按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Similarly do we see in the Christian Religion； thought which is not independent first placing itself in
conjunction with the form belonging to this Religion and acting within it … that is to say； taking the
Religion as its groundwork； and proceeding from the absolute assumption of the Christian
doctrine。 We see later on the opposition between so…called faith and so…called reason； when the
wings of thought have become strengthened； the young eaglet flies away for himself to the sun of
Truth； but like a bird of prey he turns upon Religion and combats it。 Latest of all Philosophy
permits full justice to be done to the content of Religion through the speculative Notion； which is
through Thought itself。 For this end the Notion must have grasped itself in the concrete and
penetrated to concrete spirituality。 This must be the standpoint of the Philosophy of the present
time； it has begun within Christianity and can have no other content than the world…spirit。 When
that spirit comprehends itself in Philosophy； it also comprehends itself in that form which formerly
was inimical to Philosophy。
Thus Religion has a content in common with Philosophy the forms alone being different； and the
only essential point is that the form of the Notion should be so far perfected as to be able to grasp
the content of Religion。 The Truth is just that which has been called the mysteries of Religion。
These constitute the speculative element in Religion such as were called by the Neo…platonists
being initiated； or being occupied with speculative Notions。 By mysteries is meant； superficially
speaking； the secret； what remains such and does not arrive at being known。 But in the Eleusinian
mysteries there was nothing unknown； all Athenians were initiated into them； Socrates alone shut
himself out。 Openly to make them known to strangers was the one thing forbidden； as indeed it
was made a crime in the case of certain people。 Such matters however； as being holy； were not to
be spoken of。 Herodotus often expressly says （e。g。 ii。 45…47） that he would speak of the Egyptian
Divinities and mysteries in as far as it was pious so to do： he knew more； but it would be impious
to speak of them。 In the Christian Religion dogmas are called mysteries。 They are that which man
knows about the Nature of God。 Neither is there anything mysterious in this； it is known by all
those who are partakers in that Religion； and these are thus distinguished from the followers of
other Religions。 Hence mystery here signifies nothing unknown； since all Christians are in the
secret。 Mysteries are in their nature speculative； mysterious certainly to the understanding but not
to reason； they are rational； just in the sense of being speculative。 The understanding does not
comprehend the speculative which simply is the concrete because it holds to the differences in their
separation； their contradiction is indeed contained in the mystery； which； however； is likewise the
resolution of the same。
Philosophy； on the contrary； is opposed to the so…called Rationalism of the new Theology which
for ever keeps reason on its lips； but which is dry understanding only； no reason is recognizable in
it as the moment of independent thought which really is abstract thought and that alone。 When the
understanding which does not comprehend the truths of Religion； calls itself the illuminating reason
and plays the lord and master； it goes astray。 Rationalism is opposed to Philosophy in content and
form； for it has made the content empty as it has made the heavens； and has reduced all that is； to
finite relations … in its form it is a reasoning process which is not free and which has no conceiving
power。 The supernatural in Religion is opposed to rationalism； and if indeed the latter is related in
respect of the real content to Philosophy； yet it differs from it in form； for it has become unspiritual
and wooden； looking for its justification to mere external authority。 The scholastics were not
supernaturalists in this sense； they knew the dogmas of the Church in thought and in conception。 If
Religion in the inflexibility of its abstract authority as opposed to thought； declares of it that 〃the
gates of Hell shall not triumph over it；〃 the gates of reason are stronger than the gates of Hell； not
to overcome the Church but to reconcile itself to the Church。 Philosophy； as the conceiving
thought of this content； has as regards the idea of Religion； the advantage of comprehending both
sides … it comprehends Religion and also comprehends both rationalism and supernaturalism and
itself likewise。 But this is not the case on the other side。 Religion from the standpoint of idea；
comprehends only what stands on the same platform as itself； and not Philosophy； the Notion； the
universal thought determinations。 Often no injustice is done to a Philosophy when its opposition to
Religion has been made matter of reproach； but often； too； a wrong has been inflicted where this is
done from the religious point of view。
The form of Religion is necessary to Mind as it is in and for itself； it is the form of truth as it is for
all men； and for every mode of consciousness。 This universal mode is first of all for men in the form
of sensuous consciousness； and then； secondly； in the intermingling of the form of the universal with
sensuous manifestation or reflection … the representing consciousness； the mythical； positive and
historical form； is that pertaining to the understanding。 What is received in evidence of Mind only
becomes object to consciousness when it appears in the form of the understanding； that is to say；
consciousness must first be already acquainted with these forms from life and from experience。
Now； because thinking consciousness is not the outward universal form for all mankind； the
consciousness of the true； the spiritual and the rational； must have the form of Religion； and this is
the universal justification of this form。
We have here laid down the distinction between Philosophy and Religion； but taking into account
what it is we wish to deal with in the history of Philosophy； there is something still which must be
remarked upon； and which partly follows from what has been already said。 There is the question
still confronting us as to what attitude we must take in reference to this matter in the history of
Philosophy。
B。 The religious element to be excluded from the content of the History of
Philosophy。
i。 Mythology first meets us； and it seems as if it might be drawn within the history of Philosophy。
It is indeed a product of the imagination； but not of caprice； although that also has its place here。
But the main part of mythology is the work of the imaginative reason； which makes reality its
object； but yet has no other means of so doing； than that of sensuous representation； so that the
gods make their appearance in human guise。 Mythology can now be studied for art； &c。 But the
thinking mind must seek out the substantial content； the thought and the theory implicitly contained
therein； as reason is sought in Nature。 This mode of treating mythology was that of the
Neo…platonists ； in recent times it has for the most part become the work of my friend Creuzer in
symbolism。 This method of treatment is combated and condemned by others。 Man； it is said； must
set to work historically alone； and it is not historic when a theory unthought of by the ancients； is
read into a myth； or brought out of it。 In one light； this is quite correct； for it points to a method
adopted by Creuzer； and also by the Alexandrians who acted in a similar way。 In conscious
thought the ancients had not such theories before them； nor did anyone maintain them； yet to say
that such content was not implicitly present； is an absurd contention。 As the products of reason；
though not of thinking reason； the religions of the people； as also the mythologies； however simple
and even foolish they may appear； indubitably contain as genuine works of art； thoughts； universal
determinations and truth for the instinct of reason is at their basis。 Bound up with this is the fact
that since mythology in its expression takes sensuous forms； much that is contingent and external
becomes intermingled； for the representation of the Notion in sensuous forms always possesses a
certain incongruity； seeing that what is founded on imagination cannot express the Idea in its real
aspect。 This sensuous form produced as it is by an historic or natural method； must be determined
on many sides； and this external determination must； more or less； be of such a nature as not to
express the Idea。 It may also be that many errors are contained in that explanation； particularly
when a single one is brought within our notice； all the customs； actions； furnishings； vestments； and
offerings taken together； may undoubtedly contain something of the Idea in analogy； but the
connection is far removed； and many contingent circumstances must find their entrance。 But that
there is a Reason there； must certainly be recognized； and it is essential so to comprehend and
grasp mythology。
But Mythology must remain excluded from our history of Philosophy。 The reason of this is found in
the fact that in Ph