The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity
GA 4
X. Philosophy of Freedom and Monism
[ 1 ] The naive man who regards as real only what he can see with his eyes and grasp with his hands, also needs to have motives for his moral life that are perceptible to the senses. He needs someone who will impart these motives to him in a way that he can understand by means of his senses. He will let them be dictated to him as commands by a person whom he considers wiser and more powerful than himself, or whom he acknowledges, for some other reason, to be a power standing above him. In this way the moral principles already mentioned come about through being prescribed by authority of family, state, society, church, or the Divinity. An undeveloped person still trusts in the authority of a single individual; a somewhat more advanced person lets his moral conduct be dictated by a majority (state, society). But it is always perceptible powers upon which he relies. When at last the conviction dawns upon him that fundamentally all these are weak human beings just like himself, then he will seek guidance from a higher power, from a divine Being, whom, however, he endows with sense-perceptible qualities. He lets the conceptual content of his moral life be dictated to him by this Being, again in a perceptible way, for example when God appears in the burning bush, or moves among men in bodily human form and in a manner perceptible to their ears tells them what to do and what not to do.
[ 2 ] The highest level of development of naive realism in the moral sphere is reached when the moral command (moral idea) has been separated from every foreign entity, and is hypothetically thought of as an absolute force in one's own inner being. What at first is sensed as the external voice of God, is now sensed as an independent power within man, and is spoken of in a way that shows the inner power to be identified with the voice of conscience.
[ 3 ] When this happens, the level of naive consciousness has been abandoned and we enter the region where moral laws become independent rules. They no longer have a bearer, but have become metaphysical entities, existing by themselves. They are similar to the invisible-visible forces of the metaphysical realist who does not look for the reality of things in the human soul's participation in this reality through thinking, but who hypothetically imagines reality as an addition to actual experience. Extra-human moral rules, therefore, always accompany metaphysical realism. Metaphysical realism cannot do otherwise than seek the origin of morality too in a sphere beyond human reach. And here there are several possibilities. If the presupposed Being is thought of as in itself unthinking, acting according to purely mechanical laws, as materialism thinks of it, then out of itself it must also produce, by purely mechanical necessity, the human individual and all that belongs to him. The consciousness of freedom can then be only an illusion. For while I believe myself to be the creator of my deeds, it is the material substances of which I am composed, together with their processes, that are at work within me. I believe myself to be free, whereas in reality all my actions are but results of the material processes which are the foundation of my bodily and spiritual organism. According to this point of view, it is simply because we do not know the motives compelling us, that we have the feeling of freedom. “We must emphasize that the feeling of freedom is due to the absence of external compelling motives.” “Our actions as well as our thinking are subject to necessity.” 49NoteText
[ 4 ] Another possibility is that the extra-human absolute is seen as a spiritual Being behind the world of phenomena. Then the impulse to action will also be sought in such a spiritual power. The moral principles to be found in man's reason will be regarded as issuing from this Being-in-itself, which has its own particular intentions with regard to man. Moral laws appear to such a dualist as dictated by the Absolute, and through his reason, man simply has to discover and carry out these decisions of the Absolute Being. The moral world-order appears to the dualist as the perceptible reflection of a higher order that stands behind it. Earthly morality is the manifestation of the extra-human world order. It is not man that matters in this moral order, but the Being-in-itself, the extra-human Being. Man ought to do what this Being wills. Eduard von Hartmann, who sees the Being-in-itself as the Godhead whose very existence is suffering, believes that this divine Being has created the world in order that through the world he will be redeemed from his infinitely great pain. This philosopher therefore regards the moral development of mankind as a process which exists for the purpose of redeeming the Godhead.
“Only through the building up of a moral world-order by sensible, responsible individuals can the aim of the world process be carried through ...” “Existence in its reality is the incarnation of the Godhead—the world process is the Passion of the God becoming flesh, and at the same time the path of redemption of Him who was crucified in the flesh; and morality is the co-operation in the shortening of this path of suffering and redemption.” 50NoteText
Here man does not act because he wills, but he ought to act because it is God's will to be redeemed. Just as the materialistic dualist makes man into an automaton whose conduct is merely the result of purely mechanical laws, so the spiritualistic dualist (that is, he who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as a spiritual entity in which man has no conscious share) makes him into a slave of the will of the Absolute. Freedom is out of the question in materialism as well as in one-sided spiritualism, in fact in any kind of metaphysical realism which does not experience, but infers something extra-human as the true reality.
[ 5 ] Naive as well as metaphysical realism, in order to be consistent, must deny freedom for one and the same reason, since they regard man as being simply the agent or executor of principles which are forced upon him by necessity. Naive realism kills freedom through subjection to the authority either of a perceptible being or of an entity thought of as similar to a perceptible being, or else through submission to the authority of the abstract inner voice which is interpreted as “conscience;” the metaphysical realist, who merely infers something extra-human, cannot acknowledge freedom because he lets man be determined, mechanically or morally, by a “Being-in-itself.”
[ 6 ] Monism must acknowledge the partial justification of naive realism because it acknowledges the justification of the world of perceptions. Someone who is incapable of bringing forth moral ideas through intuition, will have to receive them from others. Insofar as a man receives his moral principles from outside, he is positively unfree. But monism ascribes equal significance to the idea compared with perception. And the idea can come to manifestation in the human individual. Insofar as man follows the impulses coming from this side, he feels free. But monism denies all justification to a metaphysics which merely draws inferences, and consequently also to impulses of action stemming from a so-called “Being-in-itself.” According to the monistic view, man's action is unfree when he obeys some perceptible external compulsion; it is free when he obeys himself. Monism cannot acknowledge any kind of unconscious compulsion hidden behind perception and concept. When someone maintains that a fellow man was not free when he performed an action, it must be possible to prove the existence within the perceptible world of the thing, the person, or the institution that made the man act; but if an appeal is made to causes for the action lying outside the sphere of physical and spiritual reality, then monism cannot enter the discussion.
[ 7 ] According to monism, in his activity man is partly unfree, partly free. He is unfree in the world of perceptions, but brings the free spirit to realization in himself.
[ 8 ] The moral commands which the metaphysical realist merely infers and cannot but consider as issuing from a higher power, for the monist are thoughts of men; for the monist the moral world order is neither a copy of a purely mechanical natural order, nor of an extra-human world order, but entirely a free undertaking of man. Man does not have to carry out the will of some Being existing beyond his reach; he carries out his own will; he does not bring to realization the decisions and intentions of another Being, but brings his own to realization. Monism does not see the purpose of a foreign rulership behind man, determining him from outside, but rather that insofar as they bring intuitive ideas to realization, human beings pursue solely their own human purposes. And indeed, each individual pursues his own particular purpose. For the world of ideas expresses itself not in a community of men, but only in the individual man. The common goal of a group of men is nothing but the result of the separate will-activities of the individual persons, and usually of a few outstanding ones whom the rest follow as their authorities. Each one of us is destined to become a free spirit, just as every rose seed is destined to become a rose.
[ 9 ] The monistic view, in the sphere of truly moral conduct, is a philosophy of freedom. And as it is also a philosophy of reality, it rejects metaphysical and unreal restrictions of man's free spirit just as it acknowledges physical and historical (naively real) restrictions of the naive man. Since monism does not regard man as a finished product, as a being who at every moment of his life unfolds his full nature, it seems futile to discuss whether man, as such, is free or not. Man is seen as a being in the process of self development, and one may ask whether, in the course of this development the stage of the free spirit can be attained.
[ 10 ] Monism knows that nature does not release man from its care complete and finished as a free spirit, but it leads him up to a certain level from which, still unfree. he continues to develop until he reaches the point where he finds his own self.
[ 11 ] To monism it is obvious that a being acting under physical or moral compulsion cannot be moral in a real sense. It regards the level of transition through automatic conduct (according to natural urges and instincts) and through obedient conduct (according to moral rules) as necessary preliminary stages of morality, but it also recognizes the possibility for man to overcome both transitory levels through his free spirit. A truly moral world view is released by monism, both from the fetters of naive moral principles in man's inner world, and from the moral principles of the speculating metaphysicist in the external world. The naive principles of morality can be eliminated from the world as little as can perceptions. The metaphysical view is rejected because monism seeks all the factors for explaining world-phenomena within the world, and none outside it. Just as monism finds it unnecessary to entertain thoughts of principles of knowledge other than those inherent in man, (p. 140) so it also definitely finds it unnecessary to entertain thoughts of principles of morality other than those inherent in man. Human morality, like human knowledge, is determined through human nature. And just as knowledge would mean something quite different to beings other than man, so other beings would also have a different morality. Morality for the monist is a specifically human quality, and freedom is the form in which human morality finds expression.
[ 12 ] First Addition to the Revised Edition, 1918: Difficulty in judging what is presented in the two preceding chapters may arise because one believes oneself to be confronted by a contradiction. On the one hand, the experience of thinking is spoken of as having a general significance of equal value for every human consciousness; on the other hand, it is shown that though the ideas realized in moral life are of the same kind as those worked out by thinking, they come to expression in each human consciousness in an individual way. If one cannot overcome seeing a “contradiction,” in this, and cannot recognize that it is just in a living experience of this actually present contrast that a glimpse into man's true being is revealed, then it is also impossible to see either the idea of knowledge or the idea of freedom in their true light. For those who think of concepts as merely drawn (abstracted) from the sense-world, and who do not give full recognition to intuitions, the thought presented here as the reality must seem a “mere contradiction.” For an insight that recognizes how ideas are intuitively experienced as a self-sustaining reality, it is clear that in the sphere of the world of ideas man penetrates in cognition into something which is universal for all men, but when he derives from that same idea world the intuitions for his acts of will, then he individualizes a member of this idea world by means of the same activity which, as a general human one, he unfolds in the spiritual ideal process of cognition. For this reason what appears as a logical contradiction, namely the universal character of cognitive ideas and the individual character of moral ideas, when experienced in its true reality, becomes a living concept. A characteristic feature of human nature consists in the fact that what can be intuitively grasped oscillates in man like a living pendulum between knowledge which is universally valid, and the individual experience of this universal element. For the man who cannot recognize one swing of the pendulum in its reality, thinking will remain merely a subjective human activity; for the one who cannot recognize the other swing, all individual life appears to cease in man's activity of thinking. To the first person, cognition is unintelligible, to the second, moral life is unintelligible. Both will call in all sorts of representations in order to explain the one or the other, all of which miss the point, because both persons, fundamentally, either do not recognize that thinking can be experienced, or take it to be an activity which merely abstracts.
[ 13 ] Second Addition to the Revised Edition, 1918: On page 34, materialism was referred to. I am well aware that there are thinkers like the above-mentioned Th. Ziehen, who do not in the least consider themselves materialists, but who must nevertheless be described as such from the point of view expressed in this book. It is not a matter that someone says that for him the world is not restricted to merely material existence and therefore he is not a materialist. It is a matter of whether or not he develops concepts which are applicable only to a material existence. One who says: “Our conduct, like our thinking, is necessitated,” expresses a concept applicable only to material processes, but applicable neither to actions nor to existence; and if he thinks his concepts through, he will have to think materialistically. That he does not do this is only the outcome of that inconsistency which is so often the result of a thinking not carried through.—One often hears it said nowadays that the materialism of the nineteenth century no longer plays a part in science. But in reality this is not so at all. It is only that at present it is often not noticed that no other ideas are available than those which can be applied only to something material. This veils present day materialism, whereas in the second half of the nineteenth century it was plain for all to see. And present day veiled materialism is no less intolerant of a view that grasps the world spiritually than was the openly-admitted materialism of the last century. However, it deceives many who believe they must reject a comprehension of the world which includes spirit, because after all, the natural scientific comprehension of the world “has long ago abandoned materialism.”
X. Freiheitphilosophie und Monismus
[ 1 ] Der naive Mensch, der nur als wirklich gelten läßt, was er mit Augen sehen und mit Händen greifen kann, fordert auch für sein sittliches Leben Beweggründe, die mit den Sinnen wahrnehmbar sind. Er fordert ein Wesen, das ihm diese Beweggründe auf eine seinen Sinnen verständliche Weise mitteilt. Er wird von einem Menschen, den er für weiser und mächtiger hält als sich selbst, oder den er aus einem andern Grunde als eine über ihm stehende Macht anerkennt, diese Beweggründe als Gebote sich diktieren lassen. Es ergeben sich auf diese Weise als sittliche Prinzipien die schon früher genannten der Familien, staatlichen, gesellschaftlichen, kirchlichen und göttlichen Autorität. Der befangenste Mensch glaubt noch einem einzelnen andern Menschen; der etwas fortgeschrittenere läßt sich sein sittliches Verhalten von einer Mehrheit (Staat, Gesellschaft) diktieren. Immer sind es wahrnehmbare Mächte, auf die er baut. Wem endlich die Überzeugung aufdämmert, daß dies doch im Grunde ebenso schwache Menschen sind wie er, der sucht bei einer höheren Macht Auskunft, bei einem göttlichen Wesen, das er sich aber mit sinnlich wahrnehmbaren Eigenschaften ausstattet. Er läßt sich von diesem Wesen den begrifflichen Inhalt seines sittlichen Lebens wieder auf wahrnehmbare Weise vermitteln, sei es, daß der Gott im brennenden Dornbusche erscheint, sei es, daß er in leibhaftig-menschlicher Gestalt unter den Menschen wandelt und ihren Ohren vernehmbar sagt, was sie tun und nicht tun sollen.
[ 2 ] Die höchste Entwickelungsstufe des naiven Realismus auf dem Gebiete der Sittlichkeit ist die, wo das Sittengebot (sittliche Idee) von jeder fremden Wesenheit abgetrennt und hypothetisch als absolute Kraft im eigenen Innern gedacht wird. Was der Mensch zuerst als äußere Stimme Gottes vernahm, das vernimmt er jetzt als selbständige Macht in seinem Innern und spricht von dieser innern Stimme so, daß er sie dem Gewissen gleichsetzt.
[ 3 ] Damit ist aber die Stufe des naiven Bewußtseins bereits verlassen, und wir sind eingetreten in die Region, wo die Sittengesetze als Normen verselbständigt werden. Sie haben dann keinen Träger mehr, sondern werden zu metaphysischen Wesenheiten, die durch sich selbst existieren. Sie sind analog den unsichtbar-sichtbaren Kräften des metaphysischen Realismus, der die Wirklichkeit nicht durch den Anteil sucht, den die menschliche Wesenheit im Denken an dieser Wirklichkeit hat, sondern der sie hypothetisch zu dem Erlebten hinzudenkt. Die außermenschlichen Sittennormen treten auch immer als Begleiterscheinung dieses metaphysischen Realismus auf. Dieser metaphysische Realismus muß auch den Ursprung der Sittlichkeit im Felde des außermenschlichen Wirklichen suchen. Es gibt da verschiedene Möglichkeiten. Ist das vorausgesetzte Wesen als ein an sich gedankenloses, nach rein mechanischen Gesetzen wirkendes gedacht, wie es das des Materialismus sein soll, dann wird es auch das menschliche Individuum durch rein mechanische Notwendigkeit aus sich hervorbringen samt allem, was an diesem ist. Das Bewußtsein der Freiheit kann dann nur eine Illusion sein. Denn während ich mich für den Schöpfer meiner Handlung halte, wirkt in mir die mich zusammensetzende Materie und ihre Bewegungsvorgänge. Ich glaube mich frei; alle meine Handlungen sind aber tatsächlich nur Ergebnisse der meinem leiblichen und geistigen Organismus zugrunde liegenden materiellen Vorgänge. Nur weil wir die uns zwingenden Motive nicht kennen, haben wir das Gefühl der Freiheit, meint diese Ansicht. «Wir müssen hier wieder hervorheben, daß dieses Gefühl der Freiheit auf der Abwesenheit äußerer zwingender Motive... beruht.» «Unser Handeln ist necessitiert wie unser Denken.» (Ziehen, Leitfaden der physiologischen Psychologie Seite 207 f.) 1Über die Art, wie hier von «Materialismus» gesprochen wird, und die Berechtigung, von ihm so zu sprechen, vgl. «Zusatz» zu diesem Kapitel am Schluß desselben.
[ 4 ] Eine andere Möglichkeit ist die, daß jemand in einem geistigen Wesen das hinter den Erscheinungen steckende außermenschlicheAbsolute sieht. Dann wird er auch den Antrieb zum Handeln in einer solchen geistigen Kraft suchen. Er wird die in seiner Vernunft auffindbaren Sittenprinzipien für einen Ausfluß dieses Wesens an sich ansehen, das mit dem Menschen seine besonderen Absichten hat. Die Sittengesetze erscheinen dem Dualisten dieser Richtung als von dem Absoluten diktiert, und der Mensch hat durch seine Vernunft einfach diese Ratschlüsse des absoluten Wesens zu erforschen und auszuführen. Die sittliche Weltordnung erscheint dem Dualisten als wahrnehmbarer Abglanz einer hinter derselben stehenden höheren Ordnung. Die irdische Sittlichkeit ist die Erscheinung der außermenschlichen Weltordnung. Nicht der Mensch ist es, auf den es in dieser sittlichen Ordnung ankommt, sondern auf das Wesen an sich, auf das außermenschliche Wesen. Der Mensch soll das, was dieses Wesen will. Eduard von Hartmann, der das Wesen an sich als Gottheit vorstellt, für die das eigene Dasein Leiden ist, glaubt, dieses göttliche Wesen habe die Welt erschaffen, damit es durch dieselbe von seinem unendlich großen Leiden erlöst werde. Dieser Philosoph sieht daher die sittliche Entwickelung der Menschheit als einen Prozeß an, der dazu da ist, die Gottheit zu erlösen. «Nur durch den Aufbau einer sittlichen Weltordnung von seiten vernünftiger selbstbewußter Individuen kann der Weltprozeß seinem Ziel entgegengeführt... werden.» «Das reale Dasein ist die Inkarnation der Gottheit, der Weltprozeß die Passionsgeschichte des fleischgewordenen Gottes, und zugleich der Weg zur Erlösung des im Fleische Gekreuzigten; die Sittlichkeit aber ist die Mitarbeit an der Abkürzung dieses Leidens, und Erlösungsweges.» (Hartmann, Phänomenologie des sittlichen Bewußtseins 5. 871). Hier handelt der Mensch nicht, weil er will, sondern er soll handeln, weil Gott erlöst sein will. Wie der materialistische Dualist den Menschen zum Automaten macht, dessen Handeln nur das Ergebnis rein mechanischer Gesetzmäßigkeit ist, so macht ihn der spiritualistische Dualist (das ist derjenige, der das Absolute, das Wesen an sich, in einem Geistigen sieht, an dem der Mensch mit seinem bewußten Erleben keinen Anteil hat) zum Sklaven des Willens jenes Absoluten. Freiheit ist innerhalb des Materialismus sowie des einseitigen Spiritualismus, überhaupt innerhalb des auf Außermenschliches als wahre Wirklichkeit schließenden, diese nicht erlebenden metaphysischen Realismus, ausgeschlossen.
[ 5 ] Der naive wie dieser metaphysische Realismus müssen konsequenterweise aus einem und demselben Grunde die Freiheit leugnen, weil sie in dem Menschen nur den Vollstrecker oder Vollzieher von notwendig ihm aufgedrängten Prinzipien sehen. Der naive Realismus tötet die Freiheit durch Unterwerfung unter die Autorität eines wahrnehmbaren oder nach Analogie der Wahrnehmungen gedachten Wesens oder endlich unter die abstrakte innere Stimme, die er als «Gewissen» deutet; der bloß das Außermenschliche erschließende Metaphysiker kann die Freiheit nicht anerkennen, weil er den Menschen von einem «Wesen an sich» mechanisch oder moralisch bestimmt sein läßt.
[ 6 ] Der Monismus wird die teilweise Berechtigung des naiven Realismus anerkennen müssen, weil er die Berechtigung der Wahrnehmungswelt anerkennt. Wer unfähig ist, die sittlichen Ideen durch Intuition hervorzubringen, der muß sie von andern empfangen. Insoweit der Mensch seine sittlichen Prinzipien von außen empfängt, ist er tatsächlich unfrei. Aber der Monismus schreibt der Idee neben der Wahrnehmung eine gleiche Bedeutung zu. Die Idee kann aber im menschlichen Individuum zur Erscheinung kommen. Insofern der Mensch den Antrieben von dieser Seite folgt, empfindet er sich als frei. Der Monismus spricht aber der bloß schlußfolgernden Metaphysik alle Berechtigung ab, folglich auch den von sogenannten «Wesen an sich» herrührenden Antrieben des Handelns. Der Mensch kann nach monistischer Auffassung unfrei handeln, wenn er einem wahrnehmbaren äußeren Zwange folgt; er kann frei handeln, wenn er nur sich selbst gehorcht. Einen unbewußten, hinter Wahrnehmung und Begriff steckenden Zwang kann der Monismus nicht anerkennen. Wenn jemand von einer Handlung seines Mitmenschen behauptet: sie sei unfrei vollbracht, so muß er innerhalb der wahrnehmbaren Welt das Ding, oder den Menschen, oder die Einrichtung nachweisen, die jemand zu seiner Handlung veranlaßt haben; wenn der Behauptende sich auf Ursachen des Handelns außerhalb der sinnlich und geistig wirklichen Welt beruft, dann kann sich der Monismus auf eine solche Behauptung nicht einlassen.
[ 7 ] Nach monistischer Auffassung handelt der Mensch teils unfrei, teils frei. Er findet sich als unfrei in der Welt der Wahrnehmungen vor und verwirklicht in sich den freien Geist.
[ 8 ] Die sittlichen Gebote, die der bloß schlußfolgernde Metaphysiker als Ausflüsse einer höheren Macht ansehen muß, sind dem Bekenner des Monismus Gedanken der Menschen; die sittliche Weltordnung ist ihm weder der Abklatsch einer rein mechanischen Naturordnung, noch einer außermenschlichen Weltordnung, sondern durchaus freies Menschenwerk. Der Mensch hat nicht den Willen eines außer ihm liegenden Wesens in der Welt, sondern seinen eigenen durchzusetzen; er verwirklicht nicht die Ratschlüsse und Intentionen eines andern Wesens, sondern seine eigenen. Hinter den handelnden Menschen sieht der Monismus nicht die Zwecke einer ihm fremden Weltenlenkung, die die Menschen nach ihrem Willen bestimmt, sondern die Menschen verfolgen, insofern sie intuitive Ideen verwirklichen, nur ihre eigenen, menschlichen Zwecke. Und zwar verfolgt jedes Individuum seine besonderen Zwecke. Denn die Ideenwelt lebt sich nicht in einer Gemeinschaft von Menschen, sondern nur in menschlichen Individuen aus. Was als gemeinsames Ziel einer menschlichen Gesamtheit sich ergibt, das ist nur die Folge der einzelnen Willenstaten der Individuen, und zwar meist einiger weniger Auserlesener, denen die anderen, als ihren Autoritäten, folgen. Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
[ 9 ] Der Monismus ist also im Gebiete des wahrhaft sittlichen Handelns Freiheitsphilosophie. Weil er Wirklichkeitsphilosophie ist, so weist er ebenso gut die metaphysischen, unwirklichen Einschränkungen des freien Geistes zurück, wie er die physischen und historischen (naiv-wirklichen) des naiven Menschen anerkennt. Weil er den Menschen nicht als abgeschlossenes Produkt, das in jedem Augenblicke seines Lebens sein volles Wesen entfaltet, betrachtet, so scheint ihm der Streit, ob der Mensch als solcher frei ist oder nicht, nichtig. Er sieht in dem Menschen ein sich entwickelndes Wesen und fragt, ob auf dieser Entwickelungsbahn auch die Stufe des freien Geistes erreicht werden kann.
[ 10 ] Der Monismus weiß, daß die Natur den Menschen nicht als freien Geist fix und fertig aus ihren Armen entläßt, sondern daß sie ihn bis zu einer gewissen Stufe führt, von der aus er noch immer als unfreies Wesen sich weiter entwickelt, bis er an den Punkt kommt, wo er sich selbst findet.
[ 11 ] Der Monismus ist sich klar darüber, daß ein Wesen, das unter einem physischen oder moralischen Zwange handelt, nicht wahrhaftig sittlich sein kann. Er betrachtet den Durchgang durch das automatische Handeln (nach natürlichen Trieben und Instinkten) und denjenigen durch das gehorsame Handeln (nach sittlichen Normen) als notwendige Vorstufen der Sittlichkeit, aber er sieht die Möglichkeit ein, beide Durchgangsstadien durch den freien Geist zu überwinden. Der Monismus befreit die wahrhaft sittliche Weltanschauung im allgemeinen von den innerweltlichen Fesseln der naiven Sittlichkeitsmaximen und von den außerweltlichen Sittlichkeitsmaximen der spekulierenden Metaphysiker. Jene kann er nicht aus der Welt schaffen, wie er die Wahrnehmung nicht aus der Welt schaffen kann, diese lehnt er ab, weil er alle Erklärungsprinzipien zur Aufhellung der Welterscheinungen innerhalb der Welt sucht und keine außerhalb derselben. Ebenso wie der Monismus es ablehnt, an andere Erkenntnisprinzipien als solche für Menschen auch nur zu denken (vergleiche S.124f.), so weist er auch den Gedanken an andere Sittlichkeitsmaximen als solche für Menschen entschieden zurück. Die menschliche Sittlichkeit ist wie die menschliche Erkenntnis bedingt durch die menschliche Natur. Und so wie andere Wesen unter Erkenntnis etwas ganz anderes verstehen werden als wir, so werden andere Wesen auch eine andere Sittlichkeit haben. Sittlichkeit ist dem Anhänger des Monismus eine spezifisch menschliche Eigenschaft, und Freiheit die menschliche Form, sittlich zu sein.
Zusatz zur Neuausgabe (1918)
[ 12 ] 1. Eine Schwierigkeit in der Beurteilung des in beiden vorangehenden Abschnitten Dargestellten kann dadurch entstehen, daß man sich einem Widerspruch gegenübergestellt glaubt. Auf der einen Seite wird von dem Erleben des Denkens gesprochen, das von allgemeiner, für jedes menschliche Bewußtsein gleich geltender Bedeutung empfunden wird; auf der andern Seite wird hier darauf hingewiesen, daß die Ideen, welche im sittlichen Leben verwirklicht werden und die mit den im Denken erarbeiteten Ideen von gleicher Art sind, auf individuelle Art sich in jedem menschlichen Bewußtsein ausleben. Wer sich gedrängt fühlt, bei dieser Gegenüberstellung als bei einem «Widerspruch» stehen zu bleiben, und wer nicht erkennt, daß eben in der lebendigen Anschauung dieses tatsächlich vorhandenen Gegensatzes ein Stück vom Wesen des Menschen sich enthüllt, dem wird weder die Idee der Erkenntnis, noch die der Freiheit im rechten Lichte erscheinen können. Für diejenige Ansicht, welche ihre Begriffe bloß als von der Sinneswelt abgezogen (abstrahiert) denkt und welche die Intuition nicht zu ihrem Rechte kommen läßt, bleibt der hier für eine Wirklichkeit in Anspruch genommene Gedanke als ein «bloßer Widerspruch» bestehen. Für eine Einsicht, die durchschaut, wie Ideen intuitiv erlebt werden als ein auf sich selbst beruhendes Wesenhaftes, wird klar, daß der Mensch im Umkreis der Ideenwelt beim Erkennen sich in ein für alle Menschen Einheitliches hineinlebt, daß er aber, wenn er aus dieser Ideenwelt die Intuitionen für seine Willensakte entlehnt, ein Glied dieser Ideenwelt durch dieselbe Tätigkeit individualisiert, die er im geistig-ideellen Vorgang beim Erkennen als eine allgemein-menschliche entfaltet. Was als logischer Widerspruch erscheint, die allgemeine Artung der Erkenntnis-Ideen und die individuelle der Sitten-Ideen: das wird, indem es in seiner Wirklichkeit angeschaut wird, gerade zum lebendigen Begriff. Darin liegt ein Kennzeichen der menschlichen Wesenheit, daß das intuitiv zu Erfassende im Menschen wie im lebendigen Pendelschlag sich hin, und herbewegt zwischen der allgemein geltenden Erkenntnis und dem individuellen Erleben dieses Allgemeinen. Wer den einen Pendelausschlag in seiner Wirklichkeit nicht schauen kann, für den bleibt das Denken nur eine subjektive menschliche Betätigung; wer den andern nicht erfassen kann, für den scheint mit der Betätigung des Menschen im Denken alles individuelle Leben verloren. Für einen Denker der erstem Art ist das Erkennen, für den andern das sittliche Leben eine undurchschaubare Tatsache. Beide werden für die Erklärung des einen oder des andern allerlei Vorstellungen beibringen, die alle unzutreffend sind, weil von beiden eigentlich die Erlebbarkeit des Denkens entweder gar nicht erfaßt, oder als bloß abstrahierende Betätigung verkannt wird.
[ 13 ] 2. Auf S. 175f. wird von Materialismus gesprochen. Es ist mir wohl bewußt, daß es Denker gibt — wie der eben angeführte Th. Ziehen — , die sich selbst durchaus nicht als Materialisten bezeichnen, die aber doch von dem in diesem Buche geltend gemachten Gesichtspunkte mit diesem Begriffe bezeichnet werden müssen. Es kommt nicht darauf an, ob jemand sagt, für ihn sei die Welt nicht im bloß materiellen Sein beschlossen; er sei deshalb kein Materialist. Sondern es kommt darauf an, ob er Begriffe entwickelt, die nur auf ein materielles Sein anwendbar sind. Wer ausspricht: «Unser Handeln ist necessitiert wie unser Denken», der hat einen Begriff hingestellt, der bloß auf materielle Vorgänge, aber weder auf das Handeln, noch auf das Sein anwendbar ist; und er müßte, wenn er seinen Begriff zu Ende dächte, eben materialistisch denken. Daß er es nicht tut, ergibt sich nur aus derjenigen Inkonsequenz, die so oft die Folge des nicht zu Ende geführten Denkens ist. — Man hört jetzt oft, der Materialismus des 19. Jahrhunderts sei wissenschaftlich abgetan. In Wahrheit ist er es aber durchaus nicht. Man bemerkt in der Gegenwart oft nur nicht, daß man keine anderen Ideen als solche hat, mit denen man nur an Materielles heran kann. Dadurch verhüllt sich jetzt der Materialismus, während er in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts sich offen zur Schau gestellt hat. Gegen eine geistig die Welt erfassende Anschauung ist der verhüllte Materialismus der Gegenwart nicht weniger intolerant als der eingestandene des vorigen Jahrhunderts. Er täuscht nur viele, die da glauben, eine auf Geistiges gehende Weltauffassung ablehnen zu dürfen, weil ja die naturwissenschaftliche den «Materialismus längst verlassen hat».
X. Philosophy of freedom and monism
[ 1 ] The naïve person, who only accepts as real what he can see with his eyes and grasp with his hands, also demands motives for his moral life that are perceptible to his senses. He demands a being who communicates these motives to him in a way that his senses can understand. He will have these motives dictated to him as commandments by a person whom he considers to be wiser and more powerful than himself, or whom he recognizes for some other reason as a power above him. In this way, the moral principles that emerge are those of family, state, social, ecclesiastical and divine authority mentioned earlier. The most biased person still believes a single other person; the somewhat more advanced person has his moral behavior dictated to him by a majority (state, society). It is always perceptible powers on which he relies. If the conviction finally dawns on him that these are basically just as weak people as he is, he looks to a higher power for guidance, to a divine being, which he endows with sensually perceptible qualities. He allows this being to convey the conceptual content of his moral life to him again in a perceptible way, be it that God appears in the burning bush, be it that he walks among men in a bodily-human form and tells their ears audibly what they should and should not do.
[ 2 ] The highest stage of development of naive realism in the field of morality is that in which the moral commandment (moral idea) is separated from every foreign entity and hypothetically conceived as an absolute force within oneself. What man first heard as the external voice of God, he now hears as an independent power within himself and speaks of this inner voice in such a way that he equates it with conscience.
[ 3 ] This, however, means that we have already left the stage of naive consciousness and have entered the region where moral laws become independent as norms. They then no longer have a carrier, but become metaphysical entities that exist through themselves. They are analogous to the invisible-visible forces of metaphysical realism, which does not seek reality through the share that the human being has in this reality in thought, but which hypothetically adds them to what is experienced. The extra-human moral norms always appear as a concomitant of this metaphysical realism. This metaphysical realism must also seek the origin of morality in the field of the extra-human real. There are various possibilities. If the presupposed being is conceived as a being without thought in itself, acting according to purely mechanical laws, as it is supposed to be in materialism, then it will also bring forth the human individual from itself by purely mechanical necessity, together with everything about it. The consciousness of freedom can then only be an illusion. For while I believe myself to be the creator of my actions, the matter that composes me and its processes of movement are at work in me. I believe myself to be free, but all my actions are in fact only the results of the material processes underlying my physical and mental organism. Only because we do not know the motives that compel us do we have the feeling of freedom, according to this view. "We must again emphasize here that this feeling of freedom is based on the absence of external compelling motives... ..." "Our action is necessitated like our thought." (Ziehen, Leitfaden der physiologischen Psychologie page 207 f.) 1On the way in which "materialism" is spoken of here, and the justification for speaking of it in this way, cf. the "Supplement" to this chapter at the end of it.
[ 4 ] Another possibility is that someone sees in a spiritual being the extra-human Absolute behind the phenomena. Then he will also seek the drive to act in such a spiritual force. He will regard the moral principles to be found in his reason as an emanation of this being in itself, which has its special intentions with man. The moral laws appear to the dualist of this school of thought as dictated by the Absolute, and man simply has to investigate and carry out these counsels of the Absolute Being through his reason. The moral world order appears to the dualist as a perceptible reflection of a higher order behind it. Earthly morality is the manifestation of the extra-human world order. It is not man who is important in this moral order, but the being itself, the extra-human being. Man should do what this being wants. Eduard von Hartmann, who conceives of the being in itself as a deity for which its own existence is suffering, believes that this divine being created the world so that it could be redeemed from its infinite suffering through it. This philosopher therefore sees the moral development of humanity as a process that is there to redeem the deity. "Only through the construction of a moral world order on the part of rational, self-conscious individuals can the world process be led towards its goal..." "Real existence is the incarnation of the Godhead, the world process is the passion history of the incarnate God, and at the same time the path to the redemption of the crucified in the flesh; morality, however, is the cooperation in shortening this suffering and path of redemption." (Hartmann, Phenomenology of Moral Consciousness 5. 871). Here man does not act because he wants to, but he should act because God wants to be redeemed. Just as the materialistic dualist makes man an automaton whose actions are only the result of purely mechanical lawfulness, so the spiritualistic dualist (that is the one who sees the absolute, the being in itself, in a spiritual being in which man with his conscious experience has no part) makes him a slave to the will of that absolute. Freedom is excluded within materialism as well as one-sided spiritualism, in general within metaphysical realism, which concludes that the extra-human is a true reality and does not experience it.
[ 5 ] Both naïve and metaphysical realism must consequently deny freedom for one and the same reason, because they see in man only the executor or implementer of principles necessarily imposed on him. Naïve realism kills freedom by submitting to the authority of a perceptible being or a being conceived according to the analogy of perceptions or, finally, to the abstract inner voice that it interprets as "conscience"; the metaphysician, who merely opens up the extra-human, cannot recognize freedom because he allows man to be mechanically or morally determined by a "being in itself".
[ 6 ] Monism will have to recognize the partial justification of naive realism because it recognizes the justification of the perceptual world. Those who are incapable of producing moral ideas through intuition must receive them from others. Insofar as man receives his moral principles from outside, he is indeed unfree. But monism ascribes equal importance to the idea alongside perception. However, the idea can manifest itself in the human individual. Insofar as man follows the impulses from this side, he feels himself to be free. Monism, however, denies all justification to merely inferential metaphysics, and consequently also to the drives of action originating from so-called "beings in themselves". According to the monistic view, man can act unfree if he follows a perceptible external compulsion; he can act freely if he only obeys himself. Monism cannot recognize an unconscious compulsion behind perception and concept. If someone claims of an action of his fellow human being that it was performed unfree, he must prove within the perceptible world the thing, or the person, or the institution that caused someone to act; if the person making the claim invokes causes of action outside the sensually and spiritually real world, then monism cannot accept such an assertion.
[ 7 ] According to the monistic view, man acts partly unfree and partly free. He finds himself as unfree in the world of perceptions and realizes the free spirit in himself.
[ 8 ] The moral commandments, which the merely deductive metaphysician must regard as emanations of a higher power, are thoughts of men to the confessor of monism; the moral world order is for him neither the imitation of a purely mechanical natural order, nor of an extra-human world order, but entirely the free work of man. Man does not have to enforce the will of an external being in the world, but his own; he does not realize the counsels and intentions of another being, but his own. Monism does not see behind the acting human beings the purposes of a world control that is alien to it, which determines people according to its will, but people pursue, insofar as they realize intuitive ideas, only their own, human purposes. And each individual pursues his own particular purposes. For the world of ideas does not live itself out in a community of human beings, but only in human individuals. What emerges as the common goal of a human totality is only the consequence of the individual acts of will of the individuals, usually of a select few, whom the others follow as their authorities. Each of us is called to a free spirit, just as every rose germ is called to become a rose.
[ 9 ] Monism is therefore philosophy of freedom in the realm of truly moral action. Because it is a philosophy of reality, it rejects the metaphysical, unreal limitations of the free spirit just as well as it recognizes the physical and historical (naive-real) limitations of naive man. Because he does not regard man as a finished product that unfolds its full nature at every moment of its life, the dispute as to whether man as such is free or not seems to him to be null and void. He sees in man an evolving being and asks whether the stage of the free spirit can also be reached on this path of development.
[ 10 ] Monism knows that nature does not release man from its arms as a free spirit ready-made, but that it leads him to a certain stage, from which he continues to develop as an unfree being until he reaches the point where he finds himself.
[ 11 ] Monism is clear that a being acting under a physical or moral compulsion cannot be truly moral. It regards the passage through automatic action (according to natural drives and instincts) and the passage through obedient action (according to moral norms) as necessary preliminary stages of morality, but it recognizes the possibility of overcoming both stages through the free spirit. Monism generally liberates the truly moral worldview from the inner-worldly fetters of naive moral maxims and from the extra-worldly moral maxims of speculative metaphysicians. He cannot eliminate the latter from the world, just as he cannot eliminate perception from the world; he rejects the latter because he seeks all explanatory principles for elucidating world phenomena within the world and none outside it. Just as monism rejects even thinking of principles of cognition other than those for human beings (cf. pp. 124f.), it also decisively rejects the idea of moral maxims other than those for human beings. Human morality, like human cognition, is conditioned by human nature. And just as other beings will understand cognition to mean something quite different from us, other beings will also have a different morality. For the supporter of monism, morality is a specifically human characteristic, and freedom is the human form of being moral.
Additions to the new edition (1918)
[ 12 ] 1. A difficulty in the assessment of what is presented in the two preceding sections can arise from the fact that one believes oneself to be confronted with a contradiction. On the one hand, we speak of the experience of thinking, which is felt to be of general significance, equally valid for every human consciousness; on the other hand, it is pointed out here that the ideas which are realized in the moral life, and which are of the same kind as the ideas worked out in thinking, are lived out in an individual way in every human consciousness. He who feels compelled to remain with this opposition as a "contradiction", and who does not recognize that it is precisely in the living view of this actually existing opposition that a part of the essence of man is revealed, will be unable to see either the idea of knowledge or that of freedom in the right light. For that view which thinks of its concepts merely as abstracted from the sense world and which does not allow intuition to come into its own, the thought here claimed for a reality remains as a "mere contradiction". For an insight that sees through how ideas are intuitively experienced as a beingness based on itself, it becomes clear that man, in the sphere of the world of ideas, when cognizing, lives himself into something that is uniform for all men, but that when he borrows the intuitions for his acts of will from this world of ideas, he individualizes a member of this world of ideas through the same activity that he develops in the spiritual-ideal process of cognition as a general-human one. What appears to be a logical contradiction, the general nature of cognitive ideas and the individual nature of moral ideas, becomes a living concept when it is viewed in its reality. Therein lies a characteristic of human nature, that what is to be intuitively grasped in man moves back and forth between the generally valid cognition and the individual experience of this general. For those who cannot see the reality of one swing of the pendulum, thinking remains only a subjective human activity; for those who cannot grasp the other, all individual life seems lost with the activity of man in thinking. For a thinker of the first kind, cognition, for the other, moral life, is an inscrutable fact. Both will contribute all kinds of ideas to the explanation of the one or the other, all of which are inaccurate, because both either do not actually grasp the tangibility of thinking or misjudge it as a merely abstracting activity.
[ 13] 2. On p. 175f. materialism is mentioned. I am well aware that there are thinkers - such as Th. Ziehen just mentioned - who do not call themselves materialists at all, but who must nevertheless be designated by this term from the point of view asserted in this book. It does not matter whether someone says that for him the world is not resolved in mere material existence; he is therefore not a materialist. Rather, it depends on whether he develops concepts that are only applicable to a material being. He who says: "Our action is necessitated like our thinking", has put forward a concept that is applicable only to material processes, but neither to action nor to being; and if he thought his concept through to the end, he would have to think materialistically. That he does not do so is only the result of that inconsistency which is so often the consequence of not thinking to the end. - We now often hear that the materialism of the 19th century has been scientifically dismissed. In truth, however, it is not at all. In the present day people often fail to realize that they have no other ideas than those with which they can only approach material things. Thus materialism now conceals itself, whereas in the second half of the 19th century it was openly displayed. The veiled materialism of the present is no less intolerant of a spiritual view of the world than the admitted materialism of the previous century. It only deceives many who believe that they are allowed to reject a spiritual view of the world because the natural sciences have "long since abandoned materialism".