Canst thou say, I am conscious of
external
objects.
Fichte - Nature of the Scholar
It is clear to mc that
neither of the two doctrines is sufficiently supported. For
the first, there is no other recommendation than its mere
conceivableness; for the latter, I extend a principle, which is
perfectly true in its own place, beyond its proper and natural
application. If intelligence is merely the manifestation of a
power of Nature, then I do quite right to extend this prin-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK I. DOUBT.
2(53
ciple to it; but, whether it is so or not, is the very question
at issue; and this question I must solve by deduction from
other premises, not by a one-sided answer assumed at the
very commencement of the inquiry, from which I again de-
duce that only which I myself have previously placed in it.
In short, it would seem that neither of the two opinions can
be established by argument.
As little can this matter be determined by immediate
consciousness, jl can never become conscious either of the
external powers, by which, in the system of universal neces-
sity, I am determined; nor of my own power, by which, on
the system of freedom, I determine myself. Thus whichso-
ever of the two opinions I may accept, I still accept it, not
upon evidence, but merely by arbitrary choice.
The system of freedom satisfies my heart; the opposite
system destroys and annihilates it. To stand, cold and un-
moved, amid the current of events, a passive mirror of fugi-
tive and passing phenomena,--this existence is insupportable
to me; I scorn and detest it. I will love;--I will lose my-
self in sympathy;--I will know the joy and the grief of life.
I myself am the highest object of this sympathy; and the
only mode in which I can satisfy its requirements is by my
actions. I will do all for the best;--1 will rejoice when I
have done right, I will grieve when I have done wrong; and
even this sorrow shall be sweet to me, for it is a chord of
sympathy,--a pledge of future amendment. In love only
there is life;--without it is death and annihilation.
But coldly and insolently does the opposite system ad-
vance, and turn this love into a mockery. If I listen to it,
I am not, and I cannot act. The object of my most inti-
mate attachment is a phantom of the brain,--a gross and
palpable delusion. Not I, but a foreign and to me wholly
unknown power, acts in me; and it is a matter of indiffer-
ence to me how this power unfolds itself. I stand abashed,
with my warm affections and my virtuous will, and blush
for what I know to be best and purest in my nature, for the
sake of which alone I would exist, as for a ridiculous folly.
What is holiest in me is given over as a prey to scorn.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 2G4
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
Doubtless it was the love of this love, an interest in this
interest, that impelled me, unconsciously, before I entered
upon the inquiry which has thus perplexed and distracted
me, to regard myself, without farther question, as free and
independent; doubtless it was this interest which has led
me to carry out, even to conviction, an opinion which has
nothing in its favour but it>>-4atolligibility, apd the impossi-
bility_pf proving its opposite; it was this interest which has
hitherto restrained me from seeking any farther explanation
of myself and my capacities.
The opposite system, barren and heartless indeed, but ex-
haustless in its explanations, will explain even this desire
for freedom, and this aversion to the contrary doctrine. It
explains everything which I can cite from my own con-
sciousness against it, and as often as I say 'thus and thus is
the case,' it replies with the same cool complacency, "I say so
too; and I tell you besides why it must necessarily be so. "
"When thou speakest of thy heart, thy love, thy interest in
this and that," thus will it answer all my complaints, "thou
standest merely at the point of immediate self-consciousness
of thine own being, and this thou hast confessed already in
asserting that thou thyself art the object of thy highest in-
terest . Now it is already well known, and we have proved it
above, that this thou for whom thou art so deeply interested,
in so far as it is not the mere activity of thy individual in-
ward nature, is at least an impulse of it;--every such im-
pulse, as surely as it exists, returns on itself and impels itself
to activity;--and we can thus understand how this impulse
must manifest itself in consciousness, as love for, and inter-
est in, free individual activity. Couldst thou exchange this
narrow point of view in self-consciousness for the higher po-
sition in which thou mayest grasp the universe, which in-
deed thou hast promised thyself to take, then it would be-
come clear to thee that what thou hast named thy love is
not thy love, but a foreign love,--the interest which the ori-
ginal power of Nature manifesting itself in thee takes in
maintaining its own peculiar existence. Do not then appeal
again to thy love; for even if that could prove anything be-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK I. DOUBT.
205
sides, its supposition here is wholly irregular and unjustifi-
able. Thou lovest not thyself, for, strictly speaking, thou art
not; it is Nature in thee which concerns herself for her own
preservation. Thou hast admitted without dispute, that al-
though in the plant there exists a peculiar impulse to grow
and develope itself, the specific activity of this impulse yet
depends upon forces lying beyond itself. Bestow conscious-
ness upon the plant,--and it will regard this instinct of
growth with interest and love. Convince it by reasoning
that this instinct is unable of itself to accomplish anything
whatever, but that the measure of its manifestation is al-
ways determined by something out of itself,--and it will
speak precisely as thou hast spoken; it will behave in a
manner that may be pardoned in a plant, but which by no
means beseems thee, who art a higher product of Nature,
and capable of comprehending the universe. "
What can I answer to this representation? Should I ven-
ture to place myself at its point of view, upon this boasted
position from whence I may embrace the universe in my
comprehension, doubtless I must blush and be silent. This,
therefore, is the question,--whether I shall at once assume
this position, or confine myself to the range of immediate
self-consciousness; whether love shall be made subject to
knowledge, or knowledge to love. The latter stands in bad
esteem among intelligent people;--the former renders me
indescribably miserable, by extinguishing my own personal
being within me. I cannot do the latter without appearing
inconsiderate and foolish in my own estimation;--I cannot
do the former without deliberately annihilating my own ex-
istence. /
I cainot remain in this state of indecision; on the solu-
tion of this question depends my whole peace and dignity.
As impossible is it for me decide; I have absolutely no
ground of decision in favour of the one opinion or the other.
Intolerable state of uncertainty and irresolution! Through
the best and most courageous resolution of my life, I have
been reduced to this! What power can deliver me from it?
--what power can deliver me from myself?
Ma
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 2G(J
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
BOOK II.
KNOWLEDGE.
Chagrin and anguish stung me to the heart. I cursed the
returning day which called me back to an existence whose
truth and significance were now involved in doubt. I awoke
in the night from unquiet dreams. I sought anxiously for
a ray of light that might lead me out of these mazes of un-
certainty. I sought, but became only more deeply entangled
in the labyrinth.
Once at the hour of midnight, a wondrous shape appeared
before me, and addressed me:--
"Poor mortal," I heard it say, "thou heapest error upon
error, and fanciest thyself wise. Thou tremblest before the
phantoms which thou hast thyself toiled to create. Dare to
become truly wise. I bring thee no new revelation. What
I can teach thee thou already knowest, and thou hast but to
recall it to thy remembrance. I cannot deceive thee; for
thou, thyself, wilt acknowledge me to be in the right; and
shouldst thou still be deceived, thou wilt be deceived by
thyself. Take courage;--listen to me, and answer my ques-
tions. "
I took courage. "He appeals to my own understanding.
I will make the venture. He cannot force his own thoughts
into my mind; the conclusion to which I shall come must
be thought out by myself; the conviction which I shall ac-
cept must be of my own creating. Speak, wonderful Spirit! "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
267
I exclaimed, "whatever thou art! Speak, and I will listen.
Question me, and I will answer. "
The Spirit. Thou believest that these objects here, and
those there, are actually present before thee and out of thy-
self?
I. Certainly I do.
Spirit. And how dost thou know that they are actually
present?
I. I see them; I would feel them were I to stretch forth
my hand; I can hear the sounds they produce; they reveal
themselves to me through all my senses.
Spirit. Indeed! Thou wilt perhaps by and by retract
the assertion that thou seest, feelest, and hearest these ob-
jects. For the present I will speak as thou dost, as if thou
didst really, by means of thy sight, touch, and hearing, per-
ceive the real existence of objects. But observe, it is only
by means of thy sight, touch, and other external senses. Or
is it not so? Dost thou perceive otherwise than through
thy senses? and has an object any existence for thee, other-
wise than as thou seest it, hearest it, &c. ?
I. By no means.
Spirit. Sensible objects, therefore, exist for thee, only in
consequence of a particular determination of thy external senses: thy knowledge of them is but a result of thy know-
ledge of this determination of thy sight, touch, &c. Thy
declaration--' there are objects out of myself,' depends upon
this other--' I see, hear, feel, and so forth'?
I. This is my meaning.
Spirit. And how dost thou know then that thou seest,
hearest, feelest?
I. I do not understand thee. Thy questions appear
strange to me.
Spirit. I will make them more intelligible. Dost thou
see thy sight, and feel thy touch, or hast thou yet a higher
sense, through which thou perceivest thy external senses
and their determinations?
I. By no means. I know immediately that I see and
feel, and what I see and feel; I know this while it is, and
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 208
the vocation of man.
simply because it is, without the intervention of any other
sense. It was on this account that thy question seemed
strange to me, because it appeared to throw doubt on this
immediate consciousness.
Spirit. That was not my intention: I desired only to in-
duce thee to make this immediate consciousness clear to
thyself. So thou hast an immediate consciousness of thy
sight and touch?
I Yea.
Spirit. Of thy sight and touch, I said. Thou art, there-
fore, the subject seeing, feeling, &c. ; and when thou art con-
scious of the seeing, feeling, &c. , thou art conscious of a
particular determination or modification of thyself.
I. Unquestionably.
Spirit. Thou hast a consciousness of thy seeing, feeling,
&c. , and thereby thou perceivest the object. Couldst thou
not perceive it without this consciousness? Canst thou not
recognise an object by sight or hearing, without knowing
that thou seest or hearest?
I. By no means.
Spirit. The immediate consciousness of thyself, and of thy
own determinations, is therefore the imperative condition
of all other consciousness; and thou knowest a thing, only in
so far as thou knowest that thou knowest it: no element can enter into the latter cognition which is not contained in
the former. Thou canst not know anything without know-
ing that thou knowest it?
I. I think so.
Spirit. Therefore thou knowest of the existence of objects
only by means of seeing, feeling them, &c. ; and thou know-
est that thou seest and feelest, only by means of an imme-
diate consciousness of this knowledge. What thou dost not
perceive immediately, thou dost not perceive at all.
/. I see that it is so.
Spirit. In all perception, thou perceivest in the first place
only thyself and thine own condition; whatever is not con-
tained in this perception, is not perceived at all?
I. Thou repeatest what I have already admitted.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
2G0
Spirit. I would not weary of repeating it in all its appli-
cations, if I thought that thou hadst not thoroughly com-
prehended it, and indelibly impressed it on thy mind.
Canst thou say, I am conscious of external objects.
I. By no means, if I speak accurately; for the sight and
touch by which I grasp these objects are not consciousness
itself, but only that of which I am first and most immedi-
ately conscious. Strictly speaking, I can only say, that I am
conscious of my seeing and touching of these objects.
Spirit. Do not forget, then, what thou hast now clearly
understood. In all perception thou perceivest only thine own
condition.
I shall, however, continue to speak thy language, since it
is most familiar to thee. Thou hast said that thou canst see,
hear, and feel objects. How then,--that is, with what pro-
perties or attributes,--dost thou see or feel them?
I. I see that object red, this blue; when I touch them, I
find this smooth, that rough--this cold, that warm.
Spirit. Thou knowest then what red, blue, smooth, rough,
cold, and warm, really signify.
/. Undoubtedly I do.
Spirit. Wilt thou not describe it to me then?
I. It cannot be described. Look! Turn thine eye to-
wards that object:--what thou becomest conscious of
through thy sight, I call red. Touch the surface of this
other object:--what thou feelest, I call smooth. In this
way I have arrived at this knowledge, and there is no other
way by which it can be acquired
.
Spirit. But can we not, at least from some of these qua-
lities known by immediate sensation, deduce a knowledge
of others differing from them? If, for instance, any one
had seen red, green, yellow, but never a blue colour; had
tasted sour, sweet, salt, but never bitter,--would he not, by
mere reflection and comparison, be able to discover what
is meant by blue or bitter, without having ever seen or
tasted anything of the kind?
I. Certainly not. What is matter of sensation can only
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 270
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
be felt, it is not discoverable by thought; it is no deduction,
but a direct and immediate perception.
Spirit. Strange! Thou boastest of a knowledge respect-
ing which thou art unable to tell how thou hast attained it.
For see, thou maintainest that thou canst see one quality in
an object, feel another, hear a third; thou must, therefore,
be able to distinguish sight from touch, and both from hear-
ing?
I. Without doubt.
Spirit. Thou maintainest further, that thou seest this ob-
ject red, that blue; and feelest this smooth, that rough.
Thou must therefore be able to distinguish red from blue,
smooth from rough 1
I Without doubt.
Spirit. And thou maintainest that thou hast not discov-
ered this difference by means of reflection and comparison
of these sensations in thyself. But perhaps thou hast learnt,
by comparing the red or blue colours, the smooth or rough
surfaces of objects out of thyself, what thou shouldst feel in
thyself as red or blue, smooth or rough?
I. This is impossible; for my perception of objects pro-
ceeds from my perception of my own internal condition, and
is determined by it, but not the contrary. I,first distinguish
objects by distinguishing my own states of being. I can
learn that this particular sensation is indicated by the
wholly arbitrary sign, red;--and those by the signs, blue,
smooth, rough; but I cannot learn that the sensations them-
selves are distinguished, nor how they are distinguished.
That they are different, I know only by being conscious
of myself, and being conscious of internal change. How
they differ, I cannot describe; but I know that they must
differ as much as my self-consciousness differs; and this dif-
ference of sensations is an immediate, and by no means an
acquired, distinction.
Spirit. Which thou canst make independently of all
knowledge of the objects themselves?
I. Which I must make independently of such knowledge,
for this knowledge is itself dependent on that distinction.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
271
Spirit. Which is then given to thee immediately through
mere self-consciousness?
I. In no other way.
Spirit. But shouldst thou not then content thyself with
saying,--" I feel myself affected in the manner that I call
red, blue, smooth, rough. "? Shouldst thou not place these
sensations in thyself alone? and not transfer them to an ob-
ject lying entirely out of thyself, and declare these modifica-
tions of thyself to be properties of this object?
Or, tell me, when thou believest that thou seest an object
red, or feelest it smooth, dost thou really perceiveTanything
more than that thou art affected in a certain manner?
L From what has gone before, T have clearly seen that I
do not, in fact, perceive more than what thou sayest; and
this transference of what is in me to something out of my-
self, from which nevertheless I cannot refrain, now appears
very strange to me.
My sensations are in myself, not in the object, for I am
myself and not the object; I am conscious only of myself
and of my own state, not of the state of the object. If there
is a consciousness of the object, that consciousness is, cer-
tainly, neither sensation nor perception :--thus much is
clear.
Spirit. Thou formest thy conclusions somewhat precipi-
tately. Let us consider this matter on all sides, so that I
may be assured that thou wilt not again retract what thou
hast now freely admitted.
Is there then in the object, as thou usually conceivest of
it, anything more than its red colour, its smooth surface, and
so on; in short, anything besides those characteristic marks
which thou obtainest through immediate sensation?
I. I believe that there is: besides these attributes there
is yet the thing itself to which they belong; the substra-
tum which supports these attributes.
Spirit. But through what sense dost thou perceive this
substratum of these attributes? Dost thou see it, feel it,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 272
the vocation of max.
hear it; or is there perhaps a special sense for its percep-
tion?
I. No. I think that I see and feel it.
Spirit. Indeed! Let us examine this more closely. Art
thou then ever conscious of thy sight in itself, or at all times
only of determinate acts of sight?
I. I have always a determinate sensation of sight.
Spirit. And what is this determinate sensation of sight
with respect to that object there?
I. That of red colour.
Spirit. And this red is something positive, a simple sen-
sation, a specific state of thyself?
I. This I have understood.
Spirit. Thou shouldst therefore see the red in itself as
simple, as a mathematical point, and thou dost see it only
as such. In thee at least, as an affection of thyself, it is ob-
viously a simple, determinate state, without connexion with
anything else,--which we can only describe as a mathemati-
cal point. Or dost thou find it otherwise?
I. I must admit that such is the case.
Spirit. But now thou spreadest this simple red over a
broad surface, which thou assuredly dost not see, since thou
seest only a simple red. How dost thou obtain this surface?
I. It is certainly strange. --Yet, I believe that I have
found the explanation. I do not indeed see the surface, but
I feel it when I pass my hand over it. My sensation of
sight remains the same during this process of feeling, and
hence I extend the red colour over the whole surface which
I feel while I continue to see the same red.
Spirit. This might be so, didst thou really feel such a
surface. But let us see whether that be possible. Thou
dost not feel absolutely; thou feelest only thy feelings, and
art only conscious of these 1
I. Certainly, j Each sensation is a determinate something. I never merely see, or hear, or feel, in general, but my sen-
sations are always definite;--red, green, blue colours, cold,
warmth, smoothness, roughness, the sound of the violin, the
voice of man, and the like,--are seen, felt, or heard. Let
that be settled between us.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
273
Spirit Willingly. --Thus, when thou saidst that thou
didst feel a surface, thou hadst only an immediate conscious-
ness of feeling smooth, rough, or the like?
I. Certainly.
Spirit. This smooth or rough is, like the red colour, a
simple sensation,--a point in thee, the subject in which it
abides? And with the same right with which I formerly
asked why thou didst spread a simple sensation of sight
over an imaginary surface, do I now ask why thou shouldst
do the same with a simple sensation of touch?
I. This smooth surface is perhaps not equally smooth in
all points, but possesses in each a different degree of smooth-
ness, only that I want the capacity of strictly distinguishing
these degrees from each other, and language whereby to re-
tain and express their differences. Yet I do distinguish
them, unconsciously, and place them side by side; and thus
I form the conception of a surface.
Spirit. But canst thou, in the same undivided moment of
time, have sensations of opposite kinds, or be affected at the
same time in different ways?
I. By no means.
Spirit. Those different degrees of smoothness, which thou
wouldst assume in order to explain what thou canst not ex-
plain, are nevertheless, in so far as they are different from
each other, mere opposite sensations which succeed each
other in thee?
I. I cannot deny this.
Spirit. Thou shouldst therefore describe them as thou
really findest them,--as successive changes of the same ma-
thematical point, such as thou perceivest in other cases; and
not as adjacent and simultaneous qualities of several points
in one surface.
/. I see this, and I find that nothing is explained by my
assumption. But my hand, with which I touch the object
and cover it, is itself a surface; and by it I perceive the ob-
ject to be a surface, and a greater one than my hand, since I
can extend my hand several times upon it.
Spirit. Thy hand is a surface? How dost thou know that?
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 274
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
How dost thou attain a consciousness of thy hand at all? Is
there any other way than either that thou by means of it
feelest something else, in which case it is an instrument; or
that thou feelest itself by means of some other part of thy
body, in which case it is an object?
I. No, there is no other. With my band I feel some other
definite object, or I feel my hand itself by means of some
other pail of my body. I have no immediate, absolute con-
sciousness of my hand, any more than of my sight or touch.
Spirit. Let us, at present, consider only the case in which
thy hand is an instrument, for this will determine the
second case also. In this case there can be nothing more in
the immediate perception than what belongs to sensation,--
that whereby thou thyself, and here in particular thy hand,
is conceived of as the subject tasting in the act of taste, feel-
ing in the act of touch. Now, oithev. thy sensation is single;
in which case I cannot see why thou shouldst extend this
single sensation over a sentient surface, and not content
thyself with a single sentient point;--or thy sensation is
varied; and in this case, since the differences must succeed
each other, I again do not see why thou shouldst not
conceive of these feelings as succeeding each other in the
same point. That thy hand should appear to thee as a sur-
face, is just as inexplicable as thy notion of a surface in
general. Do not make use of the first in order to explain
the second, until thou hast explained the first itself. The
second case, in which thy hand, or whatever other member
of thy body thou wilt, is itself the object of a sensation, may
easily be explained by means of the first. Thou perceivest
this member by means of another, which is then the sen-
tient one. I ask the same question concerning this latter
member that I asked concerning thy hand, and thou art as
little able to answer it as before.
neither of the two doctrines is sufficiently supported. For
the first, there is no other recommendation than its mere
conceivableness; for the latter, I extend a principle, which is
perfectly true in its own place, beyond its proper and natural
application. If intelligence is merely the manifestation of a
power of Nature, then I do quite right to extend this prin-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK I. DOUBT.
2(53
ciple to it; but, whether it is so or not, is the very question
at issue; and this question I must solve by deduction from
other premises, not by a one-sided answer assumed at the
very commencement of the inquiry, from which I again de-
duce that only which I myself have previously placed in it.
In short, it would seem that neither of the two opinions can
be established by argument.
As little can this matter be determined by immediate
consciousness, jl can never become conscious either of the
external powers, by which, in the system of universal neces-
sity, I am determined; nor of my own power, by which, on
the system of freedom, I determine myself. Thus whichso-
ever of the two opinions I may accept, I still accept it, not
upon evidence, but merely by arbitrary choice.
The system of freedom satisfies my heart; the opposite
system destroys and annihilates it. To stand, cold and un-
moved, amid the current of events, a passive mirror of fugi-
tive and passing phenomena,--this existence is insupportable
to me; I scorn and detest it. I will love;--I will lose my-
self in sympathy;--I will know the joy and the grief of life.
I myself am the highest object of this sympathy; and the
only mode in which I can satisfy its requirements is by my
actions. I will do all for the best;--1 will rejoice when I
have done right, I will grieve when I have done wrong; and
even this sorrow shall be sweet to me, for it is a chord of
sympathy,--a pledge of future amendment. In love only
there is life;--without it is death and annihilation.
But coldly and insolently does the opposite system ad-
vance, and turn this love into a mockery. If I listen to it,
I am not, and I cannot act. The object of my most inti-
mate attachment is a phantom of the brain,--a gross and
palpable delusion. Not I, but a foreign and to me wholly
unknown power, acts in me; and it is a matter of indiffer-
ence to me how this power unfolds itself. I stand abashed,
with my warm affections and my virtuous will, and blush
for what I know to be best and purest in my nature, for the
sake of which alone I would exist, as for a ridiculous folly.
What is holiest in me is given over as a prey to scorn.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 2G4
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
Doubtless it was the love of this love, an interest in this
interest, that impelled me, unconsciously, before I entered
upon the inquiry which has thus perplexed and distracted
me, to regard myself, without farther question, as free and
independent; doubtless it was this interest which has led
me to carry out, even to conviction, an opinion which has
nothing in its favour but it>>-4atolligibility, apd the impossi-
bility_pf proving its opposite; it was this interest which has
hitherto restrained me from seeking any farther explanation
of myself and my capacities.
The opposite system, barren and heartless indeed, but ex-
haustless in its explanations, will explain even this desire
for freedom, and this aversion to the contrary doctrine. It
explains everything which I can cite from my own con-
sciousness against it, and as often as I say 'thus and thus is
the case,' it replies with the same cool complacency, "I say so
too; and I tell you besides why it must necessarily be so. "
"When thou speakest of thy heart, thy love, thy interest in
this and that," thus will it answer all my complaints, "thou
standest merely at the point of immediate self-consciousness
of thine own being, and this thou hast confessed already in
asserting that thou thyself art the object of thy highest in-
terest . Now it is already well known, and we have proved it
above, that this thou for whom thou art so deeply interested,
in so far as it is not the mere activity of thy individual in-
ward nature, is at least an impulse of it;--every such im-
pulse, as surely as it exists, returns on itself and impels itself
to activity;--and we can thus understand how this impulse
must manifest itself in consciousness, as love for, and inter-
est in, free individual activity. Couldst thou exchange this
narrow point of view in self-consciousness for the higher po-
sition in which thou mayest grasp the universe, which in-
deed thou hast promised thyself to take, then it would be-
come clear to thee that what thou hast named thy love is
not thy love, but a foreign love,--the interest which the ori-
ginal power of Nature manifesting itself in thee takes in
maintaining its own peculiar existence. Do not then appeal
again to thy love; for even if that could prove anything be-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK I. DOUBT.
205
sides, its supposition here is wholly irregular and unjustifi-
able. Thou lovest not thyself, for, strictly speaking, thou art
not; it is Nature in thee which concerns herself for her own
preservation. Thou hast admitted without dispute, that al-
though in the plant there exists a peculiar impulse to grow
and develope itself, the specific activity of this impulse yet
depends upon forces lying beyond itself. Bestow conscious-
ness upon the plant,--and it will regard this instinct of
growth with interest and love. Convince it by reasoning
that this instinct is unable of itself to accomplish anything
whatever, but that the measure of its manifestation is al-
ways determined by something out of itself,--and it will
speak precisely as thou hast spoken; it will behave in a
manner that may be pardoned in a plant, but which by no
means beseems thee, who art a higher product of Nature,
and capable of comprehending the universe. "
What can I answer to this representation? Should I ven-
ture to place myself at its point of view, upon this boasted
position from whence I may embrace the universe in my
comprehension, doubtless I must blush and be silent. This,
therefore, is the question,--whether I shall at once assume
this position, or confine myself to the range of immediate
self-consciousness; whether love shall be made subject to
knowledge, or knowledge to love. The latter stands in bad
esteem among intelligent people;--the former renders me
indescribably miserable, by extinguishing my own personal
being within me. I cannot do the latter without appearing
inconsiderate and foolish in my own estimation;--I cannot
do the former without deliberately annihilating my own ex-
istence. /
I cainot remain in this state of indecision; on the solu-
tion of this question depends my whole peace and dignity.
As impossible is it for me decide; I have absolutely no
ground of decision in favour of the one opinion or the other.
Intolerable state of uncertainty and irresolution! Through
the best and most courageous resolution of my life, I have
been reduced to this! What power can deliver me from it?
--what power can deliver me from myself?
Ma
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 2G(J
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
BOOK II.
KNOWLEDGE.
Chagrin and anguish stung me to the heart. I cursed the
returning day which called me back to an existence whose
truth and significance were now involved in doubt. I awoke
in the night from unquiet dreams. I sought anxiously for
a ray of light that might lead me out of these mazes of un-
certainty. I sought, but became only more deeply entangled
in the labyrinth.
Once at the hour of midnight, a wondrous shape appeared
before me, and addressed me:--
"Poor mortal," I heard it say, "thou heapest error upon
error, and fanciest thyself wise. Thou tremblest before the
phantoms which thou hast thyself toiled to create. Dare to
become truly wise. I bring thee no new revelation. What
I can teach thee thou already knowest, and thou hast but to
recall it to thy remembrance. I cannot deceive thee; for
thou, thyself, wilt acknowledge me to be in the right; and
shouldst thou still be deceived, thou wilt be deceived by
thyself. Take courage;--listen to me, and answer my ques-
tions. "
I took courage. "He appeals to my own understanding.
I will make the venture. He cannot force his own thoughts
into my mind; the conclusion to which I shall come must
be thought out by myself; the conviction which I shall ac-
cept must be of my own creating. Speak, wonderful Spirit! "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
267
I exclaimed, "whatever thou art! Speak, and I will listen.
Question me, and I will answer. "
The Spirit. Thou believest that these objects here, and
those there, are actually present before thee and out of thy-
self?
I. Certainly I do.
Spirit. And how dost thou know that they are actually
present?
I. I see them; I would feel them were I to stretch forth
my hand; I can hear the sounds they produce; they reveal
themselves to me through all my senses.
Spirit. Indeed! Thou wilt perhaps by and by retract
the assertion that thou seest, feelest, and hearest these ob-
jects. For the present I will speak as thou dost, as if thou
didst really, by means of thy sight, touch, and hearing, per-
ceive the real existence of objects. But observe, it is only
by means of thy sight, touch, and other external senses. Or
is it not so? Dost thou perceive otherwise than through
thy senses? and has an object any existence for thee, other-
wise than as thou seest it, hearest it, &c. ?
I. By no means.
Spirit. Sensible objects, therefore, exist for thee, only in
consequence of a particular determination of thy external senses: thy knowledge of them is but a result of thy know-
ledge of this determination of thy sight, touch, &c. Thy
declaration--' there are objects out of myself,' depends upon
this other--' I see, hear, feel, and so forth'?
I. This is my meaning.
Spirit. And how dost thou know then that thou seest,
hearest, feelest?
I. I do not understand thee. Thy questions appear
strange to me.
Spirit. I will make them more intelligible. Dost thou
see thy sight, and feel thy touch, or hast thou yet a higher
sense, through which thou perceivest thy external senses
and their determinations?
I. By no means. I know immediately that I see and
feel, and what I see and feel; I know this while it is, and
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 208
the vocation of man.
simply because it is, without the intervention of any other
sense. It was on this account that thy question seemed
strange to me, because it appeared to throw doubt on this
immediate consciousness.
Spirit. That was not my intention: I desired only to in-
duce thee to make this immediate consciousness clear to
thyself. So thou hast an immediate consciousness of thy
sight and touch?
I Yea.
Spirit. Of thy sight and touch, I said. Thou art, there-
fore, the subject seeing, feeling, &c. ; and when thou art con-
scious of the seeing, feeling, &c. , thou art conscious of a
particular determination or modification of thyself.
I. Unquestionably.
Spirit. Thou hast a consciousness of thy seeing, feeling,
&c. , and thereby thou perceivest the object. Couldst thou
not perceive it without this consciousness? Canst thou not
recognise an object by sight or hearing, without knowing
that thou seest or hearest?
I. By no means.
Spirit. The immediate consciousness of thyself, and of thy
own determinations, is therefore the imperative condition
of all other consciousness; and thou knowest a thing, only in
so far as thou knowest that thou knowest it: no element can enter into the latter cognition which is not contained in
the former. Thou canst not know anything without know-
ing that thou knowest it?
I. I think so.
Spirit. Therefore thou knowest of the existence of objects
only by means of seeing, feeling them, &c. ; and thou know-
est that thou seest and feelest, only by means of an imme-
diate consciousness of this knowledge. What thou dost not
perceive immediately, thou dost not perceive at all.
/. I see that it is so.
Spirit. In all perception, thou perceivest in the first place
only thyself and thine own condition; whatever is not con-
tained in this perception, is not perceived at all?
I. Thou repeatest what I have already admitted.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
2G0
Spirit. I would not weary of repeating it in all its appli-
cations, if I thought that thou hadst not thoroughly com-
prehended it, and indelibly impressed it on thy mind.
Canst thou say, I am conscious of external objects.
I. By no means, if I speak accurately; for the sight and
touch by which I grasp these objects are not consciousness
itself, but only that of which I am first and most immedi-
ately conscious. Strictly speaking, I can only say, that I am
conscious of my seeing and touching of these objects.
Spirit. Do not forget, then, what thou hast now clearly
understood. In all perception thou perceivest only thine own
condition.
I shall, however, continue to speak thy language, since it
is most familiar to thee. Thou hast said that thou canst see,
hear, and feel objects. How then,--that is, with what pro-
perties or attributes,--dost thou see or feel them?
I. I see that object red, this blue; when I touch them, I
find this smooth, that rough--this cold, that warm.
Spirit. Thou knowest then what red, blue, smooth, rough,
cold, and warm, really signify.
/. Undoubtedly I do.
Spirit. Wilt thou not describe it to me then?
I. It cannot be described. Look! Turn thine eye to-
wards that object:--what thou becomest conscious of
through thy sight, I call red. Touch the surface of this
other object:--what thou feelest, I call smooth. In this
way I have arrived at this knowledge, and there is no other
way by which it can be acquired
.
Spirit. But can we not, at least from some of these qua-
lities known by immediate sensation, deduce a knowledge
of others differing from them? If, for instance, any one
had seen red, green, yellow, but never a blue colour; had
tasted sour, sweet, salt, but never bitter,--would he not, by
mere reflection and comparison, be able to discover what
is meant by blue or bitter, without having ever seen or
tasted anything of the kind?
I. Certainly not. What is matter of sensation can only
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 270
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
be felt, it is not discoverable by thought; it is no deduction,
but a direct and immediate perception.
Spirit. Strange! Thou boastest of a knowledge respect-
ing which thou art unable to tell how thou hast attained it.
For see, thou maintainest that thou canst see one quality in
an object, feel another, hear a third; thou must, therefore,
be able to distinguish sight from touch, and both from hear-
ing?
I. Without doubt.
Spirit. Thou maintainest further, that thou seest this ob-
ject red, that blue; and feelest this smooth, that rough.
Thou must therefore be able to distinguish red from blue,
smooth from rough 1
I Without doubt.
Spirit. And thou maintainest that thou hast not discov-
ered this difference by means of reflection and comparison
of these sensations in thyself. But perhaps thou hast learnt,
by comparing the red or blue colours, the smooth or rough
surfaces of objects out of thyself, what thou shouldst feel in
thyself as red or blue, smooth or rough?
I. This is impossible; for my perception of objects pro-
ceeds from my perception of my own internal condition, and
is determined by it, but not the contrary. I,first distinguish
objects by distinguishing my own states of being. I can
learn that this particular sensation is indicated by the
wholly arbitrary sign, red;--and those by the signs, blue,
smooth, rough; but I cannot learn that the sensations them-
selves are distinguished, nor how they are distinguished.
That they are different, I know only by being conscious
of myself, and being conscious of internal change. How
they differ, I cannot describe; but I know that they must
differ as much as my self-consciousness differs; and this dif-
ference of sensations is an immediate, and by no means an
acquired, distinction.
Spirit. Which thou canst make independently of all
knowledge of the objects themselves?
I. Which I must make independently of such knowledge,
for this knowledge is itself dependent on that distinction.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
271
Spirit. Which is then given to thee immediately through
mere self-consciousness?
I. In no other way.
Spirit. But shouldst thou not then content thyself with
saying,--" I feel myself affected in the manner that I call
red, blue, smooth, rough. "? Shouldst thou not place these
sensations in thyself alone? and not transfer them to an ob-
ject lying entirely out of thyself, and declare these modifica-
tions of thyself to be properties of this object?
Or, tell me, when thou believest that thou seest an object
red, or feelest it smooth, dost thou really perceiveTanything
more than that thou art affected in a certain manner?
L From what has gone before, T have clearly seen that I
do not, in fact, perceive more than what thou sayest; and
this transference of what is in me to something out of my-
self, from which nevertheless I cannot refrain, now appears
very strange to me.
My sensations are in myself, not in the object, for I am
myself and not the object; I am conscious only of myself
and of my own state, not of the state of the object. If there
is a consciousness of the object, that consciousness is, cer-
tainly, neither sensation nor perception :--thus much is
clear.
Spirit. Thou formest thy conclusions somewhat precipi-
tately. Let us consider this matter on all sides, so that I
may be assured that thou wilt not again retract what thou
hast now freely admitted.
Is there then in the object, as thou usually conceivest of
it, anything more than its red colour, its smooth surface, and
so on; in short, anything besides those characteristic marks
which thou obtainest through immediate sensation?
I. I believe that there is: besides these attributes there
is yet the thing itself to which they belong; the substra-
tum which supports these attributes.
Spirit. But through what sense dost thou perceive this
substratum of these attributes? Dost thou see it, feel it,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 272
the vocation of max.
hear it; or is there perhaps a special sense for its percep-
tion?
I. No. I think that I see and feel it.
Spirit. Indeed! Let us examine this more closely. Art
thou then ever conscious of thy sight in itself, or at all times
only of determinate acts of sight?
I. I have always a determinate sensation of sight.
Spirit. And what is this determinate sensation of sight
with respect to that object there?
I. That of red colour.
Spirit. And this red is something positive, a simple sen-
sation, a specific state of thyself?
I. This I have understood.
Spirit. Thou shouldst therefore see the red in itself as
simple, as a mathematical point, and thou dost see it only
as such. In thee at least, as an affection of thyself, it is ob-
viously a simple, determinate state, without connexion with
anything else,--which we can only describe as a mathemati-
cal point. Or dost thou find it otherwise?
I. I must admit that such is the case.
Spirit. But now thou spreadest this simple red over a
broad surface, which thou assuredly dost not see, since thou
seest only a simple red. How dost thou obtain this surface?
I. It is certainly strange. --Yet, I believe that I have
found the explanation. I do not indeed see the surface, but
I feel it when I pass my hand over it. My sensation of
sight remains the same during this process of feeling, and
hence I extend the red colour over the whole surface which
I feel while I continue to see the same red.
Spirit. This might be so, didst thou really feel such a
surface. But let us see whether that be possible. Thou
dost not feel absolutely; thou feelest only thy feelings, and
art only conscious of these 1
I. Certainly, j Each sensation is a determinate something. I never merely see, or hear, or feel, in general, but my sen-
sations are always definite;--red, green, blue colours, cold,
warmth, smoothness, roughness, the sound of the violin, the
voice of man, and the like,--are seen, felt, or heard. Let
that be settled between us.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? BOOK II. KNOWLEDGE.
273
Spirit Willingly. --Thus, when thou saidst that thou
didst feel a surface, thou hadst only an immediate conscious-
ness of feeling smooth, rough, or the like?
I. Certainly.
Spirit. This smooth or rough is, like the red colour, a
simple sensation,--a point in thee, the subject in which it
abides? And with the same right with which I formerly
asked why thou didst spread a simple sensation of sight
over an imaginary surface, do I now ask why thou shouldst
do the same with a simple sensation of touch?
I. This smooth surface is perhaps not equally smooth in
all points, but possesses in each a different degree of smooth-
ness, only that I want the capacity of strictly distinguishing
these degrees from each other, and language whereby to re-
tain and express their differences. Yet I do distinguish
them, unconsciously, and place them side by side; and thus
I form the conception of a surface.
Spirit. But canst thou, in the same undivided moment of
time, have sensations of opposite kinds, or be affected at the
same time in different ways?
I. By no means.
Spirit. Those different degrees of smoothness, which thou
wouldst assume in order to explain what thou canst not ex-
plain, are nevertheless, in so far as they are different from
each other, mere opposite sensations which succeed each
other in thee?
I. I cannot deny this.
Spirit. Thou shouldst therefore describe them as thou
really findest them,--as successive changes of the same ma-
thematical point, such as thou perceivest in other cases; and
not as adjacent and simultaneous qualities of several points
in one surface.
/. I see this, and I find that nothing is explained by my
assumption. But my hand, with which I touch the object
and cover it, is itself a surface; and by it I perceive the ob-
ject to be a surface, and a greater one than my hand, since I
can extend my hand several times upon it.
Spirit. Thy hand is a surface? How dost thou know that?
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 274
THE VOCATION OF MAN.
How dost thou attain a consciousness of thy hand at all? Is
there any other way than either that thou by means of it
feelest something else, in which case it is an instrument; or
that thou feelest itself by means of some other part of thy
body, in which case it is an object?
I. No, there is no other. With my band I feel some other
definite object, or I feel my hand itself by means of some
other pail of my body. I have no immediate, absolute con-
sciousness of my hand, any more than of my sight or touch.
Spirit. Let us, at present, consider only the case in which
thy hand is an instrument, for this will determine the
second case also. In this case there can be nothing more in
the immediate perception than what belongs to sensation,--
that whereby thou thyself, and here in particular thy hand,
is conceived of as the subject tasting in the act of taste, feel-
ing in the act of touch. Now, oithev. thy sensation is single;
in which case I cannot see why thou shouldst extend this
single sensation over a sentient surface, and not content
thyself with a single sentient point;--or thy sensation is
varied; and in this case, since the differences must succeed
each other, I again do not see why thou shouldst not
conceive of these feelings as succeeding each other in the
same point. That thy hand should appear to thee as a sur-
face, is just as inexplicable as thy notion of a surface in
general. Do not make use of the first in order to explain
the second, until thou hast explained the first itself. The
second case, in which thy hand, or whatever other member
of thy body thou wilt, is itself the object of a sensation, may
easily be explained by means of the first. Thou perceivest
this member by means of another, which is then the sen-
tient one. I ask the same question concerning this latter
member that I asked concerning thy hand, and thou art as
little able to answer it as before.
