The Philosophy of Freedom
GA 4
9. The Idea of Freedom
[ 1 ] For our cognition, the concept of the tree is conditioned by the percept of the tree. When faced with a particular percept, I can select only one particular concept from the general system of concepts. The connection of concept and percept is determined by thinking, indirectly and objectively, at the level of the percept. This connection of the percept with its concept is recognized after the act of perceiving; but that they do belong together lies in the very nature of things.
[ 2 ] The process looks different when we examine knowledge, or rather the relation of man to the world which arises within knowledge. In the preceding chapters the attempt has been made to show that an unprejudiced observation of this relationship is able to throw light on its nature. A proper understanding of this observation leads to the insight that thinking can be directly discerned as a self-contained entity. Those who find it necessary for the explanation of thinking as such to invoke something else, such as physical brain processes or unconscious spiritual processes lying behind the conscious thinking which they observe, fail to recognize what an unprejudiced observation of thinking yields. When we observe our thinking, we live during this observation directly within a self-supporting, spiritual web of being. Indeed, we can even say that if we would grasp the essential nature of spirit in the form in which it presents itself most immediately to man, we need only look at the self-sustaining activity of thinking.
[ 3 ] When we are contemplating thinking itself, two things coincide which otherwise must always appear apart, namely, concept and percept. If we fail to see this, we shall be unable to regard the concepts which we have elaborated with respect to percepts as anything but shadowy copies of these percepts, and we shall take the percepts as presenting to us the true reality. We shall, further, build up for ourselves a metaphysical world after the pattern of the perceived world; we shall call this a world of atoms, a world of will, a world of unconscious spirit, or whatever, each according to his own kind of mental imagery. And we shall fail to notice that all the time we have been doing nothing but building up a metaphysical world hypothetically, after the pattern of our own world of percepts. But if we recognize what is present in thinking, we shall realize that in the percept we have only one part of the reality and that the other part which belongs to it, and which first allows the full reality to appear, is experienced by us in the permeation of the percept by thinking. We shall see in this element that appears in our consciousness as thinking, not a shadowy copy of some reality, but a self-sustaining spiritual essence. And of this we shall be able to say that it is brought into consciousness for us through intuition. Intuition is the conscious experience—in pure spirit—of a purely spiritual content. Only through an intuition can the essence of thinking be grasped.
[ 4 ] Only if, by means of unprejudiced observation, one has wrestled through to the recognition of this truth of the intuitive essence of thinking will one succeed in clearing the way for an insight into the psyche-physical organization of man. One will see that this organization can have no effect on the essential nature of thinking. At first sight this seems to be contradicted by patently obvious facts. For ordinary experience, human thinking makes its appearance only in connection with, and by means of, this organization. This form of its appearance comes so much to the fore that its real significance cannot be grasped unless we recognize that in the essence of thinking this organization plays no part whatever. Once we appreciate this, we can no longer fail to notice what a peculiar kind of relationship there is between the human organization and the thinking itself. For this organization contributes nothing to the essential nature of thinking, but recedes whenever the activity of thinking makes its appearance; it suspends its own activity, it yields ground; and on the ground thus left empty, the thinking appears. The essence which is active in thinking has a twofold function: first, it represses the activity of the human organization; secondly, it steps into its place. For even the former, the repression of the physical organization, is a consequence of the activity of thinking, and more particularly of that part of this activity which prepares the manifestation of thinking. From this one can see in what sense thinking finds its counterpart in the physical organization. When we see this, we can no longer misjudge the significance of this counterpart of the activity of thinking. When we walk over soft ground, our feet leave impressions in the soil. We shall not be tempted to say that these footprints have been formed from below by the forces of the ground. We shall not attribute to these forces any share in the production of the footprints. Just as little, if we observe the essential nature of thinking without prejudice, shall we attribute any share in that nature to the traces in the physical organism which arise through the fact that the thinking prepares its manifestation by means of the body.1The way in which the above view has influenced psychology, physiology, etc., in various directions, has been set forth by the author in works published after this book. Here he is concerned only with characterizing the results of an unbiased observation of thinking itself.
[ 5 ] An important question, however, emerges here. If the human organization has no part in the essential nature of thinking, what is the significance of this organization within the whole nature of man? Now, what happens in this organization through the thinking has indeed nothing to do with the essence of thinking, but it has a great deal to do with the arising of the ego-consciousness out of this thinking. Thinking, in its own essential nature, certainly contains the real I or ego, but it does not contain the ego-consciousness. To see this we have but to observe thinking with an open mind. The “I” is to be found within the thinking; the “ego-consciousness” arises through the traces which the activity of thinking engraves upon our general consciousness, in the sense explained above. (The ego-consciousness thus arises through the bodily organization. However, this must not be taken to imply that the ego-consciousness, once it has arisen, remains dependent on the bodily organization. Once arisen, it is taken up into thinking and shares henceforth in thinking's spiritual being.)
[ 6 ] The “ego-consciousness” is built upon the human organization. Out of the latter flow our acts of will. Following the lines of the preceding argument, we can gain insight into the connections between thinking, conscious I, and act of will, only by observing first how an act of will issues from the human organization.2The passage from the beginning of the chapter down to this point was added or rewritten for the 1918 edition.
[ 7 ] In any particular act of will we must take into account the motive and the driving force. The motive is a factor with the character of a concept or a mental picture; the driving force is the will-factor belonging to the human organization and directly conditioned by it. The conceptual factor, or motive, is the momentary determining factor of the will; the driving force is the permanent determining factor of the individual. A motive for the will may be a pure concept, or else a concept with a particular reference to a percept, that is, a mental picture. Both general concepts and individual ones (mental pictures) become motives of will by affecting the human individual and determining him to action in a particular direction. But one and the same concept, or one and the same mental picture, affects different individuals differently. They stimulate different men to different actions. An act of will is therefore not merely the outcome of the concept or the mental picture but also of the individual make-up of the person. Here we may well follow the example of Eduard von Hartmann and call this individual make-up the characterological disposition. The manner in which concept and mental picture affects the characterological disposition of a man gives to his life a definite moral or ethical stamp.
[ 8 ] The characterological disposition is formed by the more or less permanent content of our subjective life, that is, by the content of our mental pictures and feelings. Whether a mental picture which enters my mind at this moment stimulates me to an act of will or not, depends on how it relates itself to the content of all my other mental pictures and also to my idiosyncrasies of feeling. But after all, the general content of my mental pictures is itself conditioned by the sum total of those concepts which have, in the course of my individual life, come into contact with percepts, that is, have become mental pictures. This sum, again, depends on my greater or lesser capacity for intuition and on the range of my observations, that is, on the subjective and objective factors of experience, on my inner nature and situation in life. My characterological disposition is determined especially by my life of feeling. Whether I shall make a particular mental picture or concept into a motive of action or not, will depend on whether it gives me joy or pain.
These are the elements which we have to consider in an act of will. The immediately present mental picture or concept, which becomes the motive, determines the aim or the purpose of my will; my characterological disposition determines me to direct my activity towards this aim. The mental picture of taking a walk in the next half-hour determines the aim of my action. But this mental picture is raised to the level of a motive for my will only if it meets with a suitable characterological disposition, that is, if during my past life I have formed the mental pictures of the sense and purpose of taking a walk, of the value of health, and further, if the mental picture of taking a walk is accompanied in me by a feeling of pleasure.
[ 9 ] We must therefore distinguish (1) the possible subjective dispositions which are capable of turning certain mental pictures and concepts into motives, and (2) the possible mental pictures and concepts which are in a position to influence my characterological disposition so that an act of will results. For our moral life the former represent the driving force, and the latter, its aims.
[ 10 ] The driving force in the moral life can be discovered by finding out the elements of which individual life is composed.
[ 11 ] The first level of individual life is that of perceiving, more particularly perceiving through the senses. This is the region of our individual life in which perceiving translates itself directly into willing, without the intervention of either a feeling or a concept. The driving force here involved is simply called instinct. The satisfaction of our lower, purely animal needs (hunger, sexual intercourse, etc.) comes about in this way. The main characteristic of instinctive life is the immediacy with which the single percept releases the act of will. This kind of determination of the will, which belongs originally only to the life of the lower senses, may however become extended also to the percepts of the higher senses. We may react to the percept of a certain event in the external world without reflecting on what we do, without any special feeling connecting itself with the percept, as in fact happens in our conventional social behaviour. The driving force of such action is called tact or moral good taste. The more often such immediate reactions to a percept occur, the more the person concerned will prove himself able to act purely under the guidance of tact; that is, tact becomes his characterological disposition.
[ 12 ] The second level of human life is feeling. Definite feelings accompany the percepts of the external world. These feelings may become the driving force of an action. When I see a starving man, my pity for him may become the driving force of my action. Such feelings, for example, are shame, pride, sense of honour, humility, remorse, pity, revenge, gratitude, piety, loyalty, love, and duty.3A complete catalogue of the principles of morality (from the point of view of metaphysical realism) may be found in Eduard von Hartmann's Phaenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins.
[ 13 ] The third level of life amounts to thinking and forming mental pictures. A mental picture or a concept may become the motive of an action through mere reflection. Mental pictures become motives because, in the course of life, we regularly connect certain aims of our will with percepts which recur again and again in more or less modified form. Hence with people not wholly devoid of experience it happens that the occurrence of certain percepts is always accompanied by the appearance in consciousness of mental pictures of actions that they themselves have carried out in a similar case or have seen others carry out. These mental pictures float before their minds as patterns which determine all subsequent decisions; they become parts of their characterological disposition. The driving force in the will, in this case, we can call practical experience. Practical experience merges gradually into purely tactful behaviour. This happens when definite typical pictures of actions have become so firmly connected in our minds with mental pictures of certain situations in life that, in any given instance, we skip over all deliberation based on experience and go straight from the percept to the act of will.
[ 14 ] The highest level of individual life is that of conceptual thinking without regard to any definite perceptual content. We determine the content of a concept through pure intuition from out of the ideal sphere. Such a concept contains, at first, no reference to any definite percepts. If we enter upon an act of will under the influence of a concept which refers to a percept, that is, under the influence of a mental picture, then it is this percept which determines our action indirectly by way of the conceptual thinking. But if we act under the influence of intuitions, the driving force of our action is pure thinking. As it is the custom in philosophy to call the faculty of pure thinking “reason”, we may well be justified in giving the name of practical reason to the moral driving force characteristic of this level of life. The dearest account of this driving force in the will has been given by Kreyenbuehl4Philosophische Monatshefte, Vol. xviii, No. 3.. In my opinion his article on this subject is one of the most important contributions to present-day philosophy, more especially to Ethics. Kreyenbuehl calls the driving force we are here discussing, the practical a priori, that is, an impulse to action issuing directly from my intuition.
[ 15 ] It is clear that such an impulse can no longer be counted in the strictest sense as belonging to the characterological disposition. For what is here effective as the driving force is no longer something merely individual in me, but the ideal and hence universal content of my intuition. As soon as I see the justification for taking this content as the basis and starting point of an action, I enter upon the act of will irrespective of whether I have had the concept beforehand or whether it only enters my consciousness immediately before the action, that is, irrespective of whether it was already present as a disposition in me or not.
[ 16 ] Since a real act of will results only when a momentary impulse to action, in the form of a concept or mental picture, acts on the characterological disposition, such an impulse then becomes the motive of the will.
[ 17 ] The motives of moral conduct are mental pictures and concepts. There are Moral Philosophers who see a motive for moral behaviour also in the feelings; they assert, for instance, that the aim of moral action is to promote the greatest possible quantity of pleasure for the acting individual. Pleasure itself, however, cannot become a motive; only an imagined pleasure can. The mental picture of a future feeling, but not the feeling itself, can act on my characterological disposition. For the feeling itself does not yet exist in the moment of action; it has first to be produced by the action.
[ 18 ] The mental picture of one's own or another's welfare is, however, rightly regarded as a motive of the will. The principle of producing the greatest quantity of pleasure for oneself through one's action, that is, of attaining individual happiness, is called egoism. The attainment of this individual happiness is sought either by thinking ruthlessly only of one's own good and striving to attain it even at the cost of the happiness of other individuals (pure egoism), or by promoting the good of others, either because one anticipates a favourable influence on one's own person indirectly through the happiness of others, or because one fears to endanger one's own interest by injuring others (morality of prudence). The special content of the egoistical principles of morality will depend on the mental pictures which we form of what constitutes our own, or others', happiness. A man will determine the content of his egoistical striving in accordance with what he regards as the good things of life (luxury, hope of happiness, deliverance from various evils, and so on).
[ 19 ] The purely conceptual content of an action is to be regarded as yet another kind of motive. This content refers not to the particular action only, as with the mental picture of one's own pleasures, but to the derivation of an action from a system of moral principles. These moral principles, in the form of abstract concepts, may regulate the individual's moral life without his worrying himself about the origin of the concepts. In that case, we simply feel that submitting to a moral concept in the form of a commandment overshadowing our actions, is a moral necessity. The establishment of this necessity we leave to those who demand moral subjection from us, that is, to the moral authority that we acknowledge (the head of the family, the state, social custom, the authority of the church, divine revelation). It is a special kind of these moral principles when the commandment is made known to us not through an external authority but through our own inner life (moral autonomy). In this case we hear the voice to which we have to submit ourselves, in our own souls. This voice expresses itself as conscience.
[ 20 ] It is a moral advance when a man no longer simply accepts the commands of an outer or inner authority as the motive of his action, but tries to understand the reason why a particular maxim of behaviour should act as a motive in him. This is the advance from morality based on authority to action out of moral insight. At this level of morality a man will try to find out the requirements of the moral life and will let his actions be determined by the knowledge of them. Such requirements are
the greatest possible good of mankind purely for its own sake;
the progress of civilization, or the moral evolution of mankind towards ever greater perfection;
the realization of individual moral aims grasped by pure intuition.
[ 21 ] The greatest possible good of mankind will naturally be understood in different ways by different people. This maxim refers not to any particular mental picture of this “good” but to the fact that everyone who acknowledges this principle strives to do whatever, in his opinion, most promotes the good of mankind.
[ 22 ] The progress of civilization, for those to whom the blessings of civilization bring a feeling of pleasure, turns out to be a special case of the foregoing moral principle. Of course, they will have to take into the bargain the decline and destruction of a number of things that also contribute to the general good. It is also possible, however, that some people regard the progress of civilization as a moral necessity quite apart from the feeling of pleasure that it brings. For them, this becomes a special moral principle in addition to the previous one.
[ 23 ] The principle of the progress of civilization, like that of the general good, is based on a mental picture, that is, on the way we relate the content of our moral ideas to particular experiences (percepts). The highest conceivable moral principle, however, is one that from the start contains no such reference to particular experiences, but springs from the source of pure intuition and only later seeks any reference to percepts, that is, to life. Here the decision as to what is to be willed proceeds from an authority very different from that of the foregoing cases. If a man holds to the principle of the general good, he will, in all his actions, first ask what his ideals will contribute to this general good. If a man upholds the principle of the progress of civilization, he will act similarly. But there is a still higher way which does not start from one and the same particular moral aim in each case, but sees a certain value in all moral principles and always asks whether in the given case this or that principle is the more important. It may happen that in some circumstances a man considers the right aim to be the progress of civilization, in others the promotion of the general good, and in yet another the promotion of his own welfare, and in each case makes that the motive of his action. But if no other ground for decision claims more than second place, then conceptual intuition itself comes first and foremost into consideration. All other motives now give way, and the idea behind an action alone becomes its motive.
[ 24 ] Among the levels of characterological disposition, we have singled out as the highest the one that works as pure thinking or practical reason. Among the motives, we have just singled out conceptual intuition as the highest. On closer inspection it will at once be seen that at this level of morality driving force and motive coincide; that is, neither a predetermined characterological disposition nor the external authority of an accepted moral principle influences our conduct. The action is therefore neither a stereotyped one which merely follows certain rules, nor is it one which we automatically perform in response to an external impulse, but it is an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content.
[ 25 ] Such an action presupposes the capacity for moral intuitions. Whoever lacks the capacity to experience for himself the particular moral principle for each single situation, will never achieve truly individual willing.
[ 26 ] Kant's principle of morality—Act so that the basis of your action may be valid for all men—is the exact opposite of ours. His principle means death to all individual impulses of action. For me, the standard can never be the way all men would act, but rather what, for me, is to be done in each individual case.
[ 27 ] A superficial judgment might raise the following objection to these arguments: How can an action be individually made to fit the special case and the special situation, and yet at the same time be determined by intuition in a purely ideal way? This objection rests upon a confusion of the moral motive with the perceptible content of an action. The latter may be a motive, and actually is one in the case of the progress of civilization, or when we act from egoism, and so forth, but in an action based on pure moral intuition it is not the motive. Of course, my “I” takes notice of these perceptual contents, but it does not allow itself to be determined by them. The content is used only to construct a cognitive concept, but the corresponding moral concept is not derived by the “I” from the object. The cognitive concept of a given situation facing me is at the same time a moral concept only if I take the standpoint of a particular moral principle. If I were to base my conduct only on the general principle of the development of civilization, then my way through life would be tied down to a fixed route. From every occurrence which I perceive and which concerns me, there springs at the same time a moral duty: namely, to do my little bit towards seeing that this occurrence is made to serve the development of civilization. In addition to the concept which reveals to me the connections of events or objects according to the laws of nature, there is also a moral label attached to them which for me, as a moral person, gives ethical directions as to how I have to conduct myself. Such a moral label is justified on its own ground; at a higher level it coincides with the idea which reveals itself to me when I am faced with the concrete instance.
[ 28 ] Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In one, ideas just bubble up; another acquires them with much labour. The situations in which men live and which provide the scenes of their actions are no less varied. The conduct of a man will therefore depend on the manner in which his faculty of intuition works in a given situation. The sum of ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitutes what is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universality of the world of ideas. In so far as this intuitive content applies to action, it constitutes the moral content of the individual. To let this content express itself in life is both the highest moral driving force and the highest motive a man can have, who sees that in this content all other moral principles are in the end united. We may call this point of view ethical individualism.
[ 29 ] The decisive factor of an intuitively determined action in any concrete instance is the discovery of the corresponding purely individual intuition. At this level of morality one can only speak of general concepts of morality (standards, laws) in so far as these result from the generalization of the individual impulses. General standards always presuppose concrete facts from which they can be derived. But the facts have first to be created by human action.
[ 30 ] If we seek out the rules (conceptual principles) underlying the actions of individuals, peoples, and epochs, we obtain a system of ethics which is not so much a science of moral laws as a natural history of morality. It is only the laws obtained in this way that are related to human action as the laws of nature are related to a particular phenomenon. These laws, however, are by no means identical with the impulses on which we base our actions. If we want to understand how a man's action arises from his moral will, we must first study the relation of this will to the action. Above all, we must keep our eye on those actions in which this relation is the determining factor. If I, or someone else, reflect upon such an action afterwards, we can discover what moral principles come into question with regard to it. While I am performing the action I am influenced by a moral maxim in so far as it can live in me intuitively; it is bound up with my love for the objective that I want to realize through my action. I ask no man and no rule, “Shall I perform this action?”—but carry it out as soon as I have grasped the idea of it. This alone makes it my action. If a man acts only because he accepts certain moral standards, his action is the outcome of the principles which compose his moral code. He merely carries out orders. He is a superior automaton. Inject some stimulus to action into his mind, and at once the clockwork of his moral principles will set itself in motion and run its prescribed course, so as to result in an action which is Christian, or humane, or seemingly unselfish, or calculated to promote the progress of civilization. Only when I follow my love for my objective is it I myself who act. I act, at this level of morality, not because I acknowledge a lord over me, or an external authority, or a so-called inner voice; I acknowledge no external principle for my action, because I have found in myself the ground for my action, namely, my love of the action. I do not work out mentally whether my action is good or bad; I carry it out because I love it. My action will be “good” if my intuition, steeped in love, finds its right place within the intuitively experienceable world continuum; it will be “bad” if this is not the case. Again, I do not ask myself, “How would another man act in my position?”—but I act as I, this particular individuality, find I have occasion to do. No general usage, no common custom, no maxim applying to all men, no moral standard is my immediate guide, but my love for the deed. I feel no compulsion, neither the compulsion of nature which guides me by my instincts, nor the compulsion of the moral commandments, but I want simply to carry out what lies within me.
[ 31 ] Those who defend general moral standards might reply to these arguments that if everyone strives to live his own life and do what he pleases, there can be no distinction between a good deed and a crime; every corrupt impulse that lies within me has as good a claim to express itself as has the intention of serving the general good. What determines me as a moral being cannot be the mere fact of my having conceived the idea of an action, but whether I judge it to be good or evil. Only in the former case should I carry it out.
[ 32 ] My reply to this very obvious objection, which is nevertheless based on a misapprehension of my argument, is this: If we want to understand the nature of the human will, we must distinguish between the path which leads this will to a certain degree of development and the unique character which the will assumes as it approaches this goal. On the path towards this goal the standards play their rightful part. The goal consists of the realization of moral aims grasped by pure intuition. Man attains such aims to the extent that he is able to raise himself at all to the intuitive world of ideas. In any particular act of will such moral aims will generally have other elements mixed in with them, either as driving force or as motive. Nevertheless intuition may still be wholly or partly the determining factor in the human will. What one should do, that one does; one provides the stage upon which obligation becomes deed; one's own action is what one brings forth from oneself. Here the impulse can only be wholly individual. And, in truth, only an act of will that springs from intuition can be an individual one. To regard evil, the deed of a criminal, as an expression of the human individuality in the same sense as one regards the embodiment of pure intuition is only possible if blind instincts are reckoned as part of the human individuality. But the blind instinct that drives a man to crime does not spring from intuition, and does not belong to what is individual in him, but rather to what is most general in him, to what is equally present in all individuals and out of which a man works his way by means of what is individual in him. What is individual in me is not my organism with its instincts and its feelings but rather the unified world of ideas which lights up within this organism. My instincts, urges and passions establish no more than that I belong to the general species man; it is the fact that something of the idea world comes to expression in a particular way within these urges, passions and feelings that establishes my individuality. Through my instincts and cravings, I am the sort of man of whom there are twelve to the dozen; through the particular form of the idea by means of which I designate myself within the dozen as “I”, I am an individual. Only a being other than myself could distinguish me from others by the difference in my animal nature; through my thinking, that is, by actively grasping what expresses itself in my organism as idea, I distinguish myself from others. Therefore one cannot say of the action of a criminal that it proceeds from the idea within him. Indeed, the characteristic feature of criminal actions is precisely that they spring from the non-ideal elements in man.
[ 33 ] An action is felt to be free in so far as the reasons for it spring from the ideal part of my individual being; every other part of an action, irrespective of whether it is carried out under the compulsion of nature or under the obligation of a moral standard, is felt to be unfree.
[ 34 ] Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life. A moral deed is my deed only if it can be called a free one in this sense. We have here considered what conditions are required for an intentional action to be felt as a free one; how this purely ethically understood idea of freedom comes to realization in the being of man will be shown in what follows.
[ 35 ] Acting out of freedom does not exclude the moral laws; it includes them, but shows itself to be on a higher level than those actions which are merely dictated by such laws. Why should my action be of less service to the public good when I have done it out of love than when I have done it only because I consider serving the public good to be my duty? The mere concept of duty excludes freedom because it does not acknowledge the individual element but demands that this be subject to a general standard. Freedom of action is conceivable only from the standpoint of ethical individualism.
[ 36 ] But how is a social life possible for man if each one is only striving to assert his own individuality? This objection is characteristic of a false understanding of moralism. Such a moralist believes that a social community is possible only if all men are united by a communally fixed moral order. What this kind of moralist does not understand is just the unity of the world of ideas. He does not see that the world of ideas working in me is no other than the one working in my fellow man. Admittedly, this unity is but an outcome of practical experience. But in fact it cannot be anything else. For if it could be known in any other way than by observation, then in its own sphere universal standards rather than individual experience would be the rule. Individuality is possible only if every individual being knows of others through individual observation alone. I differ from my fellow man, not at all because we are living in two entirely different spiritual worlds, but because from the world of ideas common to us both we receive different intuitions. He wants to live out his intuitions, I mine. If we both really conceive out of the idea, and do not obey any external impulses (physical or spiritual), then we cannot but meet one another in like striving, in common intent. A moral misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible between men who are morally free. Only the morally unfree who follow their natural instincts or the accepted commands of duty come into conflict with their neighbours if these do not obey the same instincts and the same commands as themselves. To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men. They know no other obligation than what their will puts itself in unison with intuitively; how they will direct their will in a particular case, their faculty for ideas will decide.
[ 37 ] Were the ability to get on with one another not a basic part of human nature, no external laws would be able to implant it in us. It is only because human individuals are one in spirit that they can live out their lives side by side. The free man lives in confidence that he and any other free man belong to one spiritual world, and that their intentions will harmonize. The free man does not demand agreement from his fellow man, but expects to find it because it is inherent in human nature. I am not here referring to the necessity for this or that external institution, but to the disposition, the attitude of soul, through which a man, aware of himself among his fellows, most clearly expresses the ideal of human dignity.
[ 38 ] There are many who will say that the concept of the free man which I have here developed is a chimera nowhere to be found in practice; we have to do with actual human beings, from whom we can only hope for morality if they obey some moral law, that is, if they regard their moral task as a duty and do not freely follow their inclinations and loves. I do not doubt this at all. Only a blind man could do so. But if this is to be the final conclusion, then away with all this hypocrisy about morality! Let us then simply say that human nature must be driven to its actions as long as it is not free. Whether his unfreedom is forced on him by physical means or by moral laws, whether man is unfree because he follows his unlimited sexual desire or because he is bound by the fetters of conventional morality, is quite immaterial from a certain point of view. Only let us not assert that such a man can rightly call his actions his own, seeing that he is driven to them by a force other than himself. But in the midst of all this framework of compulsion there arise men who establish themselves as free spirits in all the welter of customs, legal codes, religious observances, and so forth. They are free in so far as they obey only themselves, unfree in so far as they submit to control. Which of us can say that he is really free in all his actions? Yet in each of us there dwells a deeper being in which the free man finds expression.
[ 39 ] Our life is made up of free and unfree actions. We cannot, however, think out the concept of man completely without coming upon the free spirit as the purest expression of human nature. Indeed, we are men in the true sense only in so far as we are free.
[ 40 ] This is an ideal, many will say. Doubtless; but it is an ideal which is a real element in us working its way to the surface of our nature. It is no ideal just thought up or dreamed, but one which has life, and which announces itself clearly even in the least perfect form of its existence. If man were merely a natural creature, there would be no such thing as the search for ideals, that is, for ideas which for the moment are not effective but whose realization is required. With the things of the outer world, the idea is determined by the percept; we have done our share when we have recognized the connection between idea and percept. But with the human being it is not so. The sum total of his existence is not fully determined without his own self; his true concept as a moral being (free spirit) is not objectively united from the start with the percept-picture “man” needing only to be confirmed by knowledge afterwards. Man must unite his concept with the percept of man by his own activity. Concept and percept coincide in this case only if man himself makes them coincide. This he can do only if he has found the concept of the free spirit, that is, if he has found the concept of his own self. In the objective world a dividing line is drawn by our organization between percept and concept; knowledge overcomes this division. In our subjective nature this division is no less present; man overcomes it in the course of his development by bringing the concept of himself to expression in his outward existence. Hence not only man's intellectual but also his moral life leads to his twofold nature, perceiving (direct experience) and thinking. The intellectual life overcomes this two-fold nature by means of knowledge, the moral life overcomes it through the actual realization of the free spirit. Every existing thing has its inborn concept (the law of its being and doing), but in external objects this concept is indivisibly bound up with the percept, and separated from it only within our spiritual organization. In man concept and percept are, at first, actually separated, to be just as actually united by him.
One might object: At every moment of a man's life there is a definite concept corresponding to our percept of him just as with everything else. I can form for myself the concept of a particular type of man, and I may even find such a man given to me as a percept; if I now add to this the concept of a free spirit, then I have two concepts for the same object.
[ 41 ] Such an objection is one-sided. As object of perception I am subjected to continual change. As a child I was one thing, another as a youth, yet another as a man. Indeed, at every moment the percept-picture of myself is different from what it was the moment before. These changes may take place in such a way that it is always the same man (the type) who reveals himself in them, or that they represent the expression of a free spirit. To such changes my action, as object of perception, is subjected.
[ 42 ] The perceptual object “man” has in it the possibility of transforming itself, just as the plant seed contains the possibility of becoming a complete plant. The plant transforms itself because of the objective law inherent in it; the human being remains in his incomplete state unless he takes hold of the material for transformation within him and transforms himself through his own power. Nature makes of man merely a natural being; society makes of him a law-abiding being; only he himself can make of himself a free man. Nature releases man from her fetters at a definite stage in his development; society carries this development a stage further; he alone can give himself the final polish.
[ 43 ] The standpoint of free morality, then, does not declare the free spirit to be the only form in which a man can exist. It sees in the free spirit only the last stage of man's evolution. This is not to deny that conduct according to standards has its justification as one stage in evolution. Only we cannot acknowledge it as the absolute standpoint in morality. For the free spirit overcomes the standards in the sense that he does not just accept commandments as his motives but orders his action according to his own impulses (intuitions).
[ 44 ] When Kant says of duty: “Duty! Thou exalted and mighty name, thou that dost comprise nothing lovable, nothing ingratiating, but demandest submission,” thou that “settest up a law ... before which all inclinations are silent, even though they secretly work against it,”5Critique of Practical Reason, chapter iii. then out of the consciousness of the free spirit, man replies: “Freedom! Thou kindly and human name, thou that dost comprise all that is morally most lovable, all that my manhood most prizes, and that makest me the servant of nobody, thou that settest up no mere law, but awaitest what my moral love itself will recognize as law because in the face of every merely imposed law it feels itself unfree.”
[ 45 ] This is the contrast between a morality based on mere law and a morality based on inner freedom.
[ 46 ] The philistine, who sees the embodiment of morality in an external code, may see in the free spirit even a dangerous person. But that is only because his view is narrowed down to a limited period of time. If he were able to look beyond this, he would at once find that the free spirit just as seldom needs to go beyond the laws of his state as does the philistine himself, and certainly never needs to place himself in real opposition to them. For the laws of the state, one and all, just like all other objective laws of morality, have had their origin in the intuitions of free spirits. There is no rule enforced by family authority that was not at one time intuitively grasped and laid down as such by an ancestor; similarly the conventional laws of morality are first of all established by definite men, and the laws of the state always originate in the head of a statesman. These leading spirits have set up laws over other men, and the only person who feels unfree is the one who forgets this origin and either turns these laws into extra-human commandments, objective moral concepts of duty independent of man, or else turns them into the commanding voice within himself which he supposes, in a falsely mystical way, to be compelling him. On the other hand, the person who does not overlook this origin, but seeks man within it, will count such laws as belonging to the same world of ideas from which he, too, draws his moral intuitions. If he believes he has better intuitions, he will try to put them into the place of the existing ones; if he finds the existing ones justified, he will act in accordance with them as if they were his own.
[ 47 ] We must not coin the formula: Man exists only in order to realize a moral world order which is quite distinct from himself. Anyone who maintains that this is so, remains, in his knowledge of man, at the point where natural science stood when it believed that a bull has horns in order to butt. Scientists, happily, have thrown out the concept of purpose as a dead theory. Ethics finds it more difficult to get free of this concept. But just as horns do not exist for the sake of butting, but butting through the presence of horns, so man does not exist for the sake of morality, but morality through the presence of man. The free man acts morally because he has a moral idea; he does not act in order that morality may come into being. Human individuals, with the moral ideas belonging to their nature, are the prerequisites of a moral world order.
[ 48 ] The human individual is the source of all morality and the centre of earthly life. State and society exist only because they have arisen as a necessary consequence of the life of individuals. That state and society should in turn react upon individual life is no more difficult to comprehend than that the butting which is the result of the presence of horns reacts in turn upon the further development of the horns of the bull, which would become stunted through prolonged disuse. Similarly, the individual would become stunted if he led an isolated existence outside human society. Indeed, this is just why the social order arises, so that it may in turn react favourably upon the individual.
IX. Die Idee der Freiheit
[ 1 ] Der Begriff des Baumes ist für das Erkennen durch die Wahrnehmung des Baumes bedingt. Ich kann der bestimmten Wahrnehmung gegenüber nur einen ganz bestimmten Begriff aus dem allgemeinen Begriffssystem herausheben. Der Zusammenhang von Begriff und Wahrnehmung wird durch das Denken an der Wahrnehmung mittelbar und objektiv bestimmt. Die Verbindung der Wahrnehmung mit ihrem Begriffe wird nach dem Wahrnehmungsakte erkannt; die Zusammengehörigkeit ist aber in der Sache selbst bestimmt.
[ 2 ] Anders stellt sich der Vorgang dar, wenn die Erkenntnis, wenn das in ihr auftretende Verhältnis des Menschen zur Welt betrachtet wird. In den vorangehenden Ausführungen ist der Versuch gemacht worden, zu zeigen, daß die Aufhellung dieses Verhältnisses durch eine auf dasselbe gehende unbefangene Beobachtung möglich ist. Ein richtiges Verständnis dieser Beobachtung kommt zu der Einsicht, daß das Denken als eine in sich beschlossene Wesenheit unmittelbar angeschaut werden kann. Wer nötig findet, zur Erklärung des Denkens als solchem etwas anderes herbeizuziehen, wie etwa physische Gehirnvorgänge, oder hinter dem beobachteten bewußten Denken liegende unbewußte geistige Vorgänge, der verkennt, was ihm die unbefangene Beobachtung des Denkens gibt. Wer das Denken beobachtet, lebt während der Beobachtung unmittelbar in einem geistigen, sich selbst tragenden Wesensweben darinnen. Ja, man kann sagen, wer die Wesenheit des Geistigen in der Gestalt, in der sie sich dem Menschen zunächst darbietet, erfassen will, kann dies in dem auf sich selbst beruhenden Denken.
[ 3 ] Im Betrachten des Denkens selbst fallen in eines zusammen, was sonst immer getrennt auftreten muß: Begriff und Wahrnehmung. Wer dies nicht durchschaut, der wird in an Wahrnehmungen erarbeiteten Begriffen nur schattenhafte Nachbildungen dieser Wahrnehmungen sehen können, und die Wahrnehmungen werden ihm die wahre Wirklichkeit vergegenwärtigen. Er wird auch eine metaphysische Welt nach dem Muster der wahrgenommenen Welt sich auf-erbauen; er wird diese Welt Atomenwelt, Willenswelt, unbewußte Geistwelt und so weiter nennen, je nach seiner Vorstellungsart. Und es wird ihm entgehen, daß er sich mit alledem nur eine metaphysische Welt hypothetisch nach dem Muster seiner Wahrnehmungswelt auferbaut hat. Wer aber durchschaut, was bezüglich des Denkens vorliegt, der wird erkennen, daß in der Wahrnehmung nur ein Teil der Wirklichkeit vorliegt und daß der andere zu ihr gehörige Teil, der sie erst als volle Wirklichkeit erscheinen läßt, in der denkenden Durchsetzung der Wahrnehmung erlebt wird. Er wird in demjenigen, das als Denken im Bewußtsein auftritt, nicht ein schattenhaftes Nachbild einer Wirklichkeit sehen, sondern eine auf sich ruhende geistige Wesenhaftigkeit. Und von dieser kann er sagen, daß sie ihm durch Intuition im Bewußtsein gegenwärtig wird. Intuition ist das im rein Geistigen verlaufende bewußte Erleben eines rein geistigen Inhaltes. Nur durch eine Intuition kann die Wesenheit des Denkens erfaßt werden.
[ 4 ] Nur wenn man sich zu der in der unbefangenen Beobachtung gewonnenen Anerkennung dieser Wahrheit über die intuitive Wesenheit des Denkens hindurchgerungen hat, gelingt es, den Weg frei zu bekommen für eine Anschauung der menschlichen leiblich-seelischen Organisation. Man erkennt, daß diese Organisation an dem Wesen des Denkens nichts bewirken kann. Dem scheint zunächst der ganz offenbare Tatbestand zu widersprechen. Das menschliche Denken tritt für die gewöhnliche Erfahrung nur an und durch diese Organisation auf. Dieses Auftreten macht sich so stark geltend, daß es in seiner wahren Bedeutung nur von demjenigen durchschaut werden kann, der erkannt hat, wie im Wesenhaften des Denkens nichts von dieser Organisation mitspielt. Einem solchen wird es dann aber auch nicht mehr entgehen können, wie eigentümlich geartet das Verhältnis der menschlichen Organisation zum Denken ist. Diese bewirkt nämlich nichts an dem Wesenhaften des Denkens, sondern sie weicht, wenn die Tätigkeit des Denkens auftritt, zurück; sie hebt ihre eigene Tätigkeit auf, sie macht einen Platz frei; und an dem freigewordenen Platz tritt das Denken auf. Dem Wesenhaften, das im Denken wirkt, obliegt ein Doppeltes: Erstens drängt es die menschliche Organisation in deren eigener Tätigkeit zurück, und zweitens setzt es sich selbst an deren Stelle. Denn auch das erste, die Zurückdrängung der Leibesorganisation, ist Folge der Denktätigkeit. Und zwar desjenigen Teiles derselben, der das Erscheinen des Denkens vorbereitet. Man ersieht aus diesem, in welchem Sinne das Denken in der Leibesorganisation sein Gegenbild findet. Und wenn man dieses ersieht, wird man nicht mehr die Bedeutung dieses Gegenbildes für das Denken selbst verkennen können. Wer über einen erweichten Boden geht, dessen Fußspuren graben sich in dem Boden ein. Man wird nicht versucht sein, zu sagen, die Fußspurenformen seien von Kräften des Bodens, von unten herauf, getrieben worden. Man wird diesen Kräften keinen Anteil an dem Zustandekommen der Spurenformen zuschreiben. Ebensowenig wird, wer die Wesenheit des Denkens unbefangen beobachtet, den Spuren im Leibesorganismus an dieser Wesenheit einen Anteil zuschreiben, die dadurch entstehen, daß das Denken sein Erscheinen durch den Leib vorbereitet. 1Wie innerhalb der Psychologie, der Physiologie usw. sich die obige Anschauung geltend macht, hat der Verfasser in Schriften, die auf dieses Buch gefolgt sind, nach verschiedenen Richtungen dargestellt. Hier sollte nur das gekennzeichnet werden, was die unbefangene Beobachtung des Denkens selbst ergibt.
[ 5 ] Aber eine bedeutungsvolle Frage taucht hier auf. Wenn an dem Wesen des Denkens der menschlichen Organisation kein Anteil zukommt, welche Bedeutung hat diese Organisation innerhalb der Gesamtwesenheit des Menschen? Nun, was in dieser Organisation durch das Denken geschieht, hat wohl mit der Wesenheit des Denkens nichts zu tun, wohl aber mit der Entstehung des Ich-Bewußtseins aus diesem Denken heraus. Innerhalb des Eigenwesens des Denkens liegt wohl das wirkliche «Ich», nicht aber das Ich-Bewußtsein. Dies durchschaut derjenige, der eben unbefangen das Denken beobachtet. Das «Ich» ist innerhalb des Denkens zu finden; das «Ich-Bewußtsein» tritt dadurch auf, daß im allgemeinen Bewußtsein sich die Spuren der Denktätigkeit in dem oben gekennzeichneten Sinne eingraben. (Durch die Leibesorganisation entsteht also das Ich-Bewußtsein. Man verwechsele das aber nicht etwa mit der Behauptung, daß das einmal entstandene Ich-Bewußtsein von der Leibesorganisation abhängig bleibe. Einmal entstanden, wird es in das Denken aufgenommen und teilt fortan dessen geistige Wesenheit.)
[ 6 ] Das «Ich-Bewußtsein» ist auf die menschliche Organisation gebaut. Aus dieser erfließen die Willenshandlungen. In der Richtung der vorangegangenen Darlegungen wird ein Einblick in den Zusammenhang zwischen Denken, bewußtem Ich und Willenshandlung nur zu gewinnen sein, wenn erst beobachtet wird, wie die Willenshandlung aus der menschlichen Organisation hervorgeht. 2S. 142 bis zur obigen Stelle ist Zusatz, beziehungsweise Umarbeitung für die Neuausgabe (1918).
[ 7 ] Für den einzelnen Willensakt kommt in Betracht: das Motiv und die Trieb feder. Das Motiv ist ein begrifflicher oder vorstellungsgemäßer Faktor; die Triebfeder ist der in der menschlichen Organisation unmittelbar bedingte Faktor des Wollens. Der begriffliche Faktor oder das Motiv ist der augenblickliche Bestimmungsgrund des Wollens; die Triebfeder der bleibende Bestimmungsgrund des Individuums. Motiv des Wollens kann ein reiner Begriff oder ein Begriff mit einem bestimmten Bezug auf das Wahrnehmen sein, das ist eine Vorstellung. Allgemeine und individuelle Begriffe (Vorstellungen) werden dadurch zu Motiven des Wollens, daß sie auf das menschliche Individuum wirken und dasselbe in einer gewissen Richtung zum Handeln bestimmen. Ein und derselbe Begriff, beziehungsweise eine und dieselbe Vorstellung wirkt aber auf verschiedene Individuen verschieden. Sie veranlassen verschiedene Menschen zu verschiedenen Handlungen. Das Wollen ist also nicht bloß ein Ergebnis des Begriffes oder der Vorstellung, sondern auch der individuellen Beschaffenheit des Menschen. Diese individuelle Beschaffenheit wollen wir — man kann in bezug darauf Eduard von Hartmann folgen — die charakterologische Anlage nennen. Die Art, wie Begriff und Vorstellung auf die charakterologische Anlage des Menschen wirken, gibt seinem Leben ein bestimmtes moralisches oder ethisches Gepräge.
[ 8 ] Die charakterologische Anlage wird gebildet durch den mehr oder weniger bleibenden Lebensgehalt unseres Subjektes, das ist durch unseren Vorstellungs, und Gefühlsinhalt. Ob mich eine in mir gegenwärtig auftretende Vorstellung zu einem Wollen anregt, das hängt davon ab, wie sie sich zu meinem übrigen Vorstellungsinhalte und auch zu meinen Gefühlseigentümlichkeiten verhält. Mein Vorstellungsinhalt ist aber wieder bedingt durch die Summe derjenigen Begriffe, die im Verlaufe meines individuellen Lebens mit Wahrnehmungen in Berührung gekommen, das heißt zu Vorstellungen geworden sind. Diese hängt wieder ab von meiner größeren oder geringeren Fähigkeit der Intuition und von dem Umkreis meiner Beobachtungen, das ist von dem subjektiven und dem objektiven Faktor der Erfahrungen, von der inneren Bestimmtheit und dem Lebensschauplatz. Ganz besonders ist meine charakterologische Anlage durch mein Gefühlsleben bestimmt. Ob ich an einer bestimmten Vorstellung oder einem Begriff Freude oder Schmerz empfinde, davon wird es abhängen, ob ich sie zum Motiv meines Handelns machen will oder nicht. — Dies sind die Elemente, die bei einem Willensakte in Betracht kommen. Die unmittelbar gegenwärtige Vorstellung oder der Begriff, die zum Motiv werden, bestimmen das Ziel, den Zweck meines Wollens; meine charakterologische Anlage bestimmt mich, auf dieses Ziel meine Tätigkeit zu richten. Die Vorstellung, in der nächsten halben Stunde einen Spaziergang zu machen, bestimmt das Ziel meines Handelns. Diese Vorstellung wird aber nur dann zum Motiv des Wollens erhoben, wenn sie auf eine geeignete charakterologische Anlage auftrifft, das ist, wenn sich durch mein bisheriges Leben in mir etwa die Vorstellungen gebildet haben von der Zweckmäßigkeit des Spazierengehens, von dem Wert der Gesundheit, und ferner, wenn sich mit der Vorstellung des Spazierengehens in mir das Gefühl der Lust verbindet.
[ 9 ] Wir haben somit zu unterscheiden: 1. Die möglichen subjektiven Anlagen, die geeignet sind, bestimmte Vorstellungen und Begriffe zu Motiven zu machen; und 2. die möglichen Vorstellungen und Begriffe, die imstande sind, meine charakterologische Anlage so zu beeinflussen, daß sich ein Wollen ergibt. Jene stellen die Triebfedern, diese die Ziele der Sittlichkeit dar.
[ 10 ] Die Triebfedern der Sittlichkeit können wir dadurch finden, daß wir nachsehen, aus welchen Elementen sich das individuelle Leben zusammensetzt.
[ 11 ] Die erste Stufe des individuellen Lebens ist das Wahrnehmen, und zwar das Wahrnehmen der Sinne. Wir stehen hier in jener Region unseres individuellen Lebens, wo sich das Wahrnehmen unmittelbar, ohne Dazwischentreten eines Gefühles oder Begriffes in Wollen umsetzt. Die Triebfeder des Menschen, die hierbei in Betracht kommt, wird als Trieb schlechthin bezeichnet. Die Befriedigung unserer niederen, rein animalischen Bedürfnisse (Hunger, Geschlechtsverkehr usw.) kommt auf diesem Wege zustande. Das Charakteristische des Trieblebens besteht in der Unmittelbarkeit, mit der die Einzelwahrnehmung das Wollen auslöst. Diese Art der Bestimmung des Wollens, die ursprünglich nur dem niedrigeren Sinnenleben eigen ist, kann auch auf die Wahrnehmungen der höheren Sinne ausgedehnt werden. Wir lassen auf die Wahrnehmung irgendeines Geschehens in der Außen weit, ohne weiter nachzudenken und ohne daß sich uns an die Wahrnehmung ein besonderes Gefühl knüpft, eine Handlung folgen, wie das namentlich im konventionellen Umgange mit Menschen geschieht. Die Triebfeder dieses Handelns bezeichnet man als Takt oder sittlichen Geschmack. Je öfter sich ein solches unmittelbares Auslösen einer Handlung durch eine Wahrnehmung vollzieht, desto geeigneter wird sich der betreffende Mensch erweisen, rein unter dem Einfluß des Taktes zu handeln, das ist: der Takt wird zu seiner charakterologischen Anlage.
[ 12 ] Die zweite Sphäre des menschlichen Lebens ist das Fühlen. An die Wahrnehmungen der Außenwelt knüpfen sich bestimmte Gefühle. Diese Gefühle können zu Triebfedern des Handelns werden. Wenn ich einen hungernden Menschen sehe, so kann mein Mitgefühl mit demselben die Triebfeder meines Handelns bilden. Solche Gefühle sind etwa: das Schamgefühl, der Stolz, das Ehrgefühl, die Demut, die Reue, das Mitgefühl, das Rache, und Dankbarkeitsgefühl, die Pietät, die Treue, das Liebes, und Pflichtgefühl. 3Eine vollständige Zusammenstellung der Prinzipien der Sittlichkeit findet man (vom Standpunkte des metaphysischen Realismus aus) in Eduard vonHartmanns «Phänomenologie des sittlichen Bewußtseins»
[ 13 ] Die dritte Stufe des Lebens endlich ist das Denken und Vorstellen. Durch bloße Überlegung kann eine Vorstellung oder ein Begriff zum Motiv einer Handlung werden. Vorstellungen werden dadurch Motive, daß wir im Laufe des Lebens fortwährend gewisse Ziele des Wollens an Wahrnehmungen knüpfen, die in mehr oder weniger modifizierter Gestalt immer wiederkehren. Daher kommt es, daß bei Menschen, die nicht ganz ohne Erfahrung sind, stets mit bestimmten Wahrnehmungen auch die Vorstellungen von Handlungen ins Bewußtsein treten, die sie in einem ähnlichen Fall ausgeführt oder ausführen gesehen haben. Diese Vorstellungen schweben ihnen als bestimmende Muster bei allen späteren Entschließungen vor, sie werden Glieder ihrer charakterologischen Anlage. Wir können die damit bezeichnete Triebfeder des Wollens die praktische Erfahrung nennen. Die praktische Erfahrung geht allmählich in das rein taktvolle Handeln über. Wenn sich bestimmte typische Bilder von Handlungen mit Vorstellungen von gewissen Situationen des Lebens in unserem Bewußtsein so fest verbunden haben, daß wir gegebenen Falles mit Überspringung aller auf Erfahrung sich gründenden Überlegung unmittelbar auf die Wahrnehmung hin ins Wollen übergehen, dann ist dies der Fall.
[ 14 ] Die höchste Stufe des individuellen Lebens ist das begriffliche Denken ohne Rücksicht auf einen bestimmten Wahrnehmungsgehalt. Wir bestimmen den Inhalt eines Begriffes durch reine Intuition aus der ideellen Sphäre heraus. Ein solcher Begriff enthält dann zunächst keinen Bezug auf bestimmte Wahrnehmungen. Wenn wir unter dem Einflusse eines auf eine Wahrnehmung deutenden Begriffes, das ist einer Vorstellung, in das Wollen eintreten, so ist es diese Wahrnehmung, die uns auf dem Umwege durch das begriffliche Denken bestimmt. Wenn wir unter dem Einflusse von Intuitionen handeln, so ist die Triebfeder unseres Handelns das reine Denken. Da man gewohnt ist, das reine Denkvermögen in der Philosophie als Vernunft zu bezeichnen, so ist es wohl auch berechtigt, die auf dieser Stufe gekennzeichnete moralische Triebfeder die praktischeVernunft zu nennen. Am klarsten hat von dieser Triebfeder des Wollens Kreyenbühl (Philosophische Monatshefte, Bd. XVIII, Heft 3) gehandelt. Ich rechne seinen darüber geschriebenen Aufsatz zu den bedeutsamsten Erzeugnissen der gegenwärtigen Philosophie, namentlich der Ethik. Kreyenbühl bezeichnet die in Rede stehende Triebfeder als praktisches Apriori, das heißt unmittelbar aus meiner Intuition fließenden Antrieb zum Handeln.
[ 15 ] Es ist klar, daß ein solcher Antrieb nicht mehr im strengen Wortsinne zu dem Gebiete der charakterologischen Anlagen gerechnet werden kann. Denn was hier als Triebfeder wirkt, ist nicht mehr ein bloß Individuelles in mir, sondern der ideelle und folglich allgemeine Inhalt meiner Intuition. Sobald ich die Berechtigung dieses Inhaltes als Grundlage und Ausgangspunkt einer Handlung ansehe, trete ich in das Wollen ein, gleichgültig ob der Begriff bereits zeitlich vorher in mir da war, oder erst unmittelbar vor dem Handeln in mein Bewußtsein eintritt, das ist: gleichgültig, ob er bereits als Anlage in mir vorhanden war oder nicht.
[ 16 ] Zu einem wirklichen Willensakt kommt es nur dann, wenn ein augenblicklicher Antrieb des Handelns in Form eines Begriffes oder einer Vorstellung auf die charakterologische Anlage einwirkt. Ein solcher Antrieb wird dann zum Motiv des Wollens.
[ 17 ] Die Motive der Sittlichkeit sind Vorstellungen und Begriffe. Es gibt Ethiker, die auch im Gefühle ein Motiv der Sittlichkeit sehen; sie behaupten zum Beispiel, Ziel des sittlichen Handelns sei die Beförderung des größtmöglichen Quantums von Lust im handelnden Individuum. Die Lust selbst aber kann nicht Motiv werden, sondern nur eine vorgestellte Lust. Die Vorstellung eines künftigen Gefühles, nicht aber das Gefühl selbst kann auf meine charakterologische Anlage einwirken. Denn das Gefühl selbst ist im Augenblicke der Handlung noch nicht da, soll vielmehr erst durch die Handlung hervorgebracht werden.
[ 18 ] Die Vorstellung des eigenen oder fremden Wohles wird aber mit Recht als ein Motiv des Wollens angesehen. Das Prinzip, durch sein Handeln die größte Summe eigener Lust zu bewirken, das ist: die individuelle Glückseligkeit zu erreichen, heißt Egoismus. Diese individuelle Glückseligkeit wird entweder dadurch zu erreichen gesucht, daß man in rücksichtsloser Weise nur auf das eigene Wohl bedacht ist und dieses auch auf Kosten des Glückes fremder Individualitäten erstrebt (reiner Egoismus), oder dadurch, daß man das fremde Wohl aus dem Grunde befördert, weil man sich dann mittelbar von den glücklichen fremden Individualitäten einen günstigen Einfluß auf die eigene Person verspricht, oder weil man durch Schädigung fremder Individuen auch eine Gefährdung des eigenen Interesses befürchtet (Klugheitsmoral). Der besondere Inhalt der egoistischen Sittlichkeitsprinzipien wird davon abhängen, welche Vorstellung sich der Mensch von seiner eigenen oder der fremden Glückseligkeit macht. Nach dem, was einer als ein Gut des Lebens ansieht (Wohlleben, Hoffnung auf Glückseligkeit, Erlösung von verschiedenen Übeln usw.), wird er den Inhalt seines egoistischen Strebens bestimmen.
[ 19 ] Als ein weiteres Motiv ist dann der rein begriffliche Inhalt einer Handlung anzusehen. Dieser Inhalt bezieht sich nicht wie die Vorstellung der eigenen Lust auf die einzelne Handlung allein, sondern auf die Begründung einer Handlung aus einem Systeme sittlicher Prinzipien. Diese Moralprinzipien können in Form abstrakter Begriffe das sittliche Leben regeln, ohne daß der einzelne sich um den Ursprung der Begriffe kümmert. Wir empfinden dann einfach die Unterwerfung unter den sittlichen Begriff, der als Gebot über unserem Handeln schwebt, als sittliche Notwendigkeit. Die Begründung dieser Notwendigkeit überlassen wir dem, der die sittliche Unterwerfung fordert, das ist der sittlichen Autorität, die wir anerkennen (Familienoberhaupt, Staat, gesellschaftliche Sitte, kirchliche Autorität, göttliche Offenbarung). Eine besondere Art dieser Sittlichkeitsprinzipien ist die, wo das Gebot sich nicht durch eine äußere Autorität für uns kundgibt, sondern durch unser eigenes Innere (sittliche Autonomie). Wir vernehmen dann die Stimme in unserem eigenen Innern, der wir uns zu unterwerfen haben. Der Ausdruck dieser Stimme ist das Gewissen.
[ 20 ] Es bedeutet einen sittlichen Fortschritt, wenn der Mensch zum Motiv seines Handelns nicht einfach das Gebot einer äußeren oder der inneren Autorität macht, sondern wenn er den Grund einzusehen bestrebt ist, aus dem irgendeine Maxime des Handelns als Motiv in ihm wirken soll. Dieser Fortschritt ist der von der autoritativen Moral zu dem Handeln aus sittlicher Einsicht. Der Mensch wird auf dieser Stufe der Sittlichkeit die Bedürfnisse des sittlichen Lebens aufsuchen und sich von der Erkenntnis derselben zu seinen Handlungen bestimmen lassen. Solche Bedürfnisse sind: 1. das größtmögliche Wohl der Gesamtmenschheit rein um dieses Wohles willen; 2. der Kulturfortschritt oder die sittliche Entwickelung der Menschheit zu immer größerer Vollkommenheit; 3. die Verwirklichung rein intuitiv erfaßter individueller Sittlichkeitsziele.
[ 21 ] Das größtmögliche Wohl der Gesamtmenschheit wird natürlich von verschiedenen Menschen in verschiedener Weise aufgefaßt werden. Die obige Maxime bezieht sich nicht auf eine bestimmte Vorstellung von diesem Wohl, sondern darauf, daß jeder einzelne, der dies Prinzip anerkennt, bestrebt ist, dasjenige zu tun, was nach seiner Ansicht das Wohl der Gesamtmenschheit am meisten fördert.
[ 22 ] Der Kulturfortschritt erweist sich für denjenigen, dem sich an die Güter der Kultur ein Lustgefühl knüpft, als ein spezieller Fall des vorigen Moralprinzips. Er wird nur den Untergang und die Zerstörung mancher Dinge, die auch zum Wohle der Menschheit beitragen, mit in Kauf nehmen müssen. Es ist aber auch möglich, daß jemand in dem Kulturfortschritt, abgesehen von dem damit verbundenen Lustgefühl, eine sittliche Notwendigkeit erblickt. Dann ist derselbe für ihn ein besonderes Moralprinzip neben dem vorigen.
[ 23 ] Sowohl die Maxime des Gesamtwohles wie auch jene des Kulturfortschrittes beruht auf der Vorstellung, das ist auf der Beziehung, die man dem Inhalt der sittlichen Ideen zu bestimmten Erlebnissen (Wahrnehmungen) gibt. Das höchste denkbare Sittlichkeitsprinzip ist aber das, welches keine solche Beziehung von vornherein enthält, sondern aus dem Quell der reinen Intuition entspringt und erst nachher die Beziehung zur Wahrnehmung (zum Leben) sucht. Die Bestimmung, was zu wollen ist, geht hier von einer andern Instanz aus als in den vorhergehenden Fällen. Wer dem sittlichen Prinzip des Gesamtwohles huldigt, der wird bei allen seinen Handlungen zuerst fragen, was zu diesem Gesamtwohl seine Ideale beitragen. Wer sich zu dem sittlichen Prinzip des Kulturfortschrittes bekennt, wird es hier ebenso machen. Es gibt aber ein höheres, das in dem einzelnen Falle nicht von einem bestimmten einzelnen Sittlichkeitsziel ausgeht, sondern welches allen Sittlichkeitsmaximen einen gewissen Wert beilegt, und im gegebenen Falle immer fragt, ob denn hier das eine oder das andere Moralprinzip das wichtigere ist. Es kann vorkommen, daß jemand unter gegebenen Verhältnissen die Förderung des Kulturfortschrittes, unter andern die des Gesamtwohls, im dritten Falle die Förderung des eigenen Wohles für das richtige ansieht und zum Motiv seines Handelns macht. Wenn aber alle andern Bestimmungsgründe erst an zweite Stelle treten, dann kommt in erster Linie die begriffliche Intuition selbst in Betracht. Damit treten die andern Motive von der leitenden Stelle ab, und nur der Ideengehalt der Handlung wirkt als Motiv derselben.
[ 24 ] Wir haben unter den Stufen der charakterologischen Anlage diejenige als die höchste bezeichnet, die als reines Denken, als praktische Vernunft wirkt. Unter den Motiven haben wir jetzt als das höchste die begriffliche Intuition bezeichnet. Bei genauerer Überlegung stellt sich alsbald heraus, daß auf dieser Stufe der Sittlichkeit Triebfeder und Motiv zusammenfallen, das ist, daß weder eine vorher bestimmte charakterologische Anlage, noch ein äußeres, normativ angenommenes sittliches Prinzip auf unser Handeln wirken. Die Handlung ist also keine schablonenmäßige, die nach irgendwelchen Regeln ausgeführt wird, und auch keine solche, die der Mensch auf äußeren Anstoß hin automatenhaft vollzieht, sondern eine schlechthin durch ihren idealen Gehalt bestimmte.
[ 25 ] Zur Voraussetzung hat eine solche Handlung die Fähigkeit der moralischen Intuitionen. Wem die Fähigkeit fehlt für den einzelnen Fall die besondere Sittlichkeitsmaxime zu erleben, der wird es auch nie zum wahrhaft individuellen Wollen bringen.
[ 26 ] Der gerade Gegensatz dieses Sittlichkeitsprinzips ist das Kantsche: Handle so, daß die Grundsätze deines Handelns für alle Menschen gelten können. Dieser Satz ist der Tod aller individuellen Antriebe des Handelns. Nicht wie alle Menschen handeln würden, kann für mich maßgebend sein, sondern was für mich in dem individuellen Falle zu tun ist.
[ 27 ] Ein oberflächliches Urteil könnte vielleicht diesen Ausführungen einwenden: Wie kann das Handeln zugleich individuell auf den besonderen Fall und die besondere Situation geprägt und doch rein ideell aus der Intuition heraus bestimmt sein? Dieser Einwand beruht auf einer Verwechselung von sittlichem Motiv und wahrnehmbarem Inhalt der Handlung. Der letztere kann Motiv sein, und ist es auch zum Beispiel beim Kulturfortschritt, beim Handeln aus Egoismus usw.; beim Handeln auf Grund rein sittlicher Intuition ist er es nicht. Mein Ich richtet seinen Blick natürlich auf diesen Wahrnehmungsinhalt, bestimmen läßt es sich durch denselben nicht. Dieser Inhalt wird nur benützt, um sich einen Erkenntnisbegriff zu bilden, den dazu gehörigen moralischen Begriff entnimmt das Ich nicht aus dem Objekte. Der Erkenntnisbegriff aus einer bestimmten Situation, der ich gegenüberstehe, ist nur dann zugleich ein moralischer Begriff, wenn ich auf dem Standpunkte eines bestimmten Moralprinzips stehe. Wenn ich auf dem Boden der allgemeinen Kulturentwickelungsmoral allein stehen möchte, dann ginge ich mit gebundener Marschroute in der Welt umher. Aus jedem Geschehen, das ich wahrnehme und das mich beschäftigen kann, entspringt zugleich eine sittliche Pflicht; nämlich mein Scherflein beizutragen, damit das betreffende Geschehen in den Dienst der Kulturentwickelung gestellt werde. Außer dem Begriff, der mir den naturgesetzlichen Zusammenhang eines Geschehens oder Dinges enthüllt, haben die letztem auch noch eine sittliche Etikette umgehängt, die für mich, das moralische Wesen, eine ethische Anweisung enthält, wie ich mich zu benehmen habe. Diese sittliche Etikette ist in ihrem Gebiete berechtigt, sie fällt aber auf einem höheren Standpunkte mit der Idee zusammen, die mir dem konkreten Fall gegenüber aufgeht.
[ 28 ] Die Menschen sind dem Intuitionsvermögen nach verschieden. Dem einen sprudeln die Ideen zu, der andere erwirbt sie sich mühselig. Die Situationen, in denen die Menschen leben, und die den Schauplatz ihres Handelns abgeben, sind nicht weniger verschieden. Wie ein Mensch handelt, wird also abhängen von der Art, wie sein Intuitionsvermögen einer bestimmten Situation gegenüber wirkt. Die Summe der in uns wirksamen Ideen, den realen Inhalt unserer Intuitionen, macht das aus, was bei aller Allgemeinheit der Ideenwelt in jedem Menschen individuell geartet ist. Insofern dieser intuitive Inhalt auf das Handeln geht, ist er der Sittlichkeitsgehalt des Individuums. Das Auslebenlassen dieses Gehalts ist die höchste moralische Triebfeder und zugleich das höchste Motiv dessen, der einsieht, daß alle andern Moralprinzipien sich letzten Endes in diesem Gehalte vereinigen. Man kann diesen Standpunkt den ethischen Individualismus nennen.
[ 29 ] Das Maßgebende einer intuitiv bestimmten Handlung im konkreten Falle ist das Auffinden der entsprechenden, ganz individuellen Intuition. Auf dieser Stufe der Sittlichkeit kann von allgemeinen Sittlichkeitsbegriffen (Normen, Gesetzen) nur insofern die Rede sein, als sich diese aus der Verallgemeinerung der individuellen Antriebe ergeben. Allgemeine Normen setzen immer konkrete Tatsachen voraus, aus denen sie abgeleitet werden können. Durch das menschliche Handeln werden aber Tatsachen erst geschaffen.
[ 30 ] Wenn wir das Gesetzmäßige (Begriffliche in dem Handeln der Individuen, Völker und Zeitalter) aufsuchen, so erhalten wir eine Ethik, aber nicht als Wissenschaft von sittlichen Normen, sondern als Naturlehre der Sittlichkeit. Erst die hierdurch gewonnenen Gesetze verhalten sich zum menschlichen Handeln so wie die Naturgesetze zu einer besonderen Erscheinung. Sie sind aber durchaus nicht identisch mit den Antrieben, die wir unserm Handeln zugrunde legen. Will man erfassen, wodurch eine Handlung des Menschen dessen sittlichem Wollen entspringt, so muß man zunächst auf das Verhältnis dieses Wollens zu der Handlung sehen. Man muß zunächst Handlungen ins Auge fassen, bei denen dieses Verhältnis das Bestimmende ist. Wenn ich oder ein anderer später über eine solche Handlung nachdenken, kann es herauskommen, welche Sittlichkeitsmaximen bei derselben in Betracht kommen. Während ich handle, bewegt mich die Sittlichkeitsmaxime, insoferne sie intuitiv in mir leben kann; sie ist verbunden mit der Liebe zu dem Objekt, das ich durch meine Handlung verwirklichen will. Ich frage keinen Menschen und auch keine Regel: soll ich diese Handlung ausführen? — sondern ich führe sie aus, sobald ich die Idee davon gefaßt habe. Nur dadurch ist sie meine Handlung. Wer nur handelt, weil er bestimmte sittliche Normen anerkennt, dessen Handlung ist das Ergebnis der in seinem Moralkodex stehenden Prinzipien. Er ist bloß der Vollstrecker. Er ist ein höherer Automat. Werfet einen Anlaß zum Handeln in sein Bewußtsein, und alsbald setzt sich das Räderwerk seiner Moralprinzipien in Bewegung und läuft in gesetzmäßiger Weise ab, um eine christliche, humane, ihm selbstlos geltende, oder eine Handlung des kulturgeschichtlichen Fortschrittes zu vollbringen. Nur wenn ich meiner Liebe zu dem Objekte folge, dann bin ich es selbst, der handelt. Ich handle auf dieser Stufe der Sittlichkeit nicht, weil ich einen Herrn über mich anerkenne, nicht die äußere Autorität, nicht eine sogenannte innere Stimme. Ich erkenne kein äußeres Prinzip meines Handelns an, weil ich in mir selbst den Grund des Handelns, die Liebe zur Handlung gefunden habe. Ich prüfe nicht verstandesmäßig, ob meine Handlung gut oder böse ist; ich vollziehe sie, weil ich sie liebe. Sie wird «gut», wenn meine in Liebe getauchte Intuition in der rechten Art in dem intuitiv zu erlebenden Weltzusammenhang drinnensteht; «böse», wenn das nicht der Fall ist. Ich frage mich auch nicht: wie würde ein anderer Mensch in meinem Falle handeln? — sondern ich handle, wie ich, diese besondere Individualität, zu wollen mich veranlaßt sehe. Nicht das allgemein Übliche, die allgemeine Sitte, eine allgemein-menschliche Maxime, eine sittliche Norm leitet mich in unmittelbarer Art, sondern meine Liebe zur Tat. Ich fühle keinen Zwang, nicht den Zwang der Natur, die mich bei meinen Trieben leitet, nicht den Zwang der sittlichen Gebote, sondern ich will einfach ausführen, was in mir liegt.
[ 31 ] Die Verteidiger der allgemeinen sittlichen Normen könnten etwa zu diesen Ausführungen sagen: Wenn jeder Mensch nur darnach strebt, sich auszuleben und zu tun, was ihm beliebt, dann ist kein Unterschied zwischen guter Handlung und Verbrechen; jede Gaunerei, die in mir liegt, hat gleichen Anspruch sich auszuleben, wie die Intention, dem allgemeinen Besten zu dienen. Nicht der Umstand, daß ich eine Handlung der Idee nach ins Auge gefaßt habe, kann für mich als sittlichen Menschen maßgebend sein, sondern die Prüfung, ob sie gut oder böse ist. Nur im ersteren Falle werde ich sie ausführen.
[ 32 ] Meine Entgegnung auf diesen naheliegenden und doch nur aus einer Verkennung des hier Gemeinten entspringenden Einwand ist diese: Wer das Wesen des menschlichen Wollens erkennen will, der muß unterscheiden zwischen dem Weg, der dieses Wollen bis zu einem bestimmten Grad der Entwickelung bringt, und der Eigenart, welche das Wollen annimmt, indem es sich diesem Ziele annähert. Auf dem Wege zu diesem Ziele spielen Normen ihre berechtigte Rolle. Das Ziel besteht in der Verwirklichung rein intuitiv erfaßter Sittlichkeitsziele. Der Mensch erreicht solche Ziele in dem Maße, in dem er die Fähigkeit besitzt, sich überhaupt zum intuitiven Ideengehalte der Welt zu erheben. Im einzelnen Wollen wird zumeist anderes als Triebfeder oder Motiv solchen Zielen beigemischt sein. Aber Intuitives kann im menschlichen Wollen doch bestimmend oder mitbestimmend sein. Was man soll, das tut man; man gibt den Schauplatz ab, auf dem das Sollen zum Tun wird; eigene Handlung ist, was man als solche aus sich entspringen läßt. Der Antrieb kann da nur ein ganz individueller sein. Und in Wahrheit kann nur eine aus der Intuition entspringende Willenshandlung eine individuelle sein. Daß die Tat des Verbrechers, daß das Böse in gleichem Sinne ein Ausleben der Individualität genannt wird wie die Verkörperung reiner Intuition, ist nur möglich, wenn die blinden Triebe zur menschlichen Individualität gezählt werden. Aber der blinde Trieb, der zum Verbrechen treibt, stammt nicht aus Intuitivem, und gehört nicht zum Individuellen des Menschen, sondern zum Allgemeinsten in ihm, zu dem, was bei allen Individuen in gleichem Maße geltend ist und aus dem sich der Mensch durch sein Individuelles heraus arbeitet. Das Individuelle in mir ist nicht mein Organismus mit seinen Trieben und Gefühlen, sondern das ist die einige Ideenwelt, die in diesem Organismus aufleuchtet. Meine Triebe, Instinkte, Leidenschaften begründen nichts weiter in mir, als daß ich zur allgemeinen Gattung Mensch gehöre; der Umstand, daß sich ein Ideelles in diesen Trieben, Leidenschaften und Gefühlen auf eine besondere Art auslebt, begründet meine Individualität. Durch meine Instinkte, Triebe bin ich ein Mensch, von denen zwölf ein Dutzend machen; durch die besondere Form der Idee, durch die ich mich innerhalb des Dutzend als Ich bezeichne, bin ich Individuum. Nach der Verschiedenheit meiner tierischen Natur könnte mich nur ein mir fremdes Wesen von andern unterscheiden; durch mein Denken, das heißt durch das tätige Erfassen dessen, was sich als Ideelles in meinem Organismus auslebt, unterscheide ich mich selbst von andern. Man kann also von der Handlung des Verbrechers gar nicht sagen, daß sie aus der Idee hervorgeht. Ja, das ist gerade das Charakteristische der Verbrecherhandlungen, daß sie aus den außerideellen Elementen des Menschen sich herleiten.
[ 33 ] Eine Handlung wird als eine freie empfunden, soweit deren Grund aus dem ideellen Teil meines individuellen Wesens hervorgeht; jeder andere Teil einer Handlung, gleichgültig, ob er aus dem Zwange der Natur oder aus der Nötigung einer sittlichen Norm vollzogen wird, wird als unfrei empfunden.
[ 34 ] Frei ist nur der Mensch, insofern er in jedem Augenblicke seines Lebens sich selbst zu folgen in der Lage ist. Eine sittliche Tat ist nur meine Tat, wenn sie in dieser Auffassung eine freie genannt werden kann. Hier ist zunächst die Rede davon, unter welchen Voraussetzungen eine gewollte Handlung als eine freie empfunden wird; wie diese rein ethisch gefaßte Freiheitsidee in der menschlichen Wesenheit sich verwirklicht, soll im folgenden sich zeigen.
[ 35 ] Die Handlung aus Freiheit schließt die sittlichen Gesetze nicht etwa aus, sondern ein; sie erweist sich nur als höherstehend gegenüber derjenigen, die nur von diesen Gesetzen diktiert ist. Warum sollte meine Handlung denn weniger dem Gesamtwohle dienen, wenn ich sie aus Liebe getan habe, als dann, wenn ich sie nur aus dem Grunde vollbracht habe, weil dem Gesamtwohle zu dienen ich als Pflicht empfinde? Der bloße Pflichtbegriff schließt die Freiheit aus, weil er das Individuelle nicht anerkennen will, sondern Unterwerfung des letztem unter eine allgemeine Norm fordert. Die Freiheit des Handelns ist nur denkbar vom Standpunkte des ethischen Individualismus aus.
[ 36 ] Wie ist aber ein Zusammenleben der Menschen möglich, wenn jeder nur bestrebt ist, seine Individualität zur Geltung zu bringen? Damit ist ein Einwand des falsch verstandenen Moralismus gekennzeichnet. Dieser glaubt, eine Gemeinschaft von Menschen sei nur möglich, wenn sie alle vereinigt sind durch eine gemeinsam festgelegte sittliche Ordnung. Dieser Moralismus versteht eben die Einigkeit der Ideenwelt nicht. Er begreift nicht, daß die Ideenwelt, die in mir tätig ist, keine andere ist, als die in meinem Mitmenschen. Diese Einheit ist allerdings bloß ein Ergebnis der Welterfahrung. Allein sie muß ein solches sein. Denn wäre sie durch irgend etwas anderes als durch Beobachtung zu erkennen, so wäre in ihrem Bereich nicht individuelles Erleben, sondern allgemeine Norm geltend. Individualität ist nur möglich, wenn jedes individuelle Wesen vom andern nur durch individuelle Beobachtung weiß. Der Unterschied zwischen mir und meinem Mitmenschen liegt durchaus nicht darin, daß wir in zwei ganz verschiedenen Geisteswelten leben, sondern daß er aus der uns gemeinsamen Ideenwelt andere Intuitionen empfängt als ich. Er will seine Intuitionen ausleben, ich die meinigen. Wenn wir beide wirklich aus der Idee schöpfen und keinen äußeren (physischen oder geistigen) Antrieben folgen, so können wir uns nur in dem gleichen Streben, in denselben Intentionen begegnen. Ein sittliches Mißverstehen, ein Aufeinanderprallen ist bei sittlich freien Menschen ausgeschlossen. Nur der sittlich Unfreie, der dem Naturtrieb oder einem angenommenen Pflichtgebot folgt, stößt den Nebenmenschen zurück, wenn er nicht dem gleichen Instinkt und dem gleichen Gebot folgt. Leben in der Liebe zum Handeln und Lebenlassen im Verständnisse des fremden Wollens ist die Grundmaxime der freien Menschen. Sie kennen kein anderes Sollen als dasjenige, mit dem sich ihr Wollen in intuitiven Einklang versetzt; wie sie in einem besonderen Falle wollen werden, das wird ihnen ihr Ideenvermögen sagen.
[ 37 ] Läge nicht in der menschlichen Wesenheit der Urgrund zur Verträglichkeit, man würde sie ihr durch keine äußeren Gesetze einimpfen! Nur weil die menschlichen Individuen eines Geistes sind, können sie sich auch nebeneinander ausleben. Der Freie lebt in dem Vertrauen darauf, daß der andere Freie mit ihm einer geistigen Welt angehört und sich in seinen Intentionen mit ihm begegnen wird. Der Freie verlangt von seinen Mitmenschen keine Übereinstimmung, aber er erwartet sie, weil sie in der menschlichen Natur liegt. Damit ist nicht auf die Notwendigkeiten gedeutet, die für diese oder jene äußeren Einrichtungen bestehen, sondern auf die Gesinnung, auf die Seelenverfassung, durch die der Mensch in seinem Sich-Erleben unter von ihm geschätzten Mitmenschen der menschlichen Würde am meisten gerecht wird.
[ 38 ] Es wird viele geben, die da sagen: der Begriff des freien Menschen, den du da entwirfst, ist eine Schimäre, ist nirgends verwirklicht. Wir haben es aber mit wirklichen Menschen zu tun, und bei denen ist auf Sittlichkeit nur zu hoffen, wenn sie einem Sittengebote gehorchen, wenn sie ihre sittliche Mission als Pflicht auffassen und nicht frei ihren Neigungen und ihrer Liebe folgen. — Ich bezweifle das keineswegs. Nur ein Blinder könnte es. Aber dann hinweg mit aller Heuchelei der Sittlichkeit, wenn dieses letzte Einsicht sein sollte. Saget dann einfach: die menschliche Natur muß zu ihren Handlungen gezwungen werden, solange sie nicht frei ist. Ob man die Unfreiheit durch physische Mittel oder durch Sittengesetze bezwingt, ob der Mensch unfrei ist, weil er seinem maßlosen Geschlechtstrieb folgt oder darum, weil er in den Fesseln konventioneller Sittlichkeit eingeschnürt ist, ist für einen gewissen Gesichtspunkt ganz gleichgültig. Man behaupte aber nur nicht, daß ein solcher Mensch mit Recht eine Handlung die seinige nennt, da er doch von einer fremden Gewalt dazu getrieben ist. Aber mitten aus der Zwangsordnung heraus erheben sich die Menschen, die freien Geister, die sich selbst finden in dem Wust von Sitte, Gesetzeszwang, Religionsübung und so weiter. Frei sind sie, insofern sie nur sich folgen, unfrei, insofern sie sich unterwerfen. Wer von uns kann sagen, daß er in allen seinen Handlungen wirklich frei ist? Aber in jedem von uns wohnt eine tiefere Wesenheit, in der sich der freie Mensch ausspricht.
[ 39 ] Aus Handlungen der Freiheit und der Unfreiheit setzt sich unser Leben zusammen. Wir können aber den Begriff des Menschen nicht zuende denken, ohne auf den freien Geist als die reinste Ausprägung der menschlichen Natur zu kommen. Wahrhaft Menschen sind wir doch nur, insofern wir frei sind.
[ 40 ] Das ist ein Ideal, werden viele sagen. Ohne Zweifel, aber ein solches, das sich in unserer Wesenheit als reales Element an die Oberfläche arbeitet. Es ist kein erdachtes oder erträumtes Ideal, sondern ein solches, das Leben hat und das sich auch in der unvollkommensten Form seines Daseins deutlich ankündigt. Wäre der Mensch ein bloßes Naturwesen, dann wäre das Aufsuchen von Idealen, das ist von Ideen, die augenblicklich unwirksam sind, deren Verwirklichung aber gefordert wird, ein Unding. An dem Dinge der Außenwelt ist die Idee durch die Wahrnehmung bestimmt; wir haben das unserige getan, wenn wir den Zusammenhang von Idee und Wahrnehmung erkannt haben. Beim Menschen ist das nicht so. Die Summe seines Daseins ist nicht ohne ihn selbst bestimmt; sein wahrer Begriff als sittlicher Mensch (freier Geist) ist mit dem Wahrnehmungsbilde «Mensch» nicht im voraus objektiv vereinigt, um bloß nachher durch die Erkenntnis festgestellt zu werden. Der Mensch muß selbsttätig seinen Begriff mit der Wahrnehmung Mensch vereinigen. Begriff und Wahrnehmung decken sich hier nur, wenn sie der Mensch selbst zur Deckung bringt. Er kann es aber nur, wenn er den Begriff des freien Geistes, das ist seinen eigenen Begriff gefunden hat. In der objektiven Welt ist uns durch unsere Organisation ein Grenzstrich gezogen zwischen Wahrnehmung und Begriff; das Erkennen überwindet diese Grenze. In der subjektiven Natur ist diese Grenze nicht minder vorhanden; der Mensch überwindet sie im Laufe seiner Entwickelung, indem er in seiner Erscheinung seinen Begriff zur Ausgestaltung bringt. So führt uns sowohl das intellektuelle wie das sittliche Leben des Menschen auf seine Doppelnatur: das Wahrnehmen (unmittelbares Erleben) und Denken. Das intellektuelle Leben überwindet die Doppelnatur durch die Erkenntnis, das sittliche durch die tatsächliche Verwirklichung des freien Geistes. Jedes Wesen hat seinen eingeborenen Begriff (das Gesetz seines Seins und Wirkens); aber er ist in den Außendingen unzertrennlich mit der Wahrnehmung verbunden und nur innerhalb unseres geistigen Organismus von dieser abgesondert. Beim Menschen selbst ist Begriff und Wahrnehmung zunächst tatsächlich getrennt, um von ihm ebenso tatsächlich vereinigt zu werden. Man kann einwenden: unserer Wahrnehmung des Menschen entspricht in jedem Augenblicke seines Lebens ein bestimmter Begriff, so wie jedem anderen Dinge auch. Ich kann mir den Begriff eines Schablonenmenschen bilden und kann einen solchen auch als Wahrnehmung gegeben haben; wenn ich zu diesem auch noch den Begriff des freien Geistes bringe, so habe ich zwei Begriffe für dasselbe Objekt.
[ 41 ] Das ist einseitig gedacht. Ich bin als Wahrnehmungsobjekt einer fortwährenden Veränderung unterworfen. Als Kind war ich ein anderer, ein anderer als Jüngling und als Mann. Ja, in jedem Augenblicke ist mein Wahrnehmungsbild ein anderes als in den vorangehenden. Diese Veränderungen können sich in dem Sinne vollziehen, daß sich in ihnen nur immer derselbe (Schablonenmensch) ausspricht, oder daß sie den Ausdruck des freien Geistes darstellen. Diesen Veränderungen ist das Wahrnehmungsobjekt meines Handelns unterworfen.
[ 42 ] Es ist in dem Wahrnehmungsobjekt Mensch die Möglichkeit gegeben, sich umzubilden, wie im Pflanzenkeim die Möglichkeit liegt, zur ganzen Pflanze zu werden. Die Pflanze wird sich umbilden wegen der objektiven, in ihr liegenden Gesetzmäßigkeit; der Mensch bleibt in seinem unvollende ten Zustande, wenn er nicht den Umbildungsstoff in sich selbst aufgreift, und sich durch eigene Kraft umbildet. Die Natur macht aus dem Menschen bloß ein Naturwesen; die Gesellschaft ein gesetzmäßig handelndes; ein freies Wesen kann er nur selbst aus sich machen. Die Natur läßt den Menschen in einem gewissen Stadium seiner Entwickelung aus ihren Fesseln los; die Gesellschaft führt diese Entwickelung bis zu einem weiteren Punkte; den letzten Schliff kann nur der Mensch selbst sich geben.
[ 43 ] Der Standpunkt der freien Sittlichkeit behauptet also nicht, daß der freie Geist die einzige Gestalt ist, in der ein Mensch existieren kann. Sie sieht in der freien Geistigkeit nur das letzte Entwickelungsstadium des Menschen. Damit ist nicht geleugnet, daß das Handeln nach Normen als Entwickelungsstufe seine Berechtigung habe. Es kann nur nicht als absoluter Sittlichkeitsstandpunkt anerkannt werden. Der freie Geist aber überwindet die Normen in dem Sinne, daß er nicht nur Gebote als Motive empfindet, sondern sein Handeln nach seinen Impulsen (Intuitionen) einrichtet.
[ 44 ] Wenn Kant von der Pflicht sagt: «Pflicht! du erhabener, großer Name, der du nichts Beliebtes, was Einschmeichelung bei sich führt, in dir fassest, sondern Unterwerfung verlangst», der du «ein Gesetz aufstellst.. ., vor dem alle Neigungen verstummen, wenn sie gleich in Geheim ihm entgegenwirken», so erwidert der Mensch aus dem Bewußtsein des freien Geistes: «Freiheit! du freundlicher, menschlicher Name, der du alles sittlich Beliebte, was mein Menschentum am meisten würdigt, in dir fassest, und mich zu niemandes Diener machst, der du nicht bloß ein Gesetz aufstellst, sondern abwartest, was meine sittliche Liebe selbst als Gesetz erkennen wird, weil sie jedem nur auferzwungenen Gesetze gegenüber sich unfrei fühlt.»
[ 45 ] Das ist der Gegensatz von bloß gesetzmäßiger und freier Sittlichkeit.
[ 46 ] Der Philister, der in einem äußerlich Festgestellten die verkörperte Sittlichkeit sieht, wird in dem freien Geist vielleicht sogar einen gefährlichen Menschen sehen. Er tut es aber nur, weil sein Blick eingeengt ist in eine bestimmte Zeitepoche. Wenn er über dieselbe hinausblicken könnte, so müßte er alsbald finden, daß der freie Geist ebenso wenig nötig hat, über die Gesetze seines Staates hinauszugehen, wie der Philister selbst, nie aber sich mit ihnen in einen wirklichen Widerspruch zu setzen. Denn die Staatsgesetze sind sämtlich aus Intuitionen freier Geister entsprungen, ebenso wie alle anderen objektiven Sittlichkeitsgesetze. Kein Gesetz wird durch Familienautorität ausgeübt, das nicht einmal von einem Ahnherrn als solches intuitiv erfaßt und festgesetzt worden wäre; auch die konventionellen Gesetze der Sittlichkeit werden von bestimmten Menschen zuerst aufgestellt; und die Staatsgesetze entstehen stets im Kopfe eines Staatsmannes. Diese Geister haben die Gesetze über die anderen Menschen gesetzt, und unfrei wird nur der, welcher diesen Ursprung vergißt, und sie entweder zu außermenschlichen Geboten, zu objektiven vom Menschlichen unabhängigen sittlichen Pflichtbegriffen oder zur befehlenden Stimme seines eigenen falsch mystisch zwingend gedachten Innern macht. Wer den Ursprung aber nicht übersieht, sondern ihn in dem Menschen sucht, der wird damit rechnen als mit einem Gliede derselben Ideenwelt, aus der auch er seine sittlichen Intuitionen holt. Glaubt er bessere zu haben, so sucht er sie an die Stelle der bestehenden zu bringen; findet er diese berechtigt, dann handelt er ihnen gemäß, als wenn sie seine eigenen wären.
[ 47 ] Es darf nicht die Formel geprägt werden, der Mensch sei dazu da, um eine von ihm abgesonderte sittliche Weltordnung zu verwirklichen. Wer dies behauptete, stünde in bezug auf Menschheitswissenschaft noch auf demselben Standpunkt, auf dem jene Naturwissenschaft stand, die da glaubte: der Stier habe Hörner, damit er stoßen könne. Die Naturforscher haben glücklich einen solchen Zweckbegriff zu den Toten geworfen. Die Ethik kann sich schwerer davon frei machen. Aber so wie die Hörner nicht wegen des Stoßens da sind, sondern das Stoßen durch die Hörner, so ist der Mensch nicht wegen der Sittlichkeit da, sondern die Sittlichkeit durch den Menschen. Der freie Mensch handelt sittlich, weil er eine sittliche Idee hat; aber er handelt nicht, damit Sittlichkeit entstehe. Die menschlichen Individuen mit ihren zu ihrem Wesen gehörigen sittlichen Ideen sind die Voraussetzung der sittlichen Weltordnung.
[ 48 ] Das menschliche Individuum ist Quell aller Sittlichkeit und Mittelpunkt des Erdenlebens. Der Staat, die Gesellschaft sind nur da, weil sie sich als notwendige Folge des Individuallebens ergeben. Daß dann der Staat und die Gesellschaft wieder zurückwirken auf das Individualleben, ist ebenso begreiflich, wie der Umstand, daß das Stoßen, das durch die Hörner da ist, wieder zurückwirkt auf die weitere Entwickelung der Hörner des Stieres, die bei längerem Nichtgebrauch verkümmern würden. Ebenso müßte das Individuum verkümmern, wenn es außerhalb der menschlichen Gemeinschaft ein abgesondertes Dasein führte. Darum bildet sich ja gerade die gesellschaftliche Ordnung, um im günstigen Sinne wieder zurück auf das Individuum zu wirken.
IX. The Idea of Freedom
[ 1 ] The concept of the tree is conditioned for cognition by the perception of the tree. I can only single out a very specific concept from the general conceptual system in relation to the specific perception. The connection between concept and perception is determined indirectly and objectively by thinking about perception. The connection between the perception and its concept is recognized after the act of perception; however, the connection is determined in the thing itself.
[ 2 ] The process is different when cognition is considered, when the relationship of man to the world that occurs in it is considered. In the preceding remarks, an attempt has been made to show that it is possible to elucidate this relationship through an unbiased observation of it. A correct understanding of this observation leads to the insight that thinking can be viewed directly as a self-contained entity. Whoever finds it necessary to draw on something else to explain thinking as such, such as physical brain processes, or unconscious mental processes lying behind the observed conscious thinking, fails to recognize what the unbiased observation of thinking gives him. Whoever observes thinking lives during the observation directly in a spiritual, self-sustaining web of beings within it. Indeed, one can say that anyone who wants to grasp the essence of the spiritual in the form in which it first presents itself to man can do so in thinking based on itself.
[ 3 ] In the contemplation of thinking itself, what otherwise must always occur separately: concept and perception fall together into one. Anyone who does not see through this will only be able to see shadowy replicas of these perceptions in concepts developed from perceptions, and the perceptions will bring true reality to his mind. He will also construct a metaphysical world according to the pattern of the perceived world; he will call this world the atomic world, the world of will, the unconscious spirit world and so on, according to his mode of conception. And it will escape him that with all this he has only hypothetically built up a metaphysical world according to the pattern of his perceptual world. But he who sees through what is present with regard to thinking will recognize that only a part of reality is present in perception and that the other part belonging to it, which only makes it appear as full reality, is experienced in the thinking assertion of perception. He will not see in that which appears as thinking in consciousness a shadowy afterimage of a reality, but a spiritual beingness resting on itself. And of this he can say that it becomes present to him in consciousness through intuition. Intuition is the conscious experience of a purely spiritual content. Only through intuition can the essence of thought be grasped.
[ 4 ] Only when one has struggled through to the recognition of this truth about the intuitive essence of thought, gained through unbiased observation, is it possible to clear the way for a view of the human bodily-spiritual organization. One recognizes that this organization can have no effect on the being of thought. This seems to be contradicted at first by the quite obvious facts. Human thought appears to ordinary experience only in and through this organization. This appearance asserts itself so strongly that it can only be seen through in its true meaning by those who have recognized how nothing of this organization plays a part in the essential nature of thinking. Such a person, however, will then no longer be able to escape the peculiar nature of the relationship of human organization to thinking. For the latter does nothing to the essential nature of thinking, but, when the activity of thinking appears, it withdraws; it cancels its own activity, it makes a place free; and thinking appears in the place that has become free. The beingness that works in thinking is responsible for two things: firstly, it pushes back the human organization in its own activity, and secondly, it puts itself in its place. For the first, the suppression of the organization of the body, is also a consequence of the activity of thought. And that part of it which prepares the appearance of thought. From this we see in what sense thinking finds its counter-image in the organization of the body. And when one sees this, one can no longer fail to recognize the significance of this counter-image for thinking itself. Whoever walks over a softened ground, his footprints dig into the ground. One will not be tempted to say that the forms of the footprints have been driven up from below by the forces of the ground. One will not attribute to these forces any part in the formation of the footprint shapes. Nor will anyone who observes the essence of thought impartially ascribe to the traces in the bodily organism any share in this essence, which arise from the fact that thought prepares its appearance through the body. 1How the above view asserts itself within psychology, physiology, etc., has been presented by the author in various directions in writings that have followed this book. Here only that which the unbiased observation of thought itself reveals should be characterized.
[ 5 ] But a significant question arises here. If the human organization has no part in the being of thought, what significance does this organization have within the overall being of man? Well, what happens in this organization through thinking probably has nothing to do with the essence of thinking, but it does have to do with the emergence of ego-consciousness out of this thinking. Within the essence of thinking lies the real "I", but not the I-consciousness. This can be seen through by those who observe thinking impartially. The "I" is to be found within thinking; the "I-consciousness" arises through the fact that the traces of thinking activity are engraved in the general consciousness in the sense described above. (I-consciousness thus arises through the organization of the body. But do not confuse this with the assertion that the I-consciousness, once it has arisen, remains dependent on the organization of the body. Once it has arisen, it is absorbed into thinking and henceforth shares its spiritual essence).
[ 6 ] The "I-consciousness" is built on the human organization. The acts of will flow from this. In the direction of the preceding explanations, an insight into the connection between thinking, the conscious ego and volitional action can only be gained if we first observe how volitional action emerges from the human organization. 2p. 142 up to the above passage is an addition, or rather a revision for the new edition (1918).
[ 7 ] For the individual act of will, the following can be considered: the motive and the drive. The motive is a conceptual or imaginative factor; the instinctual spring is the directly conditioned factor of volition in the human organization. The conceptual factor or motive is the momentary determinant of volition; the mainspring is the permanent determinant of the individual. The motive of volition can be a pure concept or a concept with a specific reference to perception, which is a concept. General and individual concepts (ideas) become motives of volition in that they act on the human individual and determine him to act in a certain direction. One and the same concept, or one and the same idea, however, acts differently on different individuals. They cause different people to act in different ways. The will is therefore not merely a result of the concept or idea, but also of the individual constitution of the person. We want to call this individual constitution - we can follow Eduard von Hartmann in this respect - the characterological disposition. The way in which concept and imagination affect a person's characterological disposition gives his life a certain moral or ethical character.
[ 8 ] The characterological disposition is formed by the more or less permanent life content of our subject, that is, by our conceptual and emotional content. Whether a presently occurring idea stimulates me to will depends on how it relates to the rest of my imaginative content and also to my emotional characteristics. But my imaginative content is again conditioned by the sum of those concepts that have come into contact with perceptions in the course of my individual life, that is, that have become ideas. This in turn depends on my greater or lesser capacity for intuition and on the scope of my observations, that is, on the subjective and objective factors of experience, on the inner determination and the scene of life. In particular, my characterological disposition is determined by my emotional life. Whether I feel pleasure or pain from a certain idea or concept will determine whether I want to make it the motive for my actions or not. - These are the elements that come into consideration in an act of will. The immediately present idea or concept, which becomes the motive, determines the goal, the purpose of my volition; my characterological disposition determines me to direct my activity towards this goal. The idea of going for a walk in the next half hour determines the goal of my actions. This idea, however, only becomes a motive of volition if it meets with a suitable characterological disposition, that is, if my previous life has formed in me the ideas of the expediency of going for a walk, of the value of health, and furthermore, if the idea of going for a walk is associated in me with the feeling of pleasure.
[ 9 ] We thus have to distinguish: 1. the possible subjective dispositions that are capable of turning certain ideas and concepts into motives; and 2. the possible ideas and concepts that are capable of influencing my characterological disposition in such a way that a volition results. The former represent the motives, the latter the goals of morality.
[ 10 ] We can find the driving forces of morality by looking at the elements that make up individual life.
[ 11 ] The first stage of individual life is perception, namely the perception of the senses. We are here in that region of our individual life where perception translates directly into volition, without the intervention of a feeling or concept. The human driving force that comes into consideration here is referred to as drive per se. The satisfaction of our lower, purely animalistic needs (hunger, sexual intercourse, etc.) comes about in this way. The characteristic of the instinctual life consists in the immediacy with which the individual perception triggers the will. This kind of determination of volition, which is originally peculiar only to the lower sensory life, can also be extended to the perceptions of the higher senses. We allow the perception of some event in the external world to be followed by an action without further thought and without any particular feeling being attached to the perception, as happens especially in conventional dealings with people. The mainspring of this action is called tact or moral taste. The more often such a direct triggering of an action takes place through a perception, the more suitable the person concerned will prove to be to act purely under the influence of the tact, that is: the tact becomes his characterological disposition.
[ 12 ] The second sphere of human life is feeling. Perceptions of the outside world are linked to certain feelings. These feelings can become driving forces for action. When I see a starving person, my compassion for them can be the driving force behind my actions. Such feelings include: shame, pride, honor, humility, remorse, compassion, revenge, gratitude, piety, loyalty, love and duty. 3A complete compilation of the principles of morality can be found (from the standpoint of metaphysical realism) in Eduard von Hartmann's "Phenomenology of Moral Consciousness"
[ 13 ] Finally, the third stage of life is thinking and imagining. An idea or concept can become the motive for an action through mere reflection. Ideas become motives by the fact that in the course of life we continually link certain aims of volition to perceptions which recur in a more or less modified form. Hence it is that in people who are not entirely without experience, ideas of actions which they have carried out or seen carried out in a similar case always come into consciousness with certain perceptions. These ideas float before them as determining patterns for all subsequent decisions; they become elements of their characterological disposition. We can call the driving force of volition thus designated practical experience. Practical experience gradually merges into purely tactful action. When certain typical images of actions have become so firmly connected in our consciousness with ideas of certain situations in life that, in a given case, we pass directly from perception to volition, skipping all considerations based on experience, then this is the case.
[ 14 ] The highest stage of individual life is conceptual thinking without regard to a specific perceptual content. We determine the content of a concept through pure intuition from the ideal sphere. Such a concept then initially contains no reference to specific perceptions. When we enter into volition under the influence of a concept that points to a perception, that is, a concept, it is this perception that determines us in a roundabout way through conceptual thinking. When we act under the influence of intuitions, the driving force behind our actions is pure thinking. Since we are accustomed in philosophy to refer to the pure faculty of thought as reason, it is probably also justified to call the moral impulse characterized at this level practical reason. Kreyenbühl (Philosophische Monatshefte, vol. XVIII, issue 3) has dealt most clearly with this driving force of the will. I consider his essay on this subject to be one of the most important products of contemporary philosophy, especially ethics. Kreyenbühl describes the driving force in question as practical a priori, i.e. the drive to act that flows directly from my intuition.
[ 15 ] It is clear that such a drive can no longer be counted in the strict sense of the word as belonging to the realm of characterological dispositions. For what acts here as a driving force is no longer something merely individual in me, but the ideal and consequently general content of my intuition. As soon as I regard the justification of this content as the basis and starting point of an action, I enter into volition, regardless of whether the concept was already present in me beforehand or only enters my consciousness immediately before the action, that is: regardless of whether it was already present in me as a disposition or not.
[ 16 ] A real act of will only occurs when an instantaneous impulse to act in the form of a concept or an idea affects the characterological disposition. Such a drive then becomes the motive of volition.
[ 17 ] The motives of morality are ideas and concepts. There are ethicists who also see feelings as a motive for morality; they claim, for example, that the aim of moral action is to promote the greatest possible amount of pleasure in the acting individual. Pleasure itself, however, cannot become a motive, but only an imagined pleasure. The imagination of a future feeling, but not the feeling itself, can have an effect on my characterological disposition. For the feeling itself is not yet there at the moment of the action, but rather is only to be produced by the action.
[ 18 ] The conception of one's own or another's welfare, however, is rightly regarded as a motive of volition. The principle of bringing about the greatest sum of one's own pleasure through one's actions, that is: to achieve individual happiness, is called egoism. This individual happiness is sought either by ruthlessly seeking only one's own good and striving for it even at the expense of the happiness of other individuals (pure egoism), or by promoting the good of others for the reason that one then indirectly expects a favorable influence on one's own person from the happy individualities of others, or because one also fears a threat to one's own interests by harming other individuals (prudent morality). The particular content of the egoistic principles of morality will depend on the idea a person has of his own or another's happiness. According to what one regards as a good of life (well-being, hope for happiness, salvation from various evils, etc.), he will determine the content of his egoistic striving.
[ 19 ] The purely conceptual content of an action is then to be regarded as a further motive. This content does not refer to the individual action alone, like the idea of one's own pleasure, but to the justification of an action from a system of moral principles. These moral principles can regulate moral life in the form of abstract concepts without the individual caring about the origin of the concepts. We then simply perceive submission to the moral concept, which hovers over our actions as a commandment, as a moral necessity. We leave the justification of this necessity to the one who demands moral submission, i.e. the moral authority that we recognize (head of family, state, social custom, ecclesiastical authority, divine revelation). A special kind of these principles of morality is where the commandment is not made known to us by an external authority, but by our own inner self (moral autonomy). We then hear the voice within ourselves to which we must submit. The expression of this voice is the conscience.
[ 20 ] It signifies moral progress when man does not simply make the commandment of an external or internal authority the motive of his actions, but when he endeavors to understand the reason why some maxim of action should act as a motive in him. This progress is that from authoritative morality to acting from moral insight. At this stage of morality, man will seek out the needs of moral life and allow his actions to be determined by his knowledge of them. Such needs are 1. the greatest possible welfare of mankind as a whole purely for the sake of this welfare; 2. the progress of culture or the moral development of mankind to ever greater perfection; 3. the realization of purely intuitively grasped individual moral goals.
[ 21 ] The greatest possible good of mankind as a whole will naturally be understood in different ways by different people. The above maxim does not refer to any particular conception of this good, but to the fact that each individual who recognizes this principle will strive to do that which, in his opinion, will most promote the good of mankind as a whole.
[ 22 ] The progress of culture proves to be a special case of the previous moral principle for those who attach a sense of pleasure to the goods of culture. He will only have to accept the ruin and destruction of some things which also contribute to the welfare of mankind. But it is also possible for someone to see a moral necessity in cultural progress, apart from the feeling of pleasure associated with it. Then it is for him a special moral principle alongside the previous one.
[ 23 ] Both the maxim of the common good and that of cultural progress are based on the imagination, that is, on the relationship that one gives to the content of moral ideas to certain experiences (perceptions). The highest conceivable principle of morality, however, is that which contains no such relationship from the outset, but springs from the source of pure intuition and only subsequently seeks a relationship to perception (to life). The determination of what is to be willed proceeds here from a different instance than in the previous cases. He who pays homage to the moral principle of the common good will first ask in all his actions what his ideals contribute to this common good. He who professes the moral principle of cultural progress will do the same here. There is, however, a higher principle, which in the individual case does not proceed from a certain single moral aim, but which attaches a certain value to all moral maxims, and in a given case always asks whether one or the other moral principle is the more important. It may happen that under given circumstances a man may regard the promotion of cultural progress, under others that of the general welfare, in the third case the promotion of his own welfare, as the right thing to do, and make it the motive of his action. If, however, all other determinants only take second place, then the conceptual intuition itself comes into consideration first and foremost. The other motives thus step down from the leading position, and only the idea content of the action acts as its motive.
[ 24 ] We have designated as the highest of the stages of the characterological disposition that which acts as pure thinking, as practical reason. Among the motives, we have now designated conceptual intuition as the highest. On closer consideration, it soon becomes apparent that at this level of morality, impulse and motive coincide, that is, neither a previously determined characterological disposition nor an external, normatively assumed moral principle have an effect on our actions. The action is therefore not a template that is carried out according to any rules, nor is it one that man carries out automatically in response to an external impulse, but one that is determined by its ideal content.
[ 25 ] The prerequisite for such an action is the capacity for moral intuition. Whoever lacks the ability to experience the particular moral maxim for the individual case will never achieve a truly individual will.
[ 26 ] The very antithesis of this principle of morality is Kant's: Act in such a way that the principles of your actions can apply to all people. This sentence is the death of all individual drives to act. Not how all people would act can be decisive for me, but what is to be done for me in the individual case.
[ 27 ] A superficial judgment could perhaps object to these statements: How can action be at once individually shaped to the particular case and situation and yet purely ideationally determined by intuition? This objection is based on a confusion between the moral motive and the perceptible content of the action. The latter can be a motive, and is so, for example, in cultural progress, in acting out of egoism, etc.; in acting on the basis of purely moral intuition it is not. My ego naturally directs its gaze towards this perceptual content; it cannot be determined by it. This content is only used to form a concept of knowledge; the ego does not take the corresponding moral concept from the object. The concept of knowledge from a certain situation that I am confronted with is only a moral concept at the same time if I stand on the standpoint of a certain moral principle. If I wanted to stand alone on the ground of the general morality of cultural development, then I would walk around the world with a fixed route. From every event that I perceive and that can occupy me, a moral duty arises at the same time; namely, to contribute my mite so that the event in question is placed in the service of cultural development. In addition to the concept that reveals to me the natural law context of an event or thing, the latter also have a moral label attached to them that contains ethical instructions for me, the moral being, on how I should behave. This moral etiquette is justified in its field, but it coincides at a higher level with the idea that arises for me in the specific case.
[ 28 ] People's intuition is different. One person's ideas come to them, while another acquires them with difficulty. The situations in which people live and which provide the setting for their actions are no less different. How a person acts will therefore depend on the way his intuition works in a particular situation. The sum of the ideas that are effective in us, the real content of our intuitions, constitutes what is individual in each person, despite the generality of the world of ideas. Insofar as this intuitive content relates to action, it is the moral content of the individual. The expression of this content is the highest moral impulse and at the same time the highest motive of those who realize that all other moral principles are ultimately united in this content. This point of view can be called ethical individualism.
[ 29 ] The decisive factor of an intuitively determined action in a concrete case is the discovery of the corresponding, entirely individual intuition. At this level of morality, we can only speak of general concepts of morality (norms, laws) insofar as these result from the generalization of individual impulses. General norms always presuppose concrete facts from which they can be derived. However, facts are only created through human action.
[ 30 ] If we seek out the lawful (the conceptual in the actions of individuals, peoples and ages), we obtain ethics, not as a science of moral norms, but as a natural theory of morality. Only the laws obtained in this way relate to human action in the same way as the laws of nature relate to a particular phenomenon. However, they are not at all identical with the impulses on which we base our actions. If we want to understand how an action of man springs from his moral volition, we must first look at the relationship of this volition to the action. We must first consider actions in which this relationship is the determining factor. When I or someone else later reflects on such an action, it may emerge which moral maxims come into consideration in it. While I am acting, the moral maxim moves me insofar as it can live intuitively in me; it is connected with the love for the object that I want to realize through my action. I do not ask a person or a rule: should I perform this action? - but I carry it out as soon as I have conceived the idea of it. Only in this way is it my action. He who acts only because he recognizes certain moral norms, his action is the result of the principles contained in his moral code. He is merely the executor. He is a higher automaton. Throw a cause for action into his consciousness, and immediately the wheels of his moral principles are set in motion and run in a lawful manner in order to accomplish a Christian, humane, selfless act or an act of cultural-historical progress. It is only when I follow my love for the object that I myself act. I do not act at this level of morality because I recognize a master over me, not the external authority, not a so-called inner voice. I do not recognize any external principle of my actions because I have found within myself the reason for action, the love of action. I do not check intellectually whether my action is good or bad; I carry it out because I love it. It becomes "good" when my intuition, immersed in love, is in the right place in the world context to be experienced intuitively; "evil" when this is not the case. I also don't ask myself: how would another person act in my case? - Instead, I act as I, this particular individuality, feel compelled to want. It is not what is generally customary, a general human maxim, a moral norm that guides me directly, but my love of action. I feel no compulsion, not the compulsion of nature, which guides me in my impulses, not the compulsion of moral commandments, but I simply want to carry out what lies within me.
[ 31 ] The defenders of general moral norms could say in response to these statements: If every person only strives to live out his or her desires and do what he or she pleases, then there is no difference between a good action and a crime; every crookedness that lies within me has the same right to live out its desires as the intention to serve the common good. It is not the fact that I have conceived of an action in idea that can be decisive for me as a moral man, but the test of whether it is good or evil. Only in the former case will I carry it out.
[ 32 ] My reply to this obvious objection, which arises only from a misunderstanding of what is meant here, is this: Whoever wants to recognize the essence of human volition must distinguish between the path that brings this volition to a certain degree of development and the character that the volition takes on as it approaches this goal. On the way to this goal, norms play their legitimate role. The goal consists in the realization of purely intuitively grasped moral goals. Man achieves such goals to the extent that he possesses the ability to raise himself to the intuitive content of ideas in the world. In individual volition there will usually be something else mixed in with such goals as a driving force or motive. But the intuitive can still be a determining or co-determining factor in human volition. What one should do, one does; one provides the arena on which the should becomes the doing; one's own action is what one allows to spring from oneself as such. The impulse can only be a completely individual one. And in truth, only an act of will arising from intuition can be an individual one. That the act of the criminal, that evil is called an expression of individuality in the same sense as the embodiment of pure intuition, is only possible if the blind instincts are counted as part of human individuality. But the blind instinct that drives to crime does not stem from the intuitive, and does not belong to the individuality of man, but to the most general in him, to that which is equally valid in all individuals and from which man works his way out through his individuality. The individual in me is not my organism with its instincts and feelings, but rather the world of ideas that shines forth in this organism. My drives, instincts and passions establish nothing more in me than that I belong to the general species of man; the fact that an ideal lives itself out in these drives, passions and feelings in a particular way establishes my individuality. Through my instincts, drives, I am a human being, of which twelve make a dozen; through the particular form of the idea, through which I designate myself as I within the dozen, I am an individual. According to the difference of my animal nature, only a being alien to me could distinguish me from others; I distinguish myself from others through my thinking, that is, through the active grasping of that which lives itself out as the ideal in my organism. Thus one cannot say of the criminal's action that it arises from the idea. Indeed, that is precisely the characteristic of criminal acts, that they derive from the extra-ideal elements of man.
[ 33 ] An action is perceived as free insofar as its reason arises from the ideal part of my individual being; every other part of an action, regardless of whether it is carried out out of the compulsion of nature or from the compulsion of a moral norm, is perceived as unfree.
[ 34 ] Only man is free insofar as he is able to follow himself at every moment of his life. A moral act is only my act if in this view it can be called a free one. Here we are talking first of all about the conditions under which an intentional act is perceived as a free one; how this purely ethically conceived idea of freedom is realized in the human being will be shown below.
[ 35 ] The act of freedom does not exclude moral laws, but includes them; it only proves to be superior to that which is dictated only by these laws. Why should my action serve the common good less if I have done it out of love than if I have done it only because I feel it is my duty to serve the common good? The mere concept of duty excludes freedom because it does not want to recognize the individual, but demands submission of the individual to a general norm. Freedom of action is only conceivable from the standpoint of ethical individualism.
[ 36 ] But how is it possible for people to live together if everyone only strives to assert their individuality? This is an objection of misunderstood moralism. It believes that a community of people is only possible if they are all united by a common moral order. This moralism does not understand the unity of the world of ideas. It does not understand that the world of ideas that is active in me is no other than that in my fellow human beings. This unity is, however, merely a result of the experience of the world. But it must be such. For if it could be recognized by anything other than observation, then it would not be an individual experience but a general norm. Individuality is only possible if each individual being knows about the other only through individual observation. The difference between me and my fellow human being does not lie in the fact that we live in two completely different spiritual worlds, but that he receives different intuitions from the world of ideas we share than I do. He wants to live out his intuitions, I want to live out my own intuitions. If we both really draw from the idea and do not follow any external (physical or mental) impulses, then we can only meet in the same striving, in the same intentions. A moral misunderstanding, a clash is impossible with morally free people. Only the morally unfree, who follows the natural instinct or an assumed commandment of duty, repels the neighbor if he does not follow the same instinct and the same commandment. Living in the love of action and letting live in the understanding of the will of others is the basic maxim of free people. They know no other will than that with which their will is in intuitive harmony; how they will will in a particular case will be told to them by their faculty of ideas.
[ 37 ] If the primordial reason for compatibility did not lie in the human being, it would not be inculcated by any external laws! Only because human individuals are of one spirit can they live side by side. The free man lives in the confidence that the other free man belongs to a spiritual world with him and will meet with him in his intentions. The free person does not demand agreement from his fellow human beings, but he expects it because it is part of human nature. This does not refer to the necessities that exist for this or that external institution, but to the mindset, to the soul constitution, through which man in his self-experience among his esteemed fellow human beings does the most justice to human dignity.
[ 38 ] There will be many who will say: the concept of the free human being that you are outlining is a chimera, has not been realized anywhere. But we are dealing with real people, and with them we can only hope for morality if they obey a moral commandment, if they see their moral mission as a duty and do not freely follow their inclinations and their love. - I do not doubt this at all. Only a blind man could. But then away with all hypocrisy of morality, if this should be the ultimate insight. Simply say then: human nature must be forced to its actions as long as it is not free. Whether the lack of freedom is conquered by physical means or by moral laws, whether man is unfree because he follows his immoderate sexual instinct or because he is constricted in the fetters of conventional morality, is quite indifferent from a certain point of view. But let it not be said that such a man is justified in calling an act his own, since he is driven to it by an external force. But out of the midst of coercion, men arise, the free spirits, who find themselves in the tangle of custom, legal compulsion, religious practice and so on. Free they are, insofar as they only follow themselves, unfree, insofar as they submit. Who of us can say that he is truly free in all his actions? But in each of us dwells a deeper essence in which the free man expresses himself.
[ 39 ] Our lives are made up of acts of freedom and unfreedom. However, we cannot think the concept of the human being through to the end without arriving at the free spirit as the purest manifestation of human nature. We are only truly human insofar as we are free.
[ 40 ] That is an ideal, many will say. Without doubt, but one that works its way to the surface in our being as a real element. It is not an imagined or dreamed-up ideal, but one that has life and that announces itself clearly even in the most imperfect form of its existence. If man were a mere natural being, then the pursuit of ideals, that is, of ideas that are momentarily ineffective but whose realization is demanded, would be an absurdity. In the things of the external world the idea is determined by perception; we have done our part when we have recognized the connection between idea and perception. This is not the case with man. The sum total of his existence is not determined without himself; his true concept as a moral human being (free spirit) is not objectively united in advance with the perceptual image "human being" in order to be established merely afterwards through cognition. Man must automatically unite his concept with the perception of man. Concept and perception only coincide here if man himself brings them into congruence. But he can only do so if he has found the concept of the free spirit, that is, his own concept. In the objective world, our organization draws a line between perception and concept; cognition overcomes this line. In subjective nature this boundary is no less present; man overcomes it in the course of his development by giving form to his concept in his appearance. Thus the intellectual as well as the moral life of man leads us to his dual nature: perception (direct experience) and thinking. The intellectual life overcomes the dual nature through cognition, the moral life through the actual realization of the free spirit. Every being has its innate concept (the law of its being and working); but in external things it is inseparably connected with perception and is only separated from it within our spiritual organism. In man himself, concept and perception are initially actually separate, only to be actually united by him. One can object that a certain concept corresponds to our perception of man at every moment of his life, just as it does to every other thing. I can form the concept of a template human being and can also have given such a concept as perception; if I also bring to this the concept of the free spirit, then I have two concepts for the same object.
[ 41 ] This is one-sided thinking. As an object of perception, I am subject to constant change. I was a different person as a child, a different person as a boy and as a man. Yes, at every moment my perceptual image is different from the previous ones. These changes can take place in the sense that they only ever express the same (template man), or that they represent the expression of the free spirit. The object of perception of my actions is subject to these changes.
[ 42 ] There is the possibility in the human object of perception to transform itself, just as there is the possibility in the plant germ to become a whole plant. The plant will transform itself because of the objective lawfulness that lies within it; man will remain in his incomplete state if he does not take up the transformation material within himself and transform himself through his own power. Nature makes of man merely a natural being; society makes of him a being that acts according to law; he can only make of himself a free being by himself. Nature releases man from its fetters at a certain stage of his development; society leads this development to a further point; only man himself can give himself the final touch.
[ 43 ] The standpoint of free morality therefore does not assert that the free spirit is the only form in which a human being can exist. It sees in the free spirit only the last stage of human development. This does not deny that acting according to norms has its justification as a stage of development. It just cannot be recognized as an absolute moral standpoint. The free spirit, however, overcomes the norms in the sense that it not only perceives commandments as motives, but also arranges its actions according to its impulses (intuitions).
[ 44 ] When Kant says of duty: "Duty! thou sublime, great name, who dost not grasp in thyself anything that is popular, that leads to ingratiation, but dost demand submission", who dost "establish a law . . before which all inclinations fall silent, even if they work against it in secret", then man replies from the consciousness of the free spirit: "Freedom! thou friendly, human name, who containest in thee all that is morally pleasing, which is most worthy of my humanity, and makest me no man's servant, who dost not merely lay down a law, but wait to see what my moral love itself will recognize as law, because it feels itself unfree in the face of every merely imposed law."
[ 45 ] This is the contrast between merely lawful and free morality.
[ 46 ] The Philistine, who sees the embodied morality in an outwardly established person, will perhaps even see a dangerous person in the free spirit. But he only does so because his view is confined to a certain era. If he could look beyond it, he would soon find that the free spirit has as little need to go beyond the laws of his state as the philistine himself, but never to set himself in real contradiction with them. For the laws of the state have all sprung from the intuitions of free spirits, as have all other objective moral laws. No law is exercised by family authority that has not been intuited and established as such by an ancestor; even the conventional laws of morality are first established by certain men; and the laws of the state always originate in the mind of a statesman. These spirits have set the laws above other men, and only he becomes unfree who forgets this origin, and makes them either into extra-human commandments, into objective moral concepts of duty independent of the human, or into the commanding voice of his own falsely mystically imperative inner being. But he who does not overlook the origin, but seeks it in man, will reckon with it as a member of the same world of ideas from which he also draws his moral intuitions. If he believes he has better ones, he seeks to bring them into the place of the existing ones; if he finds them justified, then he acts in accordance with them as if they were his own.
[ 47 ] The formula must not be coined that man is there to realize a moral world order separate from himself. Anyone who asserted this would still be on the same standpoint with regard to human science as the natural scientists who believed that the bull had horns so that it could thrust. The natural scientists have happily consigned such a concept of purpose to the dead. It is more difficult for ethics to free itself from it. But just as the horns are not there because of the thrusting, but the thrusting through the horns, so man is not there because of morality, but morality through man. The free man acts morally because he has a moral idea; but he does not act in order that morality may arise. Human individuals with the moral ideas belonging to their nature are the precondition of the moral world order.
[ 48 ] The human individual is the source of all morality and the center of life on earth. The state and society only exist because they arise as a necessary consequence of individual life. It is just as understandable that the state and society then have an effect back on individual life as the fact that the thrusting, which is there through the horns, has an effect back on the further development of the bull's horns, which would atrophy if they were not used for a long time. In the same way, the individual would have to atrophy if it led a separate existence outside the human community. This is precisely why the social order is formed, in order to have a favorable effect on the individual.