A Theory of Knowledge
GA 2
XVII. Introduction: Spirit and Nature
[ 1 ] We have exhausted the realm of the knowledge of Nature. Organics is the highest form of natural science. What lies still higher is the spiritual, or cultural, sciences. These require an essentially different attitude of the human mind toward objects from that characterizing the natural sciences. In the latter the mind has a universal role to play. Its task is, so to speak, to bring the world process itself to a conclusion. What existed without the mind was only one half of reality; it was incomplete, at every point only a fragment. There the mind has to call forth into phenomenal existence the innermost impelling forces of reality—even though these would have possessed validity without its subjective intervention. If man were a mere sense-being without mental conception, inorganic Nature would be, none the less, dependent upon natural laws; but these would never come as such into manifest existence. Beings would certainly exist who would perceive the product (the sense-world) but they would never perceive the producing (the inner conformity to law). It is really the genuine, and indeed the truest, form of Nature which comes to manifestation in the human mind, whereas for a mere sense-being only Nature's external aspect would exist. Knowledge plays here a role of world significance. It is the conclusion of the work of creation. What takes place in human consciousness is the interpretation of Nature to itself. Thought is the last member in the series of processes whereby Nature is formed.
[ 2 ] Not so is it in the case of cultural science. Here our consciousness has to do with spiritual content itself; with the individual human spirit, with the creations of culture, of literature, with the successive scientific convictions, with the creations of art. The spiritual is grasped by the spirit. Reality possesses here in itself the ideal, conformity to law, which elsewhere appears first in mental conception. What appears in the natural sciences only as a product of reflection about the object is here born in the object. Knowledge plays a different role; essential being would be present in the objects here without the work of knowledge. It is human actions, creations, ideas with which we have to do. It is an interpretation of the human being to himself and to his race. Knowledge has here a different mission to discharge from that in connection with Nature.
[ 3 ] Here again this mission first becomes manifest as a human need. Just as the necessity of finding, in connection with the reality of Nature, the Idea of Nature appears at first as a need of our minds, so here also the function of cultural science exists first as a human impulse. Again it is only an objective fact announcing itself as a subjective need.
[ 4 ] The human being should not, like a being of inorganic Nature, act upon another being according to external norms, according to law which dominates him; nor should he be the single form of a general type; but he should himself fix the purpose, the goal, of his existence, of his activity. If his actions are the results of laws, these laws must be such as he gives to himself. What he is in himself, what he is among his own kind, in state and in history,—this he must not be by reason of external determinations. He must be this of himself. How he fits himself into the texture of the world depends upon himself. He must find the point at which to participate in the mechanism of the world. It is here that the cultural sciences receive their function. Man must know the spiritual world in order to take his share in that world according to this knowledge. Here originates the mission which psychology, the science of peoples,13Volkskunde and the science of history have to achieve.
[ 5 ] This is the essence of Nature: that law and activity fall apart from each other, and activity seems to be controlled by law; but this, on the contrary, is the essence of freedom: that the two coincide, that the producing shall exist immediately in the product and that the product shall be master of itself.
[ 6 ] Therefore, the cultural sciences are in the highest degree sciences of freedom. The idea of freedom must be their central point, their dominant idea. It is for this reason that Schiller's letters on aesthetics take such high rank, because they undertake to find the nature of beauty in the idea of freedom, because freedom is the principle which permeates them.
[ 7 ] The spirit takes only that place in the universal, in the totality of the world, which it gives to itself as an individual. While the universal, the type Idea, must be kept constantly in mind in organics, the idea of personality is to be held fast in the spiritual sciences. Not the Idea as it lives in the general (the type) but as it appears in the single being (the individual), is here the matter in question. Naturally, it is not the casual personality, not this or that personality, which is determinative, but personality as such; not, however, as this evolves from itself outward into specialized forms and so comes first to sensible existence, but sufficient in itself, within itself circumscribed, finding in itself its destiny.
[ 8 ] The destiny of the type is to find itself realized in the individual. The destiny of the person is to achieve, even as an ideal entity, actual self-sustaining existence. When we speak of humanity in general and when we speak of a general natural law, these are two quite different things. In the latter case the particular is determined by the general; in the idea of humanity, the general is determined by the particular. If we are able to discern general laws of history, these are such only in so far as they were set up by historical personalities as goals, or ideals. This is the inner contrast between Nature and spirit. The former requires a knowledge which ascends from the immediately given, as the conditioned, to that which can be grasped by the mind, to the conditioning; the latter requires such a knowledge as proceeds from the given as the conditioning to the conditioned. That the particular establishes the law is characteristic of the spiritual sciences; that this role belongs to the general characterizes the natural sciences.
[ 9 ] That which is valuable to us in the natural sciences only as a transitional point—the particular—is our sole interest in the spiritual sciences. That which we seek in the former case, the general, is in the latter considered only to the extent that it interprets to us the particular.
[ 10 ] It would be contrary to the spirit of science if in the presence of Nature we should limit ourselves to the particular. But it would be utterly fatal to the spirit if we should comprehend Greek history, for example, in a general scheme of concepts. In the former case, the senses, cleaving to the phenomenal, would achieve no science; in the latter the mind, proceeding according to a general pattern, would lose all sense for the individual.
17. Einleitung: Geist und Natur
[ 1 ] Das Gebiet des Naturerkennens haben wir erschöpft. Die Organik ist die höchste Form der Naturwissenschaft. Was noch darüber ist, sind die Geisteswissenschaften. Diese fordern ein wesentlich anderes Verhalten des Menschengeistes zum Objekte als die Naturwissenschaften. Bei den letzteren hatte der Geist eine universelle Rolle zu spielen. Es fiel ihm sozusagen die Aufgabe zu, den Weltprozeß selbst zum Abschlusse zu bringen. Was ohne den Geist da war, war nur die Hälfte der Wirklichkeit, war unvollendet, in jedem Punkte Stückwerk. Der Geist hat da die innersten Triebfedern der Wirklichkeit, die zwar auch ohne seine subjektive Einmischung Geltung hätten, zum Erscheinungsdasein zu rufen. Wäre der Mensch ein bloßes Sinnenwesen, ohne geistige Auffassung, so wäre die unorganische Natur wohl nicht minder von Naturgesetzen abhängig, aber sie träten nie als solche ins Dasein ein. Es gäbe zwar Wesen, welche das Bewirkte (die Sinnenwelt), nicht aber das Wirkende (die innere Gesetzlichkeit) wahrnähmen. Es ist wirklich die echte, und zwar die wahrste Gestalt der Natur, welche im Menschengeiste zur Erscheinung kommt, während für ein bloßes Sinnenwesen nur ihre Außenseite da ist. Die Wissenschaft hat hier eine weltbedeutsame Rolle. Sie ist der Abschluß des Schöpfungswerkes. Es ist die Auseinandersetzung der Natur mit sich selbst, die sich im Bewußtsein des Menschen abspielt. Das Denken ist das letzte Glied in der Reihenfolge der Prozesse, die die Natur bilden.
[ 2 ] Nicht so ist es bei der Geisteswissenschaft. Hier hat es unser Bewußtsein mit geistigem Inhalte selbst zu tun: mit dem einzelnen Menschengeist, mit den Schöpfungen der Kultur, der Literatur, mit den aufeinanderfolgenden wissenschaftlichen Überzeugungen, mit den Schöpfungen der Kunst. Geistiges wird durch den Geist erfaßt. Die Wirklichkeit hat hier schon das Ideelle, die Gesetzmäßigkeit in sich, die sonst erst in der geistigen Auffassung hervortritt. Was bei den Naturwissenschaften erst Produkt des Nachdenkens über die Gegenstände ist, das ist hier denselben eingeboren. Die Wissenschaft spielt eine andere Rolle. Das Wesen wäre auch schon im Objekte ohne ihre Arbeit da. Es sind menschliche Taten, Schöpfungen, Ideen, mit denen wir es zu tun haben. Es ist eine Auseinandersetzung des Menschen mit sich selbst und seinem Geschlechte. Die Wissenschaft hat hier eine andere Sendung zu erfüllen als der Natur gegenüber.
[ 3 ] Wieder tritt diese Sendung zuerst als menschliches Bedürfnis auf. So wie die Notwendigkeit, zur Naturwirklichkeit die Naturidee zu finden, zuerst als Bedürfnis unseres Geistes auftritt, so ist auch die Aufgabe der Geisteswissenschaften zuerst als menschlicher Drang da. Wieder ist es nur eine objektive Tatsache, die sich als subjektives Bedürfnis kundgibt.
[ 4 ] Der Mensch soll nicht wie das Wesen der unorganischen Natur auf ein anderes Wesen nach äußeren Normen, nach einer ihn beherrschenden Gesetzlichkeit wirken, er soll auch nicht bloß die Einzelform eines allgemeinen Typus sein, sondern er soll sich den Zweck, das Ziel seines Daseins, seiner Tätigkeit selbst vorsetzen. Wenn seine Handlungen die Ergebnisse von Gesetzen sind, so müssen diese Gesetze solche sein, die er sich selbst gibt. Was er an sich selbst, was er unter seinesgleichen, in Staat und Geschichte ist, das darf er nicht durch äußerliche Bestimmung sein. Er muß es durch sich selbst sein. Wie er sich in das Gefüge der Welt einfügt, hängt von ihm ab. Er muß den Punkt finden, um an dem Getriebe der Welt teilzunehmen. Hier erhalten die Geisteswissenschaften ihre Aufgabe. Der Mensch muß die Geisteswelt kennen, um nach dieser Erkenntnis seinen Anteil an derselben zu bestimmen. Da entspringt die Sendung, die Psychologie, Volkskunde und Geschichtswissenschaft zu erfüllen haben.
[ 5 ] Das ist das Wesen der Natur, daß Gesetz und Tätigkeit auseinanderfallen, diese von jenem beherrscht erscheint; das hingegen ist das Wesen der Freiheit, daß beide zusammenfallen, daß sich das Wirkende in der Wirkung unmittelbar darlebt und daß das Bewirkte sich selbst regelt.
[ 6 ] Die Geisteswissenschaften sind im eminenten Sinne daher Freiheitswissenschaften. Die Idee der Freiheit muß ihr Mittelpunkt, die sie beherrschende Idee sein. Deshalb stehen Schillers ästhetische Briefe so hoch, weil sie das Wesen der Schönheit in der Idee der Freiheit finden wollen, weil die Freiheit das Prinzip ist, das sie durchdringt.
[ 7 ] Der Geist nimmt nur jene Stelle in der Allgemeinheit, im Weltganzen ein, die er sich als individueller gibt. Während in der Organik stets das Allgemeine, die Typusidee im Auge behalten werden muß, ist in den Geisteswissenschaften die Idee der Persönlichkeit festzuhalten. Nicht die Idee, wie sie sich in der Allgemeinheit (Typus) darlebt, sondern wie sie im Einzelwesen (Individuum) auftritt, ist es, worauf es ankommt. Natürlich ist nicht die zufällige Einzelpersönlichkeit, nicht diese oder jene Persönlichkeit maßgebend, sondern die Persönlichkeit überhaupt; aber diese nicht aus sich heraus zu besonderen Gestalten sich entwickelnd und erst so zum sinnenfälligen Dasein kommend, sondern in sich selbst genug, in sich abgeschlossen, in sich ihre Bestimmung findend.
[ 8 ] Der Typus hat die Bestimmung, sich im Individuum erst zu realisieren. Die Person hat diese, bereits als Ideelles wirklich auf sich selbst ruhendes Dasein zu gewinnen. Es ist etwas ganz anderes, wenn man von einer allgemeinen Menschheit spricht, als von einer allgemeinen Naturgesetzlichkeit. Bei letzterer ist das Besondere durch das Allgemeine bedingt; bei der Idee der Menschheit ist es die Allgemeinheit durch das Besondere. Wenn es uns gelingt, der Geschichte allgemeine Gesetze abzulauschen, so sind diese nur insofern solche, als sie sich von den historischen Persönlichkeiten als Ziele, Ideale vorgesetzt wurden. Das ist der innere Gegensatz von Natur und Geist. Die erste fordert eine Wissenschaft, welche von dem unmittelbar Gegebenen, als dem Bedingten, zu dem im Geiste Erfaßbaren, als dem Bedingenden, aufsteigt; der letzte eine solche, welche von dem Gegebenen, als dem Bedingenden, zu dem Bedingten fortschreitet. Daß das Besondere zugleich das Gesetzgebende ist, charakterisiert die Geisteswissenschaften; daß dem Allgemeinen diese Rolle zufällt, die Naturwissenschaften.
[ 9 ] Was uns in der Naturwissenschaft nur als Durchgangspunkt wertvoll ist, das Besondere, das interessiert uns in den Geisteswissenschaften allein. Was wir in jener suchen, das Allgemeine, kommt hier nur insofern in Betracht, als es uns über das Besondere aufklärt.
[ 10 ] Es wäre gegen den Geist der Wissenschaft, wenn man der Natur gegenüber bei der Unmittelbarkeit des Besonderen stehen bliebe. Geradezu geisttötend wäre es aber auch, wenn man zum Beispiel die griechische Geschichte in einem allgemeinen Begriffsschema umfassen wollte. Dort würde der an der Erscheinung haftende Sinn keine Wissenschaft erringen; hier würde der nach einer allgemeinen Schablone vorgehende Geist allen Sinn für das Individuelle verlieren.
17. Introduction: Mind and nature
[ 1 ] We have exhausted the field of knowledge of nature. Organic science is the highest form of natural science. What is still above it are the humanities. These require an essentially different attitude of the human spirit to the object than the natural sciences. In the latter, the spirit has a universal role to play. It had the task, so to speak, of bringing the world process itself to a conclusion. What existed without the spirit was only half of reality, was unfinished, piecemeal in every respect. The spirit has to call to manifestation the innermost driving forces of reality, which would also be valid without its subjective interference. If man were a mere sensory being, without spiritual perception, then inorganic nature would be no less dependent on natural laws, but they would never come into existence as such. There would indeed be beings who perceive the effectual (the sense world), but not the effectual (the inner lawfulness). It is really the real, and indeed the truest form of nature that appears in the human spirit, whereas for a mere sensory being there is only its outer side. Science has a world-significant role here. It is the conclusion of the work of creation. It is the confrontation of nature with itself that takes place in the consciousness of man. Thought is the last link in the sequence of processes that form nature.
[ 2 ] This is not the case with spiritual science. Here our consciousness has to do with spiritual content itself: with the individual human spirit, with the creations of culture, of literature, with the successive scientific convictions, with the creations of art. The spiritual is grasped through the spirit. Here reality already contains the ideal, the lawfulness, which otherwise only emerges in the spiritual conception. What in the natural sciences is only the product of thinking about the objects is inherent in them here. Science plays a different role. The being would already exist in the object without its work. It is human deeds, creations, ideas that we are dealing with. It is a confrontation of man with himself and his gender. Science has a different mission to fulfill here than towards nature.
[ 3 ] Once again, this mission first appears as a human need. Just as the need to find the idea of nature in relation to the reality of nature first arises as a need of our spirit, so too the task of the humanities first arises as a human urge. Again, it is only an objective fact that manifests itself as a subjective need.
[ 4 ] Man should not, like the being of inorganic nature, act on another being according to external norms, according to a lawfulness that dominates him, nor should he be merely the individual form of a general type, but he should set himself the purpose, the goal of his existence, of his activity. If his actions are the results of laws, then these laws must be those that he gives himself. What he is in himself, what he is among his equals, in the state and in history, he must not be by external determination. He must be it through himself. How he fits into the structure of the world depends on him. He must find the point to participate in the gears of the world. This is where the humanities have their task. Man must know the spiritual world in order to determine his part in it according to this knowledge. This is the source of the mission that psychology, ethnology and historiography have to fulfill.
[ 5 ] This is the essence of nature, that law and activity fall apart, that the latter appears to be dominated by the former; this, on the other hand, is the essence of freedom, that both coincide, that the agent lives itself out directly in the effect and that the effectual regulates itself.
[ 6 ] The humanities are therefore sciences of freedom in an eminent sense. The idea of freedom must be their focus, the idea that dominates them. That is why Schiller's aesthetic letters stand so high, because they want to find the essence of beauty in the idea of freedom, because freedom is the principle that permeates them.
[ 7 ] The spirit only occupies that place in the generality, in the world as a whole, which it gives itself as more individual. Whereas in organic science the general, the type idea must always be kept in mind, in the humanities the idea of personality must be held fast. It is not the idea as it presents itself in the generality (type), but how it appears in the individual being (individual) that is important. Of course, it is not the random individual personality, not this or that personality that is decisive, but the personality in general; however, this does not develop out of itself into particular forms and only then come to sensuous existence, but is sufficient in itself, self-contained, finding its destiny in itself.
[ 8 ] The type has the destiny of first realizing itself in the individual. The person has this, to gain an existence that is already truly based on itself as an ideal. It is quite different to speak of a general humanity than of a general law of nature. In the latter, the particular is conditioned by the general; in the idea of humanity, it is the generality through the particular. If we succeed in extracting general laws from history, then these are only such in so far as they have been set as goals, ideals, by the historical personalities. This is the inner opposition of nature and spirit. The former demands a science which ascends from the directly given, as the conditioned, to that which can be grasped in the spirit, as the conditioning, while the latter demands a science which progresses from the given, as the conditioning, to the conditioned. The fact that the specific is at the same time the lawgiver characterizes the humanities; the fact that this role falls to the general characterizes the natural sciences.
[ 9 ] What is valuable to us in the natural sciences only as a point of passage, the particular, is of interest to us in the humanities alone. What we seek in the latter, the general, only comes into consideration here insofar as it enlightens us about the special.
[ 10 ] It would be against the spirit of science to stop at the immediacy of the particular in relation to nature. But it would also be downright mind-numbing if, for example, one wanted to encompass Greek history in a general conceptual scheme. There, the sense clinging to appearances would not achieve any science; here, the mind proceeding according to a general template would lose all sense of the individual.