The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity
GA 4
XI. World Purpose and Life Purpose
[ 1 ] Among the manifold streams in the spiritual life of mankind, there is one we can follow which may be described as the overcoming of the concept of purpose in realms where it does not belong. Purposefulness has its own particular nature within the sequence of phenomena. It is a truly real purposefulness only when, in contract to the relationship of cause and effect where a preceding event determines a later one, the reverse applies and a subsequent event affects and determines an earlier one. This happens, to begin with, only in the case of human actions. A person carries out an action, which he pictures to himself beforehand, and lets himself be moved to his action by this mental picture. What comes later, the action, works with the help of the mental picture upon what comes earlier, the person who acts. This detour through mental picturing is, however, altogether necessary in order for a connection to be purposeful.
[ 2 ] In the process which breaks down into cause and effect, the perception is to be distinguished from the concept. The perception of the cause precedes the perception of the effect; cause and effect would simply remain side by side within our consciousness if we were not able to connect them with each other through their corresponding concepts. The perception of the effect can only follow upon the perception of its cause. If the effect is to have a real influence upon the cause, then this can only be through the conceptual factor. For the perceptual factor of the effect is simply not present at all before that of the cause. Whoever maintains that the blossom is the purpose of the root, which means the former has an influence upon the latter, can maintain this only about that factor of the blossom which he can establish through his thinking. The perceptual factor of the blossom has as yet no existence at the time when the root comes into being. For there to be a purposeful connection, however, not merely the ideal lawful connection of the later with the earlier is necessary, but also the concept (the law) of the effect must really, through a perceptible process, influence the cause. A perceptible influence of a concept upon something else, however, we can observe only in human actions. Here alone, therefore, is the concept of purpose applicable. The naive consciousness, which accepts as real only what is perceptible, seeks—as we have repeatedly noted—to transfer something perceptible even into an area where only something ideal is to be known. Within perceptible happenings it seeks perceptible connections, or, if it cannot find such, it dreams them up. The concept of purpose valid for subjective actions is an element which lends itself to such dreamed-up connections. The naive person knows how this makes something happen and concludes from this that nature will do it in the same way. Within the purely ideal interconnections of nature he sees not only invisible forces, but also unperceivable real purposes. Man makes his tools to suit his purposes; the naive realist has the Creator build organisms by this same formula. Only quite gradually is this incorrect concept of purpose disappearing from the sciences. In philosophy, even today, it is still up to its mischief in a very harmful way. There people ask about the purpose, outside the world, of the world, about the determinants (and consequently, about the purpose), outside man, of man, and so on.
[ 3 ] Monism rejects the concept of purpose in all areas with the sole exception of human action. It seeks laws of nature, but not purposes of nature. Purposes of nature are arbitrary assumptions just as unperceivable forces are (see page 109f). But also purposes of life which man does not give himself, are unjustified assumptions from the standpoint of monism. Only that is purposeful which man has first made to be so, for only through the realization of an idea does purposefulness rise. The idea however, becomes operative in the realistic sense only within man. Therefore human life has only the purpose and determination which man gives to it. To the question: What kind of task does man have in life?, monism can only answer: the one which he sets himself. My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself. I do not enter upon my life's path with fixed marching orders.
[ 4 ] Ideas are realized purposefully only through human beings. It is therefore inadmissible to speak of history as the embodiment of ideas. All such expressions as: “History is the development of man toward freedom,” or the realization of the moral world order, and so on, are untenable from the monistic point of view.
[ 5 ] The adherents of the concept of purpose believe that to give up purpose, they would have to give up all order and unity in the world at this time. Listen, for example, to Robert Hamerling (Atomistic Theory of the Will)1Atomistik des Willens “As long as there are drives in nature, it is foolishness to deny purposes in nature.”
[ 6 ] “Just as the form of a limb of the human body is not determined and controlled by an idea of this limb that is hovering somewhere in the air, but rather by its connection with the greater whole, with the body to which the limb belongs, so the form of every being of nature, whether plant, animal, man, is not determined and controlled by an idea of the same hovering in the air, but rather by the formal principle of the greater whole of nature which purposefully expresses itself and gives shape to everything.” And on page 191 of the same volume: “The theory of purpose maintains only that, in spite of the thousand discomforts and sufferings of our creaturely existence, a lofty purposefulness and plan are unmistakably present within the forms and developments of nature—a plan and purposefulness, however, which realize themselves only within the laws of nature, and which cannot aim for some fool's paradise where no death confronts life, and no decay with all its more or less unpleasing but simply unavoidable intermediary stages, confronts growth.”
[ 7 ] “When the opponents of the concept of purpose bring a small, laboriously collected rubbish heap of partial or complete, imaginary or real examples showing lack of purpose, against a world full of wonders of purpose such as nature shows in all its realms, then I just find that ludicrous.”
[ 8 ] What is here called purposefulness? A harmonizing of perceptions into a whole. Since, however, underlying of perceptions, there are laws (ideas), which we find through our thinking, so the systematic harmonizing of the parts of a perceptual whole is, in fact, the ideal harmonizing of the parts of an ideal whole contained within this perceptual whole. The notion that the animal or the human being is not determined by an idea hovering somewhere in the air, is all askew, and when it is set right, the condemned view automatically loses its absurd character. The animal is, to be sure, not determined by an idea hovering somewhere in the air, but is very much determined by an idea which is inborn and which constitutes the lawful nature of its being. Precisely because the idea is not outside the thing, but rather works within it as its very being, one cannot speak of purposefulness. Precisely the person who denies that a being of nature is determined from outside (whether by an idea hovering somewhere in the air, or by an idea existing outside the creature in the mind of a world-creator, makes no difference at all in this connection_ must admit that this being is not determined purposefully and according to plan from outside, but rather causally and lawfully from within. I construct a machine purposefully when I bring its parts into a relationship which they do not have by nature. The purposefulness of the arrangement consists then in the fact that I have incorporated the machine's way of working into it as its idea. The machine has become thereby an object of perception with a corresponding idea. The beings of nature are such entities as well. Whoever calls a thing purposeful because it is lawfully formed should then apply this term also to the beings of nature. But this lawfulness should not be confused with that of subjective human actions. For purpose, it is in fact altogether necessary that the cause which is at work be a concept, and indeed the concept of the effect. In nature, however, concepts as causes are nowhere to be found; the concept always shows itself only as the ideal connection of cause and effect. Causes are present in nature only in the form of perceptions.
[ 9 ] Dualism can talk about purposes of the world and of nature. Where a lawful joining of cause and effect appears to our perception, there the dualist can assume that we are only seeing the copy of a relationship within which the absolute world being realizes his purposes. For monism, with the falling away of the absolute world being who cannot be experienced but is only hypothetically inferred, there also falls away any reason for ascribing purpose to the world and to nature.
Addendum to the Revised Edition of 1918
[ 10 ] If one thinks through without prejudice what has been set forth here, one could not conclude that the author, in his rejection of the concept of purpose outside the human domain, stands on the same ground as those thinkers who, by throwing out this concept, create the possibility of grasping everything which lies outside human actions—and then these also—as only a happening of nature. The fact that in the book the thought process is represented as a purely spiritual one should guard against any such conclusion. When here the thought of purpose is also rejected for the spiritual world lying outside of human actions, then this is done because in that world something higher than the purpose which realizes itself within humanity comes to manifestation. And when a purposeful destiny of the human race, thought up along the lines of human purposefulness, is spoken of as an erroneous idea, then by this is meant that the individual person gives himself purposes and out of these the result of the total activity of mankind is composed. This result is then something higher than its parts, the purposes of men.
XI. Weltzweck und Lebenszweck
(Bestimmen des Menschen)
[ 1 ] Unter den mannigfaltigen Strömungen in dem geistigen Leben der Menschheit ist eine zu verfolgen, die man nennen kann die Überwindung des Zweckbegriffes auf Gebieten, in die er nicht gehört. Die Zweckmäßigkeit ist eine bestimmte Art in der Abfolge von Erscheinungen. Wahrhaft wirklich ist die Zweckmäßigkeit nur dann, wenn im Gegensatz zu dem Verhältnis von Ursache und Wirkung, wo das vorhergehende Ereignis ein späteres bestimmt, umgekehrt das folgende Ereignis bestimmend auf das frühere einwirkt. Dies liegt zunächst nur bei menschlichen Handlungen vor. Der Mensch vollbringt eine Handlung, die er sich vorher vorstellt, und läßt sich von dieser Vorstellung zur Handlung bestimmen. Das Spätere, die Handlung, wirkt mit Hilfe der Vorstellung auf das Frühere, den handelnden Menschen. Dieser Umweg durch das Vorstellen ist aber zum zweckmäßigen Zusammenhange durchaus notwendig.
[ 2 ] In dem Prozesse, der in Ursache und Wirkung zerfällt, ist zu unterscheiden die Wahrnehmung von dem Begriff. Die Wahrnehmung der Ursache geht der Wahrnehmung der Wirkung vorher; Ursache und Wirkung blieben in unserem Bewußtsein einfach nebeneinander bestehen, wenn wir sie nicht durch ihre entsprechenden Begriffe miteinander verbinden könnten. Die Wahrnehmung der Wirkung kann stets nur auf die Wahrnehmung der Ursache folgen. Wenn die Wirkung einen realen Einfluß auf die Ursache haben soll, so kann dies nur durch den begrifflichen Faktor sein. Denn der Wahrnehmungsfaktor der Wirkung ist vor dem der Ursache einfach gar nicht vorhanden. Wer behauptet, die Blüte sei der Zweck der Wurzel, das heißt, die erstere habe auf die letztere einen Einfluß, der kann das nur von dem Faktor an der Blüte behaupten, den er durch sein Denken an derselben konstatiert. Der Wahrnehmungsfaktor der Blüte hat zur Zeit der Entstehungszeit der Wurzel noch kein Dasein. Zum zweckmäßigen Zusammenhange ist aber nicht bloß der ideelle, gesetzmäßige Zusammenhang des Späteren mit dem Früheren notwendig, sondern der Begriff (das Gesetz) der Wirkung muß real, durch einen wahrnehmbaren Prozeß die Ursache beeinflussen. Einen wahrnehmbaren Einfluß von einem Begriff auf etwas anderes können wir aber nur bei den menschlichen Handlungen beobachten. Hier ist also der Zweckbegriff allein anwendbar. Das naive Bewußtsein, das nur das Wahrnehmbare gelten läßt, sucht — wie wir wiederholt bemerkt — auch dorthin Wahrnehmbares zu versetzen, wo nur Ideelles zu erkennen ist. In dem wahrnehmbaren Geschehen sucht es wahrnehmbare Zusammenhänge oder, wenn es solche nicht findet, träumt es sie hinein. Der im subjektiven Handeln geltende Zweckbegriff ist ein geeignetes Element für solche erträumte Zusammenhänge. Der naive Mensch weiß, wie er ein Geschehen zustandebringt und folgert daraus, daß es die Natur ebenso machen wird. In den rein ideellen Naturzusammenhängen sieht er nicht nur unsichtbare Kräfte, sondern auch unwahrnehmbare reale Zwecke. Der Mensch macht seine Werkzeuge zweckmäßig; nach demselben Rezept läßt der naive Realist den Schöpfer die Organismen bauen. Nur ganz allmählich verschwindet dieser falsche Zweckbegriff aus den Wissenschaften. In der Philosophie treibt er auch heute noch ziemlich arg sein Unwesen. Da wird gefragt nach dem außerweltlichen Zweck der Welt, nach der außermenschlichen Bestimmung (folglich auch dem Zweck) des Menschen und so weiter.
[ 3 ] Der Monismus weist den Zweckbegriff auf allen Gebieten mit alleiniger Ausnahme des menschlichen Handelns zurück. Er sucht nach Naturgesetzen, aber nicht nach Naturzwecken. Naturzwecke sind willkürliche Annahmen wie die unwahrnehmbaren Kräfte (5. 121 f.). Aber auch Lebenszwecke, die der Mensch sich nicht selbst setzt, sind vom Standpunkte des Monismus unberechtigte Annahmen. Zweckvoll ist nur dasjenige, was der Mensch erst dazu gemacht hat, denn nur durch Verwirklichung einer Idee entsteht Zweckmäßiges. Wirksam im realistischen Sinne wird die Idee aber nur im Menschen. Deshalb hat das Menschenleben nur den Zweck und die Bestimmung, die der Mensch ihm gibt. Auf die Frage: was hat der Mensch für eine Aufgabe im Leben? kann der Monismus nur antworten: die, die er sich selbst setzt. Meine Sendung in der Welt ist keine vorherbestimmte, sondern sie ist jeweilig die, die ich mir erwähle. Ich trete nicht mit gebundener Marschroute meinen Lebensweg an.
[ 4 ] Ideen werden zweckmäßig nur durch Menschen verwirklicht. Es ist also unstatthaft, von der Verkörperung von Ideen durch die Geschichte zu sprechen. Alle solche Wendungen wie: «die Geschichte ist die Entwickelung der Menschen zur Freiheit», oder die Verwirklichung der sittlichen Weltordnung und so weiter sind von monistischen Gesichtspunkten aus unhaltbar.
[ 5 ] Die Anhänger des Zweckbegriffes glauben mit demselben zugleich alle Ordnung und Einheitlichkeit der Welt preisgeben zu müssen. Man höre zum Beispiel Robert Hamerling (Atomistik des Willens, II. Band, S. 201): «So lange es Triebe in der Natur gibt, ist es Torheit, Zwecke in derselben zu leugnen.
[ 6 ] —Wie die Gestaltung eines Gliedes des menschlichen Körpers nicht bestimmt und bedingt ist durch eine in der Luft schwebende Idee dieses Gliedes, sondern durch den Zusammenhang mit dem größeren Ganzen, dem Körper, welchem das Glied angehört, so ist die Gestaltung jedes Naturwesens, sei es Pflanze, Tier, Mensch, nicht bestimmt und bedingt durch eine in der Luft schwebende Idee desselben, sondern durch das Formprinzip des größeren, sich zweckmäßig auslebenden und ausgestaltenden Ganzen der Natur.» Und Seite 191 desselben Bandes: «Die Zwecktheorie behauptet nur, daß trotz der tausend Unbequemlichkeiten und Qualen dieses kreatürlichen Lebens eine hohe Zweck, und Planmäßigkeit unverkennbar in den Gebilden und in den Entwicklungen der Natur vorhanden ist — eine Plan — und Zweckmäßigkeit jedoch, welche sich nur innerhalb der Naturgesetze verwirklicht, und welche nicht auf eine Schlaraffenwelt abzielen kann, in welcher dem Leben kein Tod, dem Werden kein Vergehen mit allen mehr oder weniger unerfreulichen, aber schlechterdings unvermeidlichen Mittelstufen gegenüberstünde.
[ 7 ] Wenn die Gegner des Zweckbegriffs ein mühsam zusammengebrachtes Kehrichthäufchen von halben oder ganzen, vermeintlichen oder wirklichen Unzweckmäßigkeiten einer Welt von Wundern der Zweckmäßigkeit, wie sie die Natur in allen Bereichen aufweist, entgegenstellen, so finde ich das ebenso drollig.»—
[ 8 ] Was wird hier Zweckmäßigkeit genannt? Ein Zusammenstimmen von Wahrnehmungen zu einem Ganzen. Da aber allen Wahrnehmungen Gesetze (Ideen) zugrunde liegen, die wir durch unser Denken finden, so ist das planmäßige Zusammenstimmen der Glieder eines Wahrnehmungsganzen eben das ideelle Zusammenstimmen der in diesem Wahrnehmungsganzen enthaltenen Glieder eines Ideenganzen. Wenn gesagt wird, das Tier oder der Mensch sei nicht bestimmt durch eine in der Luft schwebende Idee, so ist das schief ausgedrückt, und die verurteilte Ansicht verliert bei der Richtigstellung des Ausdruckes von selbst den absurden Charakter. Das Tier ist allerdings nicht durch eine in der Luft schwebende Idee, wohl aber durch eine ihm eingeborene und seine gesetzmäßige Wesenheit ausmachende Idee b~ stimmt. Gerade weil die Idee nicht außer dem Dinge ist, sondern in demselben als dessen Wesen wirkt, kann nicht von Zweckmäßigkeit gesprochen werden. Gerade derjenige, der leugnet, daß das Naturwesen von außen bestimmt ist (ob durch eine in der Luft schwebende Idee oder eine außerhalb des Geschöpfes im Geiste eines Weltschöpfers existierende ist in dieser Beziehung ganz gleichgültig), muß zugeben, daß dieses Wesen nicht zweckmäßig und planvoll von außen, sondern ursächlich und gesetzmäßig von innen bestimmt wird. Eine Maschine gestalte ich dann zweckmäßig, wenn ich die Teile in einen Zusammenhang bringe, den sie von Natur aus nicht haben. Das Zweckmäßige der Einrichtung besteht dann darin, daß ich die Wirkungsweise der Maschine als deren Idee ihr zugrunde gelegt habe. Die Maschine ist dadurch ein Wahrnehmungsobjekt mit entsprechender Idee geworden. Solche Wesen sind auch die Naturwesen. Wer ein Ding deshalb zweckmäßig nennt, weil es gesetzmäßig gebildet ist, der mag die Naturwesen eben auch mit dieser Bezeichnung belegen. Nur darf diese Gesetzmäßigkeit nicht mit jener des subjektiven menschlichen Handelns verwechselt werden. Zum Zweck ist eben durchaus notwendig, daß die wirkende Ursache ein Begriff ist, und zwar der der Wirkung. In der Natur sind aber nirgends Begriffe als Ursachen nachzuweisen; der Begriff erweist sich stets nur als der ideelle Zusammenhang von Ursache und Wirkung. Ursachen sind in der Natur nur in Form von Wahrnehmungen vorhanden.
[ 9 ] Der Dualismus kann von Welt, und Naturzwecken reden. Wo für unsere Wahrnehmung eine gesetzmäßige Verknüpfung von Ursache und Wirkung sich äußert, da kann der Dualist annehmen, daß wir nur den Abklatsch eines Zusammenhanges sehen, in dem das absolute Weltwesen seine Zwecke verwirklichte. Für den Monismus entfällt mit dem absoluten nicht erlebbaren, sondern nur hypothetisch erschlossenen Weltwesen auch der Grund zur Annahme von Welt, und Naturzwecken.
Zusatz zur Neuausgabe 1918
[ 10 ] Man wird bei vorurteilslosem Durchdenken des hier Ausgeführten nicht zu der Ansicht kommen können, daß der Verfasser dieser Darstellung mit seiner Ablehnung des Zweckbegriffs für außer-menschliche Tatsachen auf dem Boden derjenigen Denker stand, die durch das Verwerfen dieses Begriffes sich die Möglichkeit schaffen, alles außerhalb des Menschenhandelns liegende — und dann dieses selbst — als nur natürliches Geschehen aufzufassen. Davor sollte schon der Umstand schützen, daß in diesem Buche der Denkvorgang als ein rein geistiger dargestellt wird. Wenn hier auch für die geistige, außerhalb des menschlichen Handelns liegende Welt der Zweckgedanke abgelehnt wird, so geschieht es, weil in dieser Welt ein höheres als der Zweck, der sich im Menschentum verwirklicht, zur Offenbarung kommt. Und wenn von einer nach dem Muster der menschlichen Zweckmäßigkeit gedachten zweckmäßigen Bestimmung des Menschengeschlechtes als von einem irrigen Gedanken gesprochen ist, so ist gemeint, daß der Einzelmensch sich Zwecke setzt, aus diesen setzt sich das Ergebnis der Gesamtwirksamkeit der Menschheit zusammen. Dieses Ergebnis ist dann ein höheres als seine Glieder, die Menschenzwecke.
XI. World purpose and purpose of life
[ 1 ] Among the manifold currents in the spiritual life of mankind, there is one that can be called the overcoming of the concept of purpose in areas to which it does not belong. The purposefulness is a certain kind in the sequence of phenomena. Purposefulness is only truly real if, in contrast to the relationship between cause and effect, where the preceding event determines a later one, the subsequent event has a determining effect on the earlier one. This is initially only the case with human actions. Man performs an action which he imagines before and allows this imagination to determine the action. The later, the action, affects the earlier, the acting person, with the help of the imagination. However, this detour through the imagination is absolutely necessary for the purposeful connection.
[ 2 ] In the process that breaks down into cause and effect, perception must be distinguished from the concept. The perception of the cause precedes the perception of the effect; cause and effect would simply exist side by side in our consciousness if we could not connect them with each other through their corresponding concepts. The perception of the effect can only ever follow the perception of the cause. If the effect is to have a real influence on the cause, this can only be through the conceptual factor. For the perceptual factor of the effect simply does not exist before that of the cause. Whoever claims that the blossom is the purpose of the root, that is, that the former has an influence on the latter, can only claim this of the factor in the blossom which he states by thinking about it. The perceptual factor of the flower has no existence at the time of the root's origin. For the purposeful connection, however, not only the ideal, lawful connection of the later with the earlier is necessary, but the concept (the law) of the effect must actually influence the cause through a perceptible process. However, we can only observe a perceptible influence of one concept on something else in human actions. Here, therefore, the concept of purpose alone is applicable. The naive consciousness, which only accepts the perceptible, seeks - as we have repeatedly noted - to transfer the perceptible to where only the ideal can be recognized. It seeks perceptible connections in the perceptible event or, if it does not find them, it dreams them into it. The concept of purpose in subjective action is a suitable element for such dreamed connections. The naive person knows how to bring about an event and concludes from this that nature will do the same. He sees not only invisible forces, but also imperceptible real purposes in the purely ideal connections of nature. Man makes his tools purposeful; the naive realist lets the Creator build organisms according to the same recipe. Only very gradually is this false concept of purpose disappearing from the sciences. In philosophy it is still quite rampant today. Questions are asked about the otherworldly purpose of the world, about the otherworldly purpose (and therefore also the purpose) of human beings and so on.
[ 3 ] Monism rejects the concept of purpose in all areas with the sole exception of human action. It searches for natural laws, but not for natural purposes. Natural purposes are arbitrary assumptions such as imperceptible forces (5. 121 f.). But purposes of life which man does not set for himself are also unjustified assumptions from the standpoint of monism. Only that which man has made purposeful is purposeful, for only through the realization of an idea does purposefulness arise. However, the idea only becomes effective in the realistic sense in man. That is why human life only has the purpose and destiny that man gives it. To the question: what is man's task in life? monism can only answer: that which he sets for himself. My mission in the world is not a predetermined one, but the one I choose for myself. I do not embark on my life's journey with a fixed route.
[ 4 ] Ideas are only realized expediently through people. It is therefore inadmissible to speak of the embodiment of ideas through history. All such phrases as: "history is the development of human beings towards freedom", or the realization of the moral world order and so on are untenable from a monistic point of view.
[ 5 ] The supporters of the concept of purpose believe that all order and unity of the world must be abandoned along with it. Listen, for example, to Robert Hamerling (Atomistik des Willens, Volume II, p. 201): "As long as there are drives in nature, it is folly to deny purposes in it.
[ 6 ] Just as the formation of a limb of the human body is not determined and conditioned by an idea of this limb floating in the air, but by its connection with the larger whole, the body, to which the limb belongs, so the formation of every natural being, be it plant, animal, man, is not determined and conditioned by an idea of it floating in the air, but by the principle of form of the larger, purposefully living and shaping whole of nature. " And page 191 of the same volume: "The theory of purpose only asserts that despite the thousand inconveniences and torments of this creaturely life, a high purpose and planfulness is unmistakably present in the formations and developments of nature - a planfulness and purposefulness, however, which is only realized within the laws of nature, and which cannot aim at a world of creation, in which life would not be confronted with death, becoming with decay, with all the more or less unpleasant but inevitable intermediate stages.
[ 7 ] I find it equally droll when the opponents of the concept of purpose oppose a laboriously assembled heap of half or whole, supposed or real inexpediencies to a world of wonders of purposefulness, as nature exhibits them in all areas." -
[ 8 ] What is expediency called here? A coordination of perceptions into a whole. But since all perceptions are based on laws (ideas) that we find through our thinking, then the planned harmonization of the members of a perceptual whole is precisely the ideal harmonization of the members of an idea whole contained in this perceptual whole. If it is said that the animal or the human being is not determined by an idea floating in the air, this is wrongly expressed, and the condemned view loses its absurd character by itself when the expression is corrected. The animal, however, is not characterized by an idea floating in the air, but by an idea that is innate to it and constitutes its lawful essence. Precisely because the idea is not external to the thing, but acts within it as its essence, we cannot speak of purposefulness. Precisely the person who denies that the natural being is determined from outside (whether by an idea floating in the air or an idea existing outside the creature in the spirit of a world creator is quite indifferent in this respect) must admit that this being is not purposively and purposefully determined from outside, but causally and lawfully from within. I design a machine purposefully when I bring the parts into a connection that they do not have by nature. The purposefulness of the device then consists in the fact that I have based it on the machine's mode of operation as its idea. The machine has thereby become an object of perception with a corresponding idea. Such beings are also the beings of nature. Whoever calls a thing purposeful because it is formed according to law, may also assign this designation to natural beings. But this lawfulness must not be confused with that of subjective human action. For purpose it is absolutely necessary that the effective cause be a concept, namely that of effect. Nowhere in nature, however, can concepts be demonstrated as causes; the concept always proves to be only the ideal connection between cause and effect. Causes are only present in nature in the form of perceptions.
[ 9 ] Dualism can speak of the world and the purposes of nature. Where our perception perceives a lawful connection between cause and effect, the dualist can assume that we see only a copy of a connection in which the absolute world being realizes its purposes. For monism, the reason for assuming the world and the purposes of nature is eliminated with the absolute world being, which cannot be experienced but only hypothetically developed.
Addition to the new edition 1918
[ 10 ] If one thinks through what has been said here without prejudice, one cannot come to the conclusion that the author of this exposition, in rejecting the concept of purpose for non-human facts, was standing on the ground of those thinkers who, by rejecting this concept, create the possibility of understanding everything that lies outside of human action - and then this action itself - as only natural events. This should be guarded against by the fact that in this book the thinking process is presented as a purely spiritual one. If the idea of purpose is also rejected here for the spiritual world lying outside of human action, it is because in this world a higher purpose than that which is realized in humanity is revealed. And when we speak of a purposeful destiny of the human race, conceived according to the pattern of human expediency, as an erroneous thought, we mean that the individual sets himself purposes, from which the result of the overall effectiveness of humanity is composed. This result is then a higher than its members, the purposes of mankind.