includes a
more general spiritual being, which includes that which belongs to the brain, but we
perceive nothing of the general spiritual being beyond our own mind, because it is for
the mind to know only its own internal determinations, our mind but only a finite part
of the general mind. whereas this other being can only know its own internal
determinations, including those who have been created into it by the first being. And
from here one can come to the day view by imagining, after further considerations to
which we do not return here, that, as well as the material brain process attaches itself
to a spiritual being, also to the whole material natural process, which is the brain
process itself but includes a more general spiritual being, which includes that which
belongs to the brain, but we perceive nothing of the general spiritual being beyond
our own mind, because it is for the mind to know only its own internal
determinations, our mind but only a finite part of the general mind. whereas this other
being can only know its own internal determinations, including those who have been
created into it by the first being. And from here one can come to the day view by
imagining, after further considerations to which we do not return here, that, as well as
the material brain process attaches itself to a spiritual being, also to the whole
material natural process, which is the brain process itself but includes a more general
spiritual being, which includes that which belongs to the brain, but we perceive
nothing of the general spiritual being beyond our own mind, because it is for the
mind to know only its own internal determinations, our mind but only a finite part of
the general mind.
If, on the other hand, we wish to take the relation monistically, we will first, subject
to further explanation, use the following formula. The material, corporeal, corporeal,
and psychical, spiritual, connected by a relation of immediate conditionedness, are
two modes of the same essence, the former the outer for other beings, the latter the
inner mode of appearance of the own essence, both different because the same thing
appears different at all. as it is understood from different points of view. Thus the
material process of the brain also appears different from the sensations and thoughts
attached to it, because the same being, which is subject to both, is conceived inwardly
as a process of the brain, as a mental process within. And so also for the view of the
day according to this monistic conception of the entire world-being, which externally
appears to us as material nature and material process of motion, then in another way
inwardly can appear as a spiritual being (including our own mind), and we ourselves
become parts of the general world being, according to the physical and spiritual side,
are subject to this dual mode of appearance; whereas all phenomena fall into the
universal world being, which includes all parts. and we ourselves, as parts of the
universal world-being, will be subject, according to the physical and spiritual side, to
this dual mode of appearance; whereas all phenomena fall into the universal world
being, which includes all parts. and we ourselves, as parts of the universal world-
being, will be subject, according to the physical and spiritual side, to this dual mode
of appearance; whereas all phenomena fall into the universal world being, which
includes all parts.
However, one can still find an unclear point in the pronunciation of the previous
basic view. External and internal phenomena are showy things, and everywhere one
will have to go back to abstractions in the form of visuals or abstractions in a logical
way, so as not to leave empty words or unclear concepts as the basis for
contemplation. But the essence, which is to be subject to the internal and external
mode of appearance, appears at first as a dark concept, not reducible to anything of
the kind, comparable to the thing in itself of Kant, the absolute of Schelling, the
substance of Spinoza u. But in fact the concept of essence is here only an auxiliary
concept, which can be eliminated or clarified by reference to its actual, meaningful,
and performance, the use of which, however, gives the advantage of a short-cut
representation which agrees well with the general use of the essence of the being, and
which makes it all the more accessible to the first attempt. We subordinate to
different phenomena, qualities, changes, determinations, the very same essence, if
they are so legally bound together in such a way that with the possibility or reality of
the one the other is given by itself. That alone is the demonstrable of a common
being, and in any case it is understood in this sense by us in the above formula. In
fact, however, the material and associated mental phenomena are related in such a
way, and the common essence basically represents only this connection. To every
soul, ie To a complex of real and possibly imagined phenomena, which are internally
perceptible as sensations, thoughts, etc., belongs, according to a relation of legal
conditionedness, to a bodily process, ie, a complex of corresponding real or imagined
external appearances, which are in other souls fall, or may be thought of as falling,
which we may call the effect of the soul's being into other souls. After all, that is the
fact of the relationship of soul and body. which may fall into other souls or be thought
of as falling, which we may designate as the effect of the existence of one soul upon
other souls. After all, that is the fact of the relationship of soul and body. which may
fall into other souls or be thought of as falling, which we may designate as the effect
of the existence of one soul upon other souls. After all, that is the fact of the
relationship of soul and body.
 It should be borne in mind that the nervous process to which the inner appearance
of one soul is bound, does not communicate directly with the corresponding process
which is subject to another soul, but through the mediation of its rest body and nature
between its bodies, after which Souls of two individuals can communicate only
through the mediation of the general spirit, which carries them together.
At first glance one may be inclined to find the psychophysical idea of threshold
contradicting the previous view of the relationship between body and soul. A certain
strength of the psychophysical process belongs to giving sensation, in general a
consciousness phenomenon; there is no consciousness below this strength, while the
physical process is still proceeding to a certain lesser extent. How then can a psychic,
which itself is not there, appear outwardly as physical? But it must be remembered
that our consciousness as a special consciousness in general depends only on a certain
elevation of our psychophysical process over the process which carries the general
consciousness. If our process falls below this value in sleep, it still contributes to the
raising of the general consciousness, Value is not nothing; only that our
consciousness has no more of it, for us the psychic value as a distance from the point
where it really becomes for us is a negative one. And even during awakening, special
phenomena of consciousness may fall below their threshold, that is, they can no
longer stand out as special over our alert general consciousness, while they
nevertheless contribute to elevating this self.
In general, a particular consciousness or consciousness phenomenon can only ever
occur on the basis of a more general one; It is not what is lacking in the conditions of
the special elevation that justifies the external physical appearance, but that which is
there for the elevation of the general consciousness itself.
The former view appears in its first mode of expression, that the soul and the body
are two modes of the same essence, quite analogous to the Spinozistic view of
identity, according to which they are attributes of the same substance, but has the
advantage of undergoing Spinoza's unexplained difference of both attributes make the
reference to the different point of view by which they are conceived. But by the last
reduction of the concept of essence it assumes a purely idealistic character; the
material is then also only a psychic, but in the mode of appearance for others as it is
itself.
Even in the case of a monistic version one always has to distinguish between
material and spiritual insofar as one thinks of an object in terms of its material side as
opposed to external point of view, that is, if it is characterized by features, as it
externally appears, characterized by reflection spiritual side, as it appears to itself or
to the general spiritual being inwardly.

XXII. Standing of the day view to the Monadologie.

Synechological view of the monadological opposite.
 From a certain point of view, monadology seems to enter completely into the day-
view; for the day-view does not take on an inspiration that goes through the whole
world, nor does monadology measure any psychic faculties of all imaginary points of
the world; but there is a profound difference between the two, which is only slightly
different, according to the day view of the forms of monadology hitherto counted
alone in the history of philosophy, as represented by Leibniz, Herbart and, in a certain
sense, Lotze, or contemplates a newly emerged form. Let the first thing happen first,
considering only the general point of view of agreement, not the various
modifications under which monadology occurs among those philosophers.
The whole fundamental difference of monadology, which we understand at first
under monadology, from the view of the day is that monadology ties the unity of
consciousness to the simplicity of the essence of the world-elements, whereas the
day-view is linked to an interactive context of the same, which I call the
monadological Opinion to briefly as Synechologische designate. According to this,
monadology lacks the principle for the assumption of a consciousness that transcends
all existence and events in the world, or even only over given regions, whereas the
daily view of it has the foundation for it. The whole human consciousness is in a
point of the brain for the monadologist; for though he does not identify his monads
with material points in metaphysical terms, After all, if he locates them in those for
empirical consideration and probation, he expressly seeks a simple point as the seat
of the human soul in the human brain. For the day view, on the other hand, human
consciousness uniformly intervenes over a complex of related points of the brain, that
is, in proportion to conditionality. Divine Consciousness, even if in monadology there
is talk of a God or ultimate consequence, which, of course, she likes to give up, is
only in one of the main points of the world; according to the day view, it reaches over
all points in the world. In addition, monadology makes no use of the possibility of
assuming a sensual appearance in the world beyond men and animals, rather it pays
homage, be it Kant's principle, the unknowability of what lies beyond the human
mind, or ascribes only dark consciousness to the monads beyond us and the animals,
sees only sleeping souls therein, in order not to care about them. Whereas the day
view gives way to the positive view of an expansion of the sensual appearance that
reaches us beyond us and builds upon it.
In more detail I have formulated the synechological principle in the last section of
my theory of atoms and (from a more empirical point of view) in the 37th and 45th
sections of the second part of my Elements of Psychophysics, and in the latter place
(p. 526) : "The psychologically unified and simple is linked to a physically manifold,
the physically diverse draws together mentally into the unified, simple or yet
simpler 1), Or else: The psychologically unified and simple are resultants of physical
diversity, the physical manifold gives uniform or simple psychic resultants. "Still
another (subject to further explanation):" The spirit, the soul is the linking principle
for the physical composition and separation. "
l)The psychologically uniform and simple are differentiated, as the unity itself
is still the connection of a distinguishable majority, from which, however, the
 consciousness of the connection or connecting consciousness can be abstracted
as something simple, as can be found in the unity of consciousness, the unity of
one Idea or a concept, while the simple element no longer includes a
discernible majority, and is only an element for interconnections, but not itself
a combination of simpler things, to which a simple sound, color, and smell
sensation gives examples.

But from the side of experience I have emphasized the following points in favor of
the synechological principle (Elem, II, 349). Monadologically, a point in our brain
should be demanded, from which all voluntary movement nerves run out and into
which all sensory nerves converge, at the same time a point, with whose destruction
or environment the soul falls safely out of life; there is no such point, against which
there exists a principle of mutual representation of corresponding parts of the brain in
psychic power, which challenges all the most compelled explanations to be
interpreted in a monadological way; but all that can be understood and interpreted in
the most natural way, synechologically. The same applies to the phenomena of
divisible animals. "With both hemispheres, we just think, with the identical places of
both retinae we only see simply. The simplest train of thought, according to the
composite institutions, is submerged in our brain by a very complex process; the
simplest sensation of light or sound is linked to processes in us which, as excited and
entertained by external oscillatory processes, must themselves be somehow of an
oscillatory nature, without us being able to distinguish anything from the individual
phases and oscillations. The unspeakably manifold simple sensations of smell and
taste would not be psychophysically represented if we did not want to see simple
resultants of differently composed processes in them, which qualify differently
according to this composition. " The simplest train of thought, according to the
composite institutions, is submerged in our brain by a very complex process; the
simplest sensation of light or sound is linked to processes in us which, as excited and
entertained by external oscillatory processes, must themselves be somehow of an
oscillatory nature, without us being able to distinguish anything from the individual
phases and oscillations. The unspeakably manifold simple sensations of smell and
taste would not be psychophysically represented if we did not want to see simple
resultants of differently composed processes in them, which qualify differently
according to this composition. " The simplest train of thought, according to the
composite institutions, is submerged in our brain by a very complex process; the
simplest sensation of light or sound is linked to processes in us which, as excited and
entertained by external oscillatory processes, must themselves be somehow of an
oscillatory nature, without us being able to distinguish anything from the individual
phases and oscillations. The unspeakably manifold simple sensations of smell and
taste would not be psychophysically represented if we did not want to see simple
resultants of differently composed processes in them, which qualify differently
according to this composition. " the simplest sensation of light or sound is linked to
processes in us which, as excited and entertained by external oscillatory processes,
must themselves be somehow of an oscillatory nature, without us being able to
distinguish anything from the individual phases and oscillations. The unspeakably
manifold simple sensations of smell and taste would not be psychophysically
represented if we did not want to see simple resultants of differently composed
processes in them, which qualify differently according to this composition. " the
simplest sensation of light or sound is linked to processes in us which, as excited and
entertained by external oscillatory processes, must themselves be somehow of an
oscillatory nature, without us being able to distinguish anything from the individual
phases and oscillations. The unspeakably manifold simple sensations of smell and
taste would not be psychophysically represented if we did not want to see simple
resultants of differently composed processes in them, which qualify differently
according to this composition. "
Let us now speak of the new form of monadology, which seems at first to be
inspired by Zöllner in his famous book of comets (1, ed., 1872, p. 320, or Wiss. Abh.
IS 338), without, however, the development of which Hartmann in his work "The
Descent Theory o. Standp. d. Physiol." etc., and Häckel in his work "Perigenesis of
the Plastidule 1876" has experienced, represents 2) . Even Hartmann, whom Häckel
has just followed, may have conceived and developed his view independently of
Zöllner, since he makes no explicit reference to him.
2)Zöllner draws sensation on the state of motion of the atoms to whose
formation but the interaction of at least two atoms is necessary, which can still
doubt whether he monadologically two distinguishable sensations respectively
for the one and another atom or synechologisch only a sensation for the System
of both statuiert. In any case, it is entirely synechological, and comes
completely out of the composure or consequences of monadology on the part
of its successors, that it attaches to the world-whole a universal will, for which
the sensations of pleasure and pain represent motives, an idea which is correct
for the day's view. although the psycho-physical justification of pleasure and
pain itself (according to Sects. XV and XVIII) is taken by me differently than
by customs officers.

This new form of monadology is due to the fact that elementary sensations are
added to the atoms of matter in the state of motion, in particular vibrational states-
only absolutely cold atoms but not vibrating-which are due to this state of motion
(not to an inner reflection of the world or to inner self-preservation Leibniz or
Herbart). According to this, every simple atom in itself constitutes a simple soul, or is
attached to it by a thought which comes to sensation through the vibration of the
atom. Contrary to the earlier form of monadology, this view also permits a fusion of
the simple elements into whole souls, but, because of the reluctance of its
representatives against the idea of God, it merely brings it up to the assumption of
individual compound souls, without realizing that why not up to a composition for
the whole world. There is a lack of clear or definite explanations about the principle
of how the individual psychic elements produce an overarching
consciousness. Hartmann describes the consciousness of a compound soul as
summation phenomenon; the summation reaches after him until a line resistance
interrupts them; this is the separation of consciousness; One only wonders what line
resistance is to be considered, since vibrations from atom to atom communicate
through the whole world. Häckel makes no use of the term summation or the
resultant, but his theory, if one can speak of such a thing with him, consists in the
simple assumption that, if the substances it up to the composition of a so-called
Plastidule There is a lack of clear or definite explanations about the principle of how
the individual psychic elements produce an overarching consciousness. Hartmann
describes the consciousness of a compound soul as summation phenomenon; the
summation reaches after him until a line resistance interrupts them; this is the
separation of consciousness; One only wonders what line resistance is to be
considered, since vibrations from atom to atom communicate through the whole
world. Häckel makes no use of the term summation or the resultant, but his theory, if
one can speak of such a thing with him, consists in the simple assumption that, if the
substances it up to the composition of a so-called Plastidule There is a lack of clear or
definite explanations about the principle of how the individual psychic elements
produce an overarching consciousness. Hartmann describes the consciousness of a
compound soul as summation phenomenon; the summation reaches after him until a
line resistance interrupts them; this is the separation of consciousness; One only
wonders what line resistance is to be considered, since vibrations from atom to atom
communicate through the whole world. Häckel makes no use of the term summation
or the resultant, but his theory, if one can speak of such a thing with him, consists in
the simple assumption that, if the substances it up to the composition of a so-called
Plastidule lack clear or specific explanations. Hartmann describes the consciousness
of a compound soul as summation phenomenon; the summation reaches after him
until a line resistance interrupts them; this is the separation of consciousness; One
only wonders what line resistance is to be considered, since vibrations from atom to
atom communicate through the whole world. Häckel makes no use of the term
summation or the resultant, but his theory, if one can speak of such a thing with him,
consists in the simple assumption that, if the substances it up to the composition of a
so-called Plastidule lack clear or specific explanations. Hartmann describes the
consciousness of a compound soul as summation phenomenon; the summation
reaches after him until a line resistance interrupts them; this is the separation of
consciousness; One only wonders what line resistance is to be considered, since
vibrations from atom to atom communicate through the whole world. Häckel makes
no use of the term summation or the resultant, but his theory, if one can speak of such
a thing with him, consists in the simple assumption that, if the substances it up to the
composition of a so-called Plastidule One only wonders what line resistance is to be
considered, since vibrations from atom to atom communicate through the whole
world. Häckel makes no use of the term summation or the resultant, but his theory, if
one can speak of such a thing with him, consists in the simple assumption that, if the
substances it up to the composition of a so-called Plastidule One only wonders what
line resistance is to be considered, since vibrations from atom to atom communicate
through the whole world. Häckel makes no use of the term summation or the
resultant, but his theory, if one can speak of such a thing with him, consists in the
simple assumption that, if the substances it up to the composition of a so-called
Plastidule3) , in which carbon is the most important life-giving element, so that the
capacity of the memory arises, which still lacks the simple atomic souls, with which
the first advance into the higher soul realm is done.
3)By plastidules Häckel understands the molecules of the most simple
organisms, no inner differences in themselves, such as the monera whose
substance he calls Plasson. Differentiation of the PIastidule then results in
molecules which form the nucleus of the nucleus, and which form the
protoplasm surrounding it. The so-called Kokkomodule and Plasmodule).

Fundamentatism now seems to me to object to this whole conception.

A particle by itself can not belong to swinging, at least (as Zöllner points out) two,
which determine each other by turns. If, therefore, vibration is to mean sensation,
sensation can first of all arise in the system of both. But it can only have the system
of both (or more) sensations. For the particle, by virtue of its vibration, is brought to
and fro in the outer space only as it is; even as a simple thing it has no interior in
which something changes by the vibration, to which the creation and the process of
sensation can then attach itself. But one wants to establish a principle of the
dependence of the psychical on the physical. How can something psychologically
arise if the physical support remains the same?
Different with the system of both particles. Here we have in the positional changes
of the particles to each other, the speed and the changes of the speed with which the
change of position occurs, internal determinations of the system, to which the origin
and the change of the sensation in legal relation can be thought. If more than two
particles are present, these movements become more and more entangled through the
involvement of the interrelations of the particles and can thus provide a basis for
more and more complicated spiritual achievements. After this, however, the
sensations which are connected with the composite vibrations and positional
relationships are to be regarded as a matter of the larger system and its partial
systems, but not as a matter of the individual material points which remain
unchanged in the process;
Now one might say, in the sense of the opposite view, that if not the atom, but its
vibration has an internal, and on this, not on the atom, the sensation is to relate. The
atom is for us only the indifferent carrier of the movement. Be it, but as long as every
vibration includes a series of varying velocities, one associates with it even a simple
psychic moment, the simple sensation, of a multiplicity of physical moments, and
thus enters into the synechological view from the temporal side. It is not easy to
explain from the other side how by summation of imaginable sensations of individual
atoms, higher mental phenomena can arise; the mind does not consist merely of a
sum of individual sensual sensations;
 According to a synechological view, the whole material world is in general a
system alternating with oscillations and larger circulatory movements of determining
starting points of external phenomena with subordinate partial systems, and there is
no interruption of the reciprocal determinateness which one would like to make as a
line interruption. This gives a world with a coherent spiritual content and an outline
of this content, belonging to the structure of the material world, insofar as the
determinateness of change and the movements resulting from it can take on different
forms and sizes, the fact of the threshold being their 11th section may play a
discussed role in differentiating different mental areas. In this way, but not with the
summation and concatenation of individual atomic souls, which is here and there
interrupted by line resistances, one comes back to the cross-world synechology of the
day view.
It is said that if psychic power did not already inhabit the individual material
points, how should their composition be affected? it could just be a composition of
the senseless, soulless. But one forgets that the composition itself can only happen
with the addition of something new, which makes more than a mere sum of points out
of it. It is true that a sensation can not arise from physical conditions at all, but that its
formation can legally be linked to temporal spatial relations of atoms, which are not
themselves atoms, without being able to attach to individual atoms.
Certainly one can not be the same in two and one of the same terms, and therefore
not in the physically manifold and psychologically simple; The synechological view,
however, does not assert this in asserting that something psychically simple belongs
to a physical lot. But the deeper ground of this relation, after a more thorough
consideration of the relation of body and soul, which is spoken of elsewhere (Section
XXI), may finally be found in that that which in itself is self-manifestation, that is,
psychical, is but a simple one but produces widespread effects in the world around
itself, whereby it betrays its existence to others, and thereby gives the appearance of
the externally perceptible bodily composition. But the psychophysicist needs that
abstruse,

XXIII. Spiritist 1) .

(Position of the day view on spiritism, attitude of spiritism to religion,

personal remarks.)
l. Position of the day view to spiritism.
Spiritism can no longer be ignored, it is important to take a stand and to explain
oneself to it. To be sure, as long as contemplation is in areas that are not affected by
the question of spiritism, why care about it; but the daytime view is more than just
touched by it.
l)Iam well aware that I will satisfy neither antispiritists nor spiritualists with
the following considerations; The former is not because I acknowledge
spiritualistic facts at all, the latter not, because I diminish in a certain respect
 the character and scope of them against those added to them by the
spiritualists. In the meantime, besides spiritualists and antispiritists, there is
still an unprepared audience to turn to, and there are no passionate
dispassionate people with whom a conversation about an area is possible, yet
no one, be it in a positive or negative sense, has yet talked about it to claim to
be quite pure; and as a word to this conversation on my part may one take the
following considerations. - Spiritism is in the broader sense with epitome of the
so-called.

From the point of view of it, I mean: the whole spiritualistic area belongs to the
dark sides of the world; but the world has no shadows and uses it to abstract from
them. Only the shadow has the wrong to want to mean light itself, when it breaks into
the day with its strange distortions. But instead of continuing in pictures, we let
ourselves in on the delicate matter itself, with the feelings, of course, to reach into a
wasp nest.
The Spiritist will say from the outset: you have made a great deal of superfluous
effort (vv. 5 and xiii) to prove and construct the other world from this world; now is
the fact that there are ghosts of the afterlife, by their appearance even proven and
know you have to deal directly with them.
Suppose it really is so, what can be more useful to our conclusions than that the
spiritualistic experience offers confirmation? And does not she really? In fact, we see
more closely, the spiritualistic experiences are not only in general, but also in
accordance with the most important peculiarities, the doctrine of the daytime view of
the hereafter, such as: that man is already surrounded in this world by a world of
otherworldly spirits, that there is an interaction of these spirits in the people of this
world and a communication of thoughts with them (chapter V.5), that the spirits of the
hereafter are no longer bound to the same spatial limits as they are here, that without
their eyes and ears they go on reaching us as we are entitled to that they are still able
to appear with the former physical form (for once even into this world) (chapter V.5
and XII), but that in all this the existence and activity of these spirits are usually
interwoven in our existence on earth and its laws and it is calculated that under
ordinary conditions we have no reason to think of the present and the playing of an
otherworldly world of spirits in our world of this world. Even before the word
spiritism was invented, this doctrine was an inference and an integral part of the daily
view in two writings that under ordinary circumstances we have no occasion to think
of the present and the playing of an otherworldly spirit world into our world of this
world. Even before the word spiritism was invented, this doctrine was an inference
and an integral part of the daily view in two writings that under ordinary
circumstances we have no occasion to think of the present and the playing of an
otherworldly spirit world into our world of this world. Even before the word spiritism
was invented, this doctrine was an inference and an integral part of the daily view in
two writings2) . Regardless of this unheeded doctrine, the spiritualistic facts have
developed, and the combination of the two in those main points can at least be
asserted in favor of the truth of both.
2) booklet v. Life nd death in 1836 and third part of Zenavesta 1851.
Well, of course, spiritualism has also revealed facts that were not foreseen in that
teaching; First, it asks whether they are facts, and, secondly, whether they, recognized
as such, contradict that doctrine, and not merely that they complement it only in so
far as they relate to the normal relations between this world and the hereafter
contemplated by the view of the day also bring to light those abnormal which, for that
very reason, do not conform to the laws which we regard as valid, because they
themselves are abstracted only from the normal conditions. And since I find myself
compelled to accept facts of that kind, the latter is the view that I entertain of it,
which does not give both an explanation of it from the laws known to us,
According to Spiritist reports mediated by a so-called medium otherworldly minds
who declare themselves for such, not only by knocking, psychographers, but in strong
influence of the medium even by legible writing and audible speech communicate,
not only visible, but also palpable (in the so-called materialization phenomena)
appear and lasting effects can leave as visible and tangible beings. Even without a
visible presence of them physical objects can be lifted, thrown, pushed, without a
lifting, throwing, pushing hand being provable, indeed, even achievements are
produced which point to the intervention of forces from a fourth space
dimension. And let's not forget to add that all that,3) . While otherwise errors are
recognized all the more surely, the more in detail, more exactly the investigation, one
must say: the more it was with regard to the spiritualistic facts, the more certain have
they proved to be provable in the provocative cases as self-deception or fraud ; and it
does not change anything here that it has not lacked inadequate observations and
proven frauds in this field.
3) Apart from the recent addition of observations by German researchers, about
which Zöllner's "Wissensch. Unters." and to make comparisons in point 3 of
this section, I refer here in particular to the observations of the English
explorers, such as Crookes, Wallace, Huggins, Varley, all, members of the
Royal. Soc. to London. Scientific authorities in Russia and America could also
be mentioned. The affirmative observations on the part of lay people there are
countless, of which many make a confidence inspiring impression. The
"psychological studies" (Leipzig, Mutze), which have been published monthly
since 1874, record most of what is revealed in this field, especially on the
German and English sides

In any case, after all, I find no compelling theoretical reasons to dispute the
possibility of spiritistic phenomena at all, but compelling empirical reasons to
acknowledge the factuality of such phenomena, although I only with reluctance
attach to this compulsion, especially with regard to the so-called materialization
phenomena and what is connected with it 4) . But I can not look for a foundation for
the daily view in spiritualism at all, and find only ambiguous help in it.
4)If it is necessary to acknowledge that here there is an area whose phenomena
can not be explained according to the principles known to us, it would itself; be
in principle to want to determine the limit of what is possible according to the
still unknown principles, and basically it is not further from the simplest
spiritistic fact that one can not dismiss without being able to explain it, hat hat
hing of Crookes ( Volume I), the hand and foot prints of customs officers, etc.,
etc., as from the sparkle from the amber to the thunder and lightning from the
clouds and the Atlantic telegraph, on which thoughts now and then run through
the sea , Certainly, the improbability of the spiritualistic materialization
phenomena is awe-inspiring in the first place, and finally it remains back
against the "

First, for the formal reason that spiritualism still encounters unbelief in the widest
circles, and that it would be unfortunate to mix the beliefs of the day view with the
questionableness of facts, and secondly for the much more important factual reason
that healthy views of the hereafter and his Relationships to this world can not be won
from abnormal traffic conditions between the two. For the abnormal character of the
spiritistic intercourse between the beyond and the here, however, circumstances speak
as follows.
Not only that the character of the exceptional in itself corresponds to this character,
but also the state and behavior of the mediating the spiritistic phenomena during the
spiritualistic manifestations is more or less abnormal, the more so (from convulsive
twitching to half or complete Unconsciousness) the more wonderful the
manifestations are; In general, the media feel that they are being attacked, and most
of the time their nervous system is out of balance. What the otherworldly spirits, so-
called spirits, do, or what is regarded as doing, because it occurs in connection with
resolute utterances of an intelligence of which one can not otherwise indicate a
source, is usually only a vain or silly specter; Tables, chairs, sofas, bedsteads Are
raised, knocked over, crazy, broken, and thus laws abolished, overturned, crazy,
broken, which regulate our normal life and herewith also indisputably the
otherworldly insofar as it relates to and intervenes with the worldly side. A
combination of spiritual forces to a practically useful achievement has not yet
occurred to my knowledge, and as strong as the physical expressions of the spirits
sometimes appear, they appear to be futile and art-like at the same time. Also, from
all that the spirits knock, write and speak, so far no support has arisen, be it from our
higher or historical field of knowledge. as far as it relates to the worldly side and
intervenes in it. A combination of spiritual forces to a practically useful achievement
has not yet occurred to my knowledge, and as strong as the physical expressions of
the spirits sometimes appear, they appear to be futile and art-like at the same
time. Also, from all that the spirits knock, write and speak, so far no support has
arisen, be it from our higher or historical field of knowledge. as far as it relates to the
worldly side and intervenes in it. A combination of spiritual forces to a practically
useful achievement has not yet occurred to my knowledge, and as strong as the
physical expressions of the spirits sometimes appear, they appear to be futile and art-
like at the same time. Also, from all that the spirits knock, write and speak, so far no
support has arisen, be it from our higher or historical field of knowledge.
As good as it may go, I will explain to you thereafter the relationship between this
world and the hereafter, as far as I can not fail to concede such as in the game, by
means of the following analogy created by this world I remain faithful to the
principle followed everywhere in the doctrine of the hereafter, to see in the
circumstances of the hereafter not both an abortion of the conditions of this world as
a causal extension and exaltation thereof. But this can now be referred to the
abnormal as well as the normal conditions of this world.
There are laws of sound spiritual life in us, but they are sometimes
broken. Reminders, even more frequently phantasms, sometimes gain the power of
sensual reality, and play disturbingly, confusingly into the realm of intuitions. We call
it hallucinations, phantasms; Often they are associated with madmen with movements
that no less emerge from the laws of physically and mentally healthy life. It is a
morbid relationship between the little here and the beyond, which we already carry in
our little minds as visual and remembering life on this side (chapters V.5 and XII); So
it makes sense to think of the possibility of such between the great here and the
beyond in the universal spirit, which at the same time implies both in the sense of the
daily view; only that it will always occur only as a partial disturbance. So can not
ghosts and phantastic spirits of the hereafter really enter into this world with the
power of sensible reality, and can the possibility of abnormal movements be
combined with the possibility of abnormal appearances? But if there is something
like that, then it is a relation that can not be pious either to this world or to the
hereafter; Worrying about religious beliefs, he had nothing else to rely upon to build
from which to build; and gladly turns his back on those who are accustomed to
pursue the laws of healthy life and events in themselves and beyond themselves, and
to enjoy the progress of knowledge therein. Only a few things can happen behind an
exact back what he does not see, and the disease, like health, has a right to
research. Easier, of course, to register and group facts of the disease than to find laws
of them which combine with those of health from a more general point of view, and
so far such have been found so little in the sphere of spiritualism that the resistance,
too to recognize only facts of spiritualism is explanatory.
Physiology can learn something from pathology, psychology from the illness-
theory of the mind; only the former can not justify themselves to the latter, and only
learn insofar as they learn at the same time how body and mind should not
be. Similarly, there is a healthy view of the relationship between this world and the
hereafter to spiritualism.
Formerly, everything that falls within the circle of spiritualistic phenomena - for
without the name they have always played a role - was thought to be the work or
delusion of the devil and burned the persons who conveyed such apparitions,
nowadays called media, as witches or magician. And undoubtedly one has a correct
instinct in it, but at the same time to see it as an exaggeration. Even today's
antispiritists take a more lenient view of the cause of spiritualism, no longer demand
that the media be burned, but at the most that they be expelled as fraudulents, and put
a fool's cap on the fools instead of a devil's cap. In fact, one can assert too harsh
damnation judgments of spiritism against points like the following.
It is peculiar that those present at the spiritist meetings, while surrounded by ghost-
spook, are not aware of the ghostly horror, which is well known to everyone from the
affections of it; rather, with the most wonderful pieces performed by the spirits, one
only has the feeling that one is sitting in a bag maker's house. Also, it's generally
harmless with the spirits. They betray no displeasure about being disturbed from the
hereafter; Most of the time it seems that they are more entertaining and entertaining,
pretending to be present, or engaging in entertainment through the spiritistically-
made means of transport; if they are gone again, then of course one is as clever or
more stupid as before. Very generally, they themselves recognize an interest in the
promotion of spiritualism, speak of it as a cause with a great future, and are happy to
provoke it for provocative experimentation, while being ill-disposed toward doubters
and deniers. All that sounds and is, of course, very strange and suspicious; However,
one may well think that the serious and conscientious observers in this field have the
grounds of suspicion against such things as close as the non-observers, who accept
the matter by suspicion, but have also been taken into account by them. After all, it
does not seem possible to push all this into deliberate delusions on the part of the
media or hallucinations of the observers. Anyway, so does the way how the
spiritualistic sessions are formed, against a dubious character of them; and if I add
that the health of the media through such sessions, if not exaggerated, does not seem
to suffer in the long term-though this may require a closer look-then observations and
attempts in the field of spiritualism may become too scientific It must be no objection
to his facts and circumstances on the part of occupants, and no one can even be
suspected of them, if he seizes an opportunity for his own observation in this field, in
order to judge for himself or to control the judgment of others. Beyond these
purposes, however, to exploit spiritualism for the mere satisfaction of curiosity,
should always keep much against itself.
The spiritualists themselves promise spiritualism a great future and the future great
things of spiritualism. In my opinion, however, not only a further development of
spiritism is desired for the future, but only a determination of its actuality and
clarification of its circumstances; for as far as spiritualism has hitherto flourished,
knowledge through it has only gained a riddle, the further continuation of which will
scarcely help its solution, but practice in general will gain nothing from it, nor do I
know what prospects it has gained through it would have.
First of all, the following idea presents itself. As long as the language was not yet
invented, there was still no intellectual intercourse between the people, they could not
talk to each other, they were like closed houses; how open are they now to each
other; it just depends on how open they want to be against each other. Thus, there was
no intercourse between these and otherworldly spirits before Spiritism had offered the
means of speech; Now, after it has happened, it happens here and there that deceased
parents talk to their left-behind children, otherworldly and earthly friends greet each
other, and search for and find worldly scholars in otherworldly instruction. But this is
just a beginning, so to speak a first lulling, because all spiritualism is still in its
infancy; but if, with its inexorably advancing development, the spiritualistic language
between this world and the hereafter will reach the same development as the present
human language in this world, the intercourse between otherworldly and otherworldly
spirits will become as free, easy and developed as Now it is between the spirits of the
world, and an enriching and exalting life on either side will emerge from it.
And why not all that, if spiritualism is really a gift for which the spiritualists
consider it to be, which means and promises to advance the world. But different, if it
is an abnormality, for which I think it is, whose growth and development is to be
feared rather than promoted. If the view of the day is right with its looks aimed only
at the normal relationship between this world and the hereafter, then the intellectual
intercourse between them must not wait for the mediation of a worldly medium, but
rather has been so immediate that the worldly one Spirit for his property, which is at
the same time the property of the otherworldly spirit 5)is; and the interim insertion of
the medium, instead of creating the traffic, can only guide it out of the right path, and
if not quite translate into a deceptive being, but with deceptive elements put into the
world by the alien middle link not in the here and now to be able to shine through.
5) From d. Büchl. v. Leb. n. death, p. 8 f.
"Already during his lifetime, every human being with his effects in others
grows through words, examples, scriptures and deeds. Already as Goethe lived,
millions of other living spirits contained the spark of his spirit, in which new
lights burned, even as Napoleon lived, he penetrated his Spirit in almost the
entire world, when both died, these branches of life, which drove them into the
surrounding world, not with the dying, only the driving force of new branches
extinguished, and the growth of these, starting from an individual, in their
entirety The birth of the child, which is again forming, is now carried out with
the same inward consciousness that we can not grasp, as its first manifestation
in the past: a Goethe, a Schiller, a Napoleon, a Luther among us, live in us as
self-confident,even higher than those individuals who developed and
developed ideas and acting in our thoughts, who no longer enclosed themselves
in a narrow body, but poured out through the world which they formed during
their lifetime, rejoiced, dominated, and extended far beyond their own self
about the effects we feel from them. "
"The greatest example of a mighty spirit that visibly lives on and continues to
exist in posterity is Christ." It is not an empty word that Christ lives in his
confessors: every true Christian carries him not only comparatively, but truly
alive Everyone participates in him, who acts and thinks in his sense, for it is
only Christ's Spirit that acts and thinks in him. "He has spread through all the
 members of his congregation, and all are bound together by his Spirit, as the
apples by the Branches of a trunk, like the vines of a vine. "
"For as a body is and has many members, but all members of one body,
although many of them are, yet they are one body, and therefore also Christ."
"(1 Cor. 12:12)
"But not only the greatest spirits, but every able man awakens in the following
world with a self-created, a unity of infinite spiritual creations, effects,
moments in itself, organism, which will fill a larger or smaller perimeter and
will have more or less fortifying power , even though the spirit of man
continued to grow stronger during his lifetime. "

The fact that this is really the case, however, can be explained by the following
remark.
From the very outset one would think that the spirits which play a role in
spiritualism must be able to provide the safest and most unequivocal information
about the conditions and conditions of the hereafter in which they live. But in fact
this is so little the case, although it is characterized by knocking tones (l for a, 2 for b,
etc.) psychographers, writing, and under certain circumstances even directly by
speech are able to communicate that one is also led by this side to a very natural
doubt whether one is really dealing with spirits of the hereafter they are not
themselves in favor of it, and if only they know what they otherwise consider to be
the circumstances of all circumstances; according to their messages, intelligent beings
can only be. But the followers of Spiritualism profess probably even that vague on
the part, sometimes meaningless, contradictory in part and fantastic statements about
the circumstances of the hereafter, which are sometimes to gain from the Spirits not
to build 6)and, for the most part, excuse the fact that it must be difficult to speak
clearly of any aspect of the world that is quite alien to this world, and that the spirits,
for the most part, do not wish to have the capacity to do so by intervening into the
hereafter by no means ascend to a higher level of intelligence; even there were
enough Lug- and Truggeister among them, of which, of course, only their character to
obtain appropriate information. Since, on the other hand, one wished to have been on
the market with the spirits of renowned scholars, philosophers, and physicists,
nothing would have hindered them from questioning them thoroughly in the manner
of their otherworldly existence, and controlling their statements in disarray; but I am
not aware that it has happened or has led to something; and you should think
6)A comparative compilation of the information available in this respect and
the elaboration of further information, taking into account the influences which
could have a co-determining influence on it, would be desirable in spiritist
interest, even if it leads to nothing more than the uncertainty of all this
information to show it safer.
 For my part, of course, I confess that what I know of Spiritist communications has
always seemed to me as if the spirits were assuming any known or unknown name
and were aproposizing the world with messages which they rather read out of this
world. as carry in from the hereafter. For if the answers to questions posed to the
spirits, mediated by the medium, undoubtedly contain much more and more than
what the medium could know, they generally appear to contain no more than the
questioner or those present at the meeting know; but when questions are asked about
something that they themselves do not know, without it being difficult to know, the
spirits owe the answer or fail. In any case, such facts really exist, and it would be
necessary to duplicate the observations made on them. However, sometimes
spiritualist views are to be found which could not be explained by a reading of
thoughts on this side of life or as a composition, and which is entirely clear not easy
in the matter.
After this, the following idea is obvious. Since the spiritualistic manifestations
come about only through the mediation of a medium on this side, and the ability to
read in other souls is reckoned among the spiritualistic faculties themselves, not only
ideas of the medium itself, but also those involved in the spiritualistic meetings, will
like the Beyond add to the communications about it or form the main content of it,
whereby one either does not learn anything clear or new; and even the interest which
the spirits show in the promotion of spiritualism can easily be interpreted as reflecting
the interest of those with whom they are engaged in the sessions in the Spiritist
communications. Some media profess to be obsessed with this or that
ghost; conversely, these spirits will be considered obsessed with the medium. We
compared the spiritistic relationship between this world and the hereafter with a kind
of madness, as it occurs in this world itself. The madman can not find anything
sufficient about their condition except madness and absolutely no truth to rely upon.
Finally, one could think of the following point of view. The somnambulist
remembers what goes on with him except his somnambulistic state, but returns to the
ordinary state not of what he encounters in the somnambulist. Thus spirits of the
hereafter, if they return abnormally to the conditions of this world, may lose the clear
memory of the otherworldly circumstances, but hereby they are all the more likely to
succumb to the worldly views or fantasies in which they play; and it does not say
that, on their re-entry into this world, they retain forces which do not fall into the
normal world, since the expressions of such forces are just as little in the normal
world beyond; otherwise they would have to be commonplace, as long as the
hereafter does not exist apart from this world.
Of course, all such precarious assumptions are spared, if one throws the whole
desert essence of spiritism - and something else it is not yet yet - overboard, and
anyone who does not like dealing with it can do so ; Only by doing so subjectively
does one objectively refrain from spiritism.
If the relations in which, according to Zöllner's astute reflections, certain
spiritualistic phenomena which he accurately states are the assumption of a fourth
space dimension, should be regarded as strictly proving, so would the otherworldly
existence with this fourth dimension and vice versa to do that and to open up new
prospects with it; but I think it's too risky to enter into a discussion on this, which
even the representative of the view of the fourth dimension has so far avoided. In
fact, the success and sufficient interpretation of some experiments that are important
for the question (reversal of left-handed into right-handed forms, interpretation of
certain heat phenomena) may yet be awaited,7) . For my part, I confess that I have so
far found neither aprioristic nor empirically sufficiently decided the question of the
fourth space dimension from the mathematical and metaphysical point of view, and
therefore refuses all the more to consider it more closely than this question neither
from the general point of view gaining an enlightenment from the view of the day,
nor intervene in a decisive way in its decision in one sense or another in the points of
view laid down here; only the scope of the otherworldly existence would grow for
them with the assumption of a fourth space dimension 8) .
7)The spaces and disappearances that are so well-connected with the
assumption of a fourth dimension of space and the phenomena of the intrusion
of bodies would also be confused by a temporary separation and reunification
of material continuity, partly by a continuity of matter Heat generation), while I
do not know how such explanations should apply to the inverse phenomenon
mentioned above.
8) Most recently, even in the small booklet, "Four Paradoxes" (hence Mise's
"Little Writings"), I represented the existence of a fourth dimension of space,
but more jokingly and under a different form of hypothesis from that of Zöllner
Although the fourth dimension does not represent the time itself, but is
traversed in time. But this form of hypothesis by no means fits like the tax
collector's explanation of the spiritualist phenomena, and I do not stress it.

2. Position of Spiritism to Religion.

As much as in the previous one could be said to the detriment of the character of
spiritualistic phenomena, according to the spiritualists it remains a chief merit of
spiritualism, not only to support the belief in the future continuance, but to be able to
substantiate it for the first time. Also, ten theoretical and practical reasons for a future
life of many against a real ghost apparition or message from the spirit world, or what
he thinks, may seem like ten sparrows on the roof against one in the hand. And why
should facts of the kind, insofar as they are facts, not count as moments in the
question of the hereafter, if only they were not abnormal, only exceptionally
occurring, arbitrarily unachievable, therefore always the doubt or the thought of a
cloudy source of the same - and he does not remain a gloom after all! - accessible
cases which, instead of being able to be firmly based on them, require, as it were, all
effort to be established. So I diligently avoided looking for a support for the religious
faith of the day's view, but rather regretted that there was a time for which such a
support still seemed desirable.
 Now, the Spiritist asserts in this regard, as a general advantage of spiritism, and
puts special emphasis on the fact that spiritualism is the most effective, if not the
only, means of exorcising the excess materialism of time. But if he can help, it will
only be how a remedy can help against an evil that would be an evil in itself as a
food, and not be carried forward into the found life course. Materialism contradicts
all religion, in that it speaks neither of God nor of the hereafter; Now, if spiritualism
also wants to overcome it with tangible proofs for the hereafter, it still seems to be an
ambiguous advantage if the hereafter then presents itself under erroneous points of
view, which in fact err on this side, which is in fact the case. if it spiritistically
emerges from its normal conditions. Although it is undeniable that the abnormal
relations with the normal ones are somewhat alike, it is still a question of what and
how many, and there is no certain criterion for separating the two. If one wants to
know what happens in a locked cabinet, in which secret things proceed, and makes a
hole in the cabinet, so that the secret things come out into the daylight, one means
that they are still open outside as well as inside in secret and you can safely infer
from the outside to the inside, although one can safely conclude that something is
going on inside. In fact, however, the entire manifestations of Spirits, conjured up
into this world from the hereafter, together with their utterances about the
hereafter, only confused notions of the hereafter, which lack all constructiveness,
clarity and firmness. And while they only spread a confusing illusion about the one
major element of religion, they leave the other, the supreme, concerning the
relationship of the human to the divine spirit, completely obscure. Thus, a religion
built on spiritism, even though it may be preferable to no one, will always remain
only a half and more than half rooted in the night side of things. It is better, then, to
believe in the Scriptures than in the slate writing of the Spirits and their obvious
appearance, simply believing in the highest and last things. How the semi-dark
spiritist meeting room with a medium inside, which is half or not at all, with itself,9) .
9)See sections VI and VII. More detailed is the relationship of the day view to
Christianity in Zendavesta, Sects. XIII and XXX, and is discussed in the three
motives and reasons.

Now this too is attributed to spiritualism as merit, so that the belief in the sources
of the Christian doctrine itself is all the more certain. for what are the miracles
performed by Christ and the appearances of Him after His death other than Spiritist
manifestations? By the fact that there are still such manifestations, the incredibility is
lifted by them, and Christianity hereby gains an actual foundation. And, in general
terms, there is no reason to deny the factuality of Christian miracles, to use this brief
expression, if one must concede spiritualistic ones, and some may indeed be
converted to faith in the former by faith in the latter; only in the conversion to the
Christian miracles as too spiritualistic one can again see a sharp reversal. For between
the two there is such a contrast in character, that it seems like blasphemy, to bring
both under the same heading and to help Christianity by declaring Christ to be the
most gifted medium. There is a difference, as if born out of the light and out of the
night, as abnormally increased healthy and abnormally crazy power. Christ did not
flinch distractedly in the accomplishment of his miracles, did not fall into full or half
unconsciousness, did not summon foreign spirits, did not proclaim himself obsessed
with them, did not seek darkness or dim light, as our media do today, but went bright
Days as a healthy of his senses, He was more powerful in his mental and physical
strength, a man around and healthy. He did not pick up tables, throw chairs, make
tricks that can be mistaken for playthings, did not allow himself to be paid for it, but
just made good with a power that has not yet proven a medium. He did not write
word of spirits on slates, but lively words came out of his mouth, which have
overcome the world of paganism and Judaism; and if all the miracles performed by
him during his life were to be doubted as historically insufficiently guaranteed, this
miracle of a superhuman effect, with which he still extends into history after his
death, can not be doubted. But it is possible to believe that the small community of
his disciples, from which Christianity spread into time and space, had not gone
through with it through life and after it had died for its doctrine, a Paul would not
have become a Saul, if not really exceptional powers and appearances of Christ him
certified in their eyes; but in other senses they will have been exceptionally effective
forces, exceptionally phenomena, as they play in spiritism today.
In fact, even the apparitions of Christ after his death, of which the biblical
narratives tell, can not be interpreted as spiritualistic. If Christ has been a medium,
then it is not the media themselves that appear as ghosts after death; they merely
convey the spiritistic apparitions; but Christ needed no medium to appear after
death; He appeared from his own authority, appeared in the bright day, while
requiring the Spiritist apparitions of the dark or half-dark. If one then believes in the
appearances of Christ after death, one can not believe in them as Spiritist; though it is
always true that the fact of the latter facilitates belief in the former.
After that, I think of the relationship between the Christian miracles, or rather say
the miracle of Christ and the spiritualistic miracles, without, however, being able to
find a clear and sure expression for it. But who is able to find such a thing in these
things, if only he has an imperfect insight.
By way of exception, the relations which normally exist between man and God,
this world and the hereafter, through mediation by a sublime personality, may
experience an expansion and exaltation exceeding the usual measure, without at the
same time experiencing a disturbance, and from which effects depend to transcend
the circle of habitual effects in a manner that at the same time pervades the here and
now. So with Christ and his wonders. By way of exception, however, those relations,
mediated by an individual in whom the normal equilibrium of forces is abolished,
may be disturbed in the same way as we now do in the media and in the whimsical,
mediated by them, which are indisputably worthless for this world and the hereafter
To observe manifestations.
Many spirits are to be persuaded that, instead of engaging in mechanical haunting,
they seek to promote religiosity by engaging in edifying reflections, Christian
exhortations, references to Christ's teachings, just as our edifices do, and as
themselves to have derived from such. Often, of course, it is only salbaderei, whose
source is nowhere else to be found but in the spirit of the medium itself. But if it is
desired to keep contemplations of that kind dependent on otherworldly spirits and
mediated only by the medium, then what we gain from them is the same as what we
can obtain directly from books that are accessible to everyone, from spiritualistic
sessions pick up. We'd rather learn through those spirits, after they had come into
closer relationship with Christ and his disciples in the hereafter, something more
precise about their earthly life, suffering and dying, about the conditions of origin and
authenticity of the Gospels and New Testament letters, about the correct version and
interpretation of the parable of the unjust steward, etc In this way, something actual
would have been gained for our knowledge, and at the same time the proof was given
that by means of spiritualism there is something to gain for it at all which spiritualism
has hitherto owed. If the daily view is right, then the paths of knowledge in the
otherworldly memory life of the spirits must really be open to all those and so many
other historical questions; but only to those who have converted to the hereafter,
without the possibility of leading these paths of knowledge back to this world;
3. Personal comments.
In addition to the general considerations so far concerning spiritualism, I find it
necessary to add the following more personal remarks in order to further motivate my
acknowledgment of his actuality.
Zöllner has in the report that he wrote in his "Wissensch. Abh." given by the
spiritual meetings held in Leipzig with the American medium Slade, besides the
testimony of W. Weber and Scheibner also intended for my testimony; and I do not
shirk this testimony except that it lasts far less and even less for myself than that of
Zöllner himself and his fellow observers. For I was present only at a few of the first
of those sessions, which were not among the most crucial, even as a spectator, rather
than as an experimenter, which in no way would have been enough, even for myself,
the suspicion of trickery opposite, to be of conclusive evidential value. But if I take
what I've seen myself,
Indeed, as unbelievable as the spiritistic facts may appear in the first place, it
would, in my opinion, even give up belief in persons and the possibility of
establishing facts by observation, thereby discarding all empirical science, if one
wanted to know the mass and weight of the testimonies. which are present for the
actuality of spiritualistic phenomena, do not give way. Without taking into account
the mass of votes, I will only speak here of a few voices, to which reference not only
is closest to myself, but should also correspond most to the interests of the time.
If one considers Zöllner, who can be regarded as the chief representative of
Germany of the actuality of spiritualistic phenomena, as well as one who claims no
independent authority as an observer in this field, but represents his observations, he
is declared a fantasist who sees what he does but one only wants to see where he has
ever proved himself as such in the field of observation, and whether his beautiful
inventions and discoveries, which are fruitful for the exact natural sciences, are
fantasies. Should one insist upon confusing the boldness with which he builds
conclusions on facts with bad observation of facts, and countering the personality of
his criticism, which I do not want to represent, with outlawing his person, that is,
reciprocate blow with manslaughter so that's what what he has reported of
spiritualistic facts, not only on his authority, but also on the authority of a man in
which, so to speak, the spirit of exact observation and inference has embodied, W.
Webers, whose fame has never been challenged in this respect to the moment when
he enters for the factuality of spiritistic phenomena. But if, from that moment on, it is
thought to be a bad observer who has been duped by a sleight-of-hand, or is deceived
by a fantasist who has been preoccupied with mystical things, then that is a bit strong
or rather weak and yet in solidarity with the rejection of his testimony. For my part, I
confess that, after several meetings with Zöllner and mostly with Scheibner, one of
the sharpest and most severe mathematicians, not merely watching the experiments
produced by Slade, but taking them into his own hands, and having all the means and
measures in hand, a word of his testimony to the actuality of the spiritualistic
phenomena weighs me more, as anything that has been spoken or written by those
who have not seen anything in this field, or have only once watched in the same way
that they are seen by playmates, and who, accordingly, consider themselves entitled
to speak of objective trickery. But W. Weber is only one of a number of the most
honorable investigators who, after careful consideration, stand up for the reality of
these phenomena, as opposed to the number of those who throw stones at them from
afar, that is, from a distance accumulating all sorts of indefinite grounds of suspicion
against them, thinking of them or even not thinking according to their circumstances,
meaning that they had done something. In any case, the superficiality of this field is
much more on the side of the champions than the representative of spiritualism; Of
course, I only count those who count outside of spiritualism. Yes, if spiritualism were
a perversity, then the means which one needs against it would be even more
wrong; and that you can not find any better ones against him, speaks for himself that
there is not any against him. In any case, the superficiality of this field is much more
on the side of the champions than the representative of spiritualism; Of course, I only
count those who count outside of spiritualism. Yes, if spiritualism were a perversity,
then the means which one needs against it would be even more wrong; and that you
can not find any better ones against him, speaks for himself that there is not any
against him. In any case, the superficiality of this field is much more on the side of
the champions than the representative of spiritualism; Of course, I only count those
who count outside of spiritualism. Yes, if spiritualism were a perversity, then the
means which one needs against it would be even more wrong; and that you can not
find any better ones against him, speaks for himself that there is not any against him.
Otherwise one draws conclusions only from successful attempts and rejects the
failures just because they have failed; In relation to spiritism, the antispiritists draw
conclusions only from unsuccessful attempts and reject the successful ones precisely
because they have succeeded. If the Zöllner knot attempt in Leipzig and Breslau,
which had been carried out under the most certain measures, had not been successful,
then something would be said about it; since he succeeded, he is nothing; but sleight-
of-hand games, for which anyone can imitate him, who knows the feat, but not under
those securing conditions, apply. So with all, in the hands of good observers,
successful attempts in this field. Otherwise one examines in a new field of
observation the conditions under which the experiments succeed; Here they are
prescribed the conditions from the outset, and if z. For example, an attempt has been
made under precautionary precautions in the dark or semi-darkness10) , he is nothing
because he has not succeeded in the light; But if he succeeds under more favorable
conditions in the light, then he is nothing, far as he has succeeded. - Otherwise one
holds the maturity of the experience and the judgment of each investigation
favorably, here it counts as age weakness, if the investigation turns out in favor of the
spiritism; and eggs think they are smarter than hens. - Otherwise, when you point out
things with your fingers, you see whether they are there; Here one immediately chops
off the fingers that point afterward, so one does not need to look at them afterwards,
and writes essays about not seeing anything.
10) That darkness is favorable to the success of spiritualistic experiments must
not be so much alienated, as long as the disturbance is eliminated by a stimulus
of this nature; In general, however, it has been shown that with a more
vigorous effect of the medium, the same experiments succeed in the light,
which in the case of weaker ones require dark or semi-dark.

Why, then, instead of those ways which in fact only prove the powerlessness of
coming to terms with spiritualism, one proposes the one which alone might suffice to
counter the observations made for spiritualism with those which are finally asserted
against it same prudence, diligence, conscientiousness, impartiality, under equally
varied circumstances, are employed by non-professional as well as by professional
media, as are the best of those speaking. And is there nothing of the kind? But! Only
that this way, wherever it was taken, led to forced recognition as the intended
refutation of spiritualism. Because probably none of the physicists who have
explained themselves after a thorough and serious investigation for spiritualism,
The talking and writing against spiritism goes his way and spiritualism goes his
way; but the former path does not actually run counter to the latter, but merely
alongside; and by contradicting it from there, spiritism can not be inhibited in
progress; this has been proven and will prove itself further.
If I had accepted the spirituality of spiritism in the first place, it happened, as no
less evident from the preceding, not out of sympathy for him, but because the thing
and the persons must be given their right; For as much as one would like to eliminate
all spiritualism at any price, the price of truth is too high. The day view can exist with
and without spiritism; but rather without it than with it; for though it may meet with
him in important points and seek support there, as I mean, to the point of finding
limits to it (so), it interferes not only with its abnormalities, but with the whole
system of our former ones Insights into it; and that is the only way I can come to
terms with its reality, that at the same time I take into account this his abnormal
character, according to which he fits in neither with the healthy life nor the science of
a healthy life. Now it is no pleasure for the representative of the Tagesansicht to have
to include a downside more in the world bill. That I am not at all agreeable to
mystical phenomena could be proved by my book "On the Last Days of the
Odlehre"; meanwhile I count 78 years, have written the Zendavesta and this book,
what will be needed for opponents who deny the spiritism in the above way, more. to
have one more shadow page in the world bill. That I am not at all agreeable to
mystical phenomena could be proved by my book "On the Last Days of the
Odlehre"; meanwhile I count 78 years, have written the Zendavesta and this book,
what will be needed for opponents who deny the spiritism in the above way, more. to
have one more shadow page in the world bill. That I am not at all agreeable to
mystical phenomena could be proved by my book "On the Last Days of the
Odlehre"; meanwhile I count 78 years, have written the Zendavesta and this book,
what will be needed for opponents who deny the spiritism in the above way, more.

XXIV. Supplementary comments to justify the day view.

It is admitted from the outset that it is basically only a hypothesis, of which the
daytime view here has taken the starting point, that the light vibrations, sonic
vibrations also shine outside of humans and animals, and that the illumination,
sounding only from the outside into people and animals Animals in it; whereas it is
no less a hypothesis on which the night view is based, that the vibrations of light and
sound outside neither shine nor ring, but only have the capacity to arouse sensations
of light and sound in our nervous system. In favor of the first hypothesis before the
other, however, it could be argued, first, that the natural conception of man prefers the
first self; secondly, that after it the world immediately gives a more pleasing sight
than after the second, thirdly, that, on the other hand, a worldview can be built upon
them that is more satisfying on all sides than that to which the second leads. Showing
this was the main task of this book, and it can not be the task of a short sentence to
show it again. The fact that the scientific abstraction of the qualities of the sensation
of light and sound, when we look at the quantitative relations of motion of light and
sound, does not indicate a lack of qualitative certainty, was discussed in a special
section (XX).
Let us further admit: it is not a strict inference that if there is a luminance and
sound beyond men and animals, there must also be an overarching, more general,
seeing and hearing being in which the sensation of shining, sounding falls. Can not
the light outside shine for itself, the sound sound for itself? It was well said (chapter
V.1): "Sensuous sensation can not float in the void, it requires a subject, an
overarching consciousness for it"; and who can think otherwise, he looks into
himself; but he does not confuse the subjective fact with an objective necessity. Is
there really a view according to which the sensual sensation can float in the void,
namely, that an atom only needs to vibrate? in order to give to itself a simple sensual
sensation, without the need of a subject dealing with this sensation (Sect. XXII), as
we nevertheless demanded, in order to avoid having to think the sensible sensation
for ourselves. But what then becomes of the whole God of the day view, whose
demand was attached to this demand or at least was connected with it.
In fact, if the acceptance of God were based solely on that demand, it would still
seem weakly supported. First, however, it remains true, first, that the conceivability
of a self-existent sensory sensation is indeed difficult, if indeed intangible, to us,
whereas the view discussed earlier (Sect. XXII), which, nevertheless, is taken up with
it, is also discussed earlier Objections; second, that the material movements ,where
light and sound hang out, are attacked in an analogous way by the general system of
the world, as those on which they hang in us, by the subsystem of the world, which
each of us forms; thirdly, that the general material system offers, to our partial, such
relations of analogy, of connection, and of causality, in order to make an inference
from one to the other in regard to spiritual endurance, which in earlier writings more
than in the present one of mine is executed. If, however, one does not wish to find all
these theoretical reasons resounding enough, there are further historical and practical
reasons, which according to Sect. For the belief in God, with such supremacy as is
stated, especially in the "three motives and reasons," we can not avoid the totality of
these reasons, without entering into a theoretically, practically, and historically at the
same time untenable world-view ,
The previous one concerned the first two basic points of the day view (chapter III),
the third, however, is so closely connected with the two previous ones that a
development of the day view is possible only under its inclusion. The divine spirit
can not overlap the world without involving the human being.

XXV. Ending.

I conclude with the wish that in the attitude of this book one may not recognize both
the presumption of a person and the claim of the thing, and that the decisiveness with
which it proclaims and represents the dawn of a brighter world view may itself help
to fulfill the proclamation ,