\u0627\u06af\u0631 \u062e\u0627\u0646\u0645 \u0641\u0631\u062e\u0646\u062f\u0647 \u0645\u062f\u0631\u0633\u06cc \u0633\u0648\u0627\u062f \u062e\u0648\u0627\u0646\u062f\u0646 \u0645\u062a\u0648\u0646 \u062f\u0634\u0648\u0627\u0631 \u0641\u0644\u0633\u0641\u06cc \u0631\u0627 \u062f\u0627\u0631\u062f \u0645\u0637\u0644\u0628 \u0632\u06cc\u0631 \u0631\u0627 \u0628\u062e\u0648\u0627\u0646\u062f \u0648 \u0627\u0632 \u0622\u0646\u0686\u0647 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0647 \u0644\u0627\u0627\u0642\u0644 \u067e\u06cc\u0634 \u062e\u0648\u062f\u0634 \u0634\u0631\u0645 \u06a9\u0646\u062f \u0648 \u06a9\u0645\u062a\u0631 \u06cc\u0627\u0648\u0647 \u0628\u06af\u0648\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u0628\u06cc\u0634\u062a\u0631 \u0628\u06cc\u0646\u062f\u06cc\u0634\u062f. \u062f\u0631 \u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0647 \u0632\u06cc\u0631 \u0644\u0648\u0686\u0648 \u06a9\u0648\u0644\u062a\u06cc \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc \u062f\u0647\u062f \u06a9\u0647 \u0647\u06af\u0644 \u062c\u0647\u0627\u0646 \u0631\u0627 \u0641\u0631\u0639 \u0648 \u0627\u0635\u0644 \u0631\u0627 \u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0647 \u06cc\u0627 \u0644\u0648\u06af\u0648\u0633 \u0645\u0633\u06cc\u062d\u06cc \u0645\u06cc \u062f\u0627\u0646\u062f. \u062c\u0647\u0627\u0646 \u0641\u0642\u0637 \u062f\u0631 \u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0647 \u0648\u062c\u0648\u062f \u062f\u0627\u0631\u062f \u0648 \u0648\u062c\u0648\u062f\u06cc \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0642\u0644 \u0627\u0632 \u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0647 \u0646\u062f\u0627\u0631\u062f.\u0645\u0646\u0638\u0648\u0631 \u0647\u06af\u0644 \u0627\u0632 “\u062e\u0631\u062f” \u062a\u062c\u0633\u062f \u0644\u0648\u06af\u0648\u0633 \u0645\u0633\u06cc\u062d\u06cc \u0627\u0633\u062a.\u0639\u0644\u0645 \u0631\u0627 \u0641\u0647\u0645 \u0633\u0627\u062e\u062a\u0647 \u0648 \u0686\u06cc\u0632 \u0645\u0631\u062f\u0648\u062f\u06cc \u0627\u0633\u062a. \u0641\u0647\u0645 \u0628\u0647 \u0627\u0635\u0644 \u0627\u0645\u062a\u0646\u0627\u0639 \u062a\u0646\u0627\u0642\u0636 \u067e\u0627\u06cc\u0628\u0646\u062f \u0627\u0633\u062a \u0648\u0644\u06cc “\u062e\u0631\u062f” \u062c\u0645\u0639 \u0646\u0642\u06cc\u0636\u06cc\u0646 \u0627\u0633\u062a. \u062d\u0645\u0644\u0647 \u0628\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u0645 \u0631\u06cc\u0634\u0647 \u0627\u06cc \u0642\u0648\u06cc \u062f\u0631 \u0641\u0644\u0633\u0641\u0647 \u0622\u0644\u0645\u0627\u0646\u06cc \u062f\u0627\u0631\u062f \u0648 \u0628\u0627 \u0631\u0648\u0645\u0627\u0646\u062a\u06cc\u06a9 \u0647\u0627 \u0622\u063a\u0627\u0632 \u0645\u06cc \u0634\u0648\u062f \u0648 \u0628\u0647 \u0647\u0627\u06cc\u062f\u06af\u0631 \u0645\u06cc \u0631\u0633\u062f.\u0627<\/p>\n
Hegel’s philosophy is based on three propositions. The first is that
\nphilosophy is always idealism:
\nThe proposition that the finite it ideal constitutes idealism. The idealism of
\nphilosophy consists in nothing else than in recognizing that the linite has no
\nveritable being. . . . This is as true of philosophy as of religion; for religion
\nequally does not recognise linitude as a veritable being, as something ultimate
\nand absolute or as something underived, uncreated, etemal.\u2018
\nThe second is that the problem of philosophy is to realize the principle of
\nidealism:
\nEvery philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its
\nprinciple, and the question then is only how far this principle is actually carried
\nout.\u2018
\nThe third is that the realization of the principle of idealism implies the
\ndextruclion of the jinite and the annihilation of the world, since, writes Hegel,
\nThis carrying through of the principle depends primarily on whether the
\nfinite reality still retains an independent self-subsistence alongside the beingfor-
\nself.\u201d
\nThe first proposition does not have to be explained: the principle of
\nidealism is the Idea, the infinite or the Christian Logos. The second will
\nbe clarified below. The most diflicult to understand is the third, which, it
\nmight be added, has also been given the least attention in studies on
\nHegel. This can be stated as (a) why idealism must destroy the linite and
\nannihilate the world in order to be realized, and (b) how this annihilation
\ncan take place.
\nPoint (a) is the easiest to solve. The principle of idealism implies the
\ndestruction of the finite because if the finite is allowed to survive, it
\nbecomes impossible to conceive of the infinite. Hegel writes:
\nThe infinite, in that case, is one of the two; but as only one of the two is it
\nitself hnite, it is not the whole but only one side; it has its limit in what stands
\nover against it; it is thus the finite infinite. There are present only two finites.\u2018
\nAnd again (in the En::yeIopedia):
\nDualism, which renders the antithesis of the finite and the infinite insuperable,
\ndoes not make the simple consideration that in this way the infinite is only one
\nof the two; that hi this way on.ly something particular is yielded, of which the
\nfin.ite is the other particular. Such an infinite, which is only a particular, stands
\nalongside the finite; in this it finds its limits or barrier; it is not what it should be,
\nit is not the infinite but only finite. In such a relationship, where the finite is on
\none ride and the infinite on the other, the former here, the latter beyond, the finite
\nis credited with the same dignity of subsistence and independence that is
\nattributed to the infinite. The being of the finite is made an absolute being;
\nwithin this dualism it stands firm for itself. If, so to speak, it were touched by
\nthe infinite, it would be destroyed. But it cannot be touched by the infinite: an
\nabyss, an unbridgeable gap is thus opened between the two; the infinite is
\nfixed beyond, the finite here.\u2018
\nWe will offer a few explanations to help the reader to a full realization
\nof the meaning of this text. The infinite as \u2018one of the two\u2019, that is, the
\nfalse infinite, is the infinite of the \u2018intellect\u2019. The infinite as entirety is the
\ninfinite of \u2018reason\u2019. \u2018The main point is to distinguish the true concept of
\ninfinity from spurious infinity, the infinite of reason from the infinite of
\nthe intellect.”
\nThe \u2018intellect\u2019 (Verrtand) is the principle of non\u2014contradiction, the
\nprinciple of the mutual exclusion or separation of opposites. \u2018Rason\u2019 is
\nthe principle of dialectical contradiction or coincidence of opposites. The
\nfirst is the logical universal which has its particular or real object outside
\nitself. The second is the unity of finite and infinite in the infinite, the
\nunity of thought and being in thought, i.e. \u2018sameness\u2019 and \u2018otherness\u2019,
\ntauto-heterology or dialectic.
\nannihilate it but turns it into a \u2018firm being\u2019; (2) it finitizes the infinite;
\n(3) it poses the finite \u2018here\u2019 (diesseits), and the infinite \u2018beyond\u2019 (femeits) \u2014
\ni.e. it makes the finite real or terrestrial existence, and the infinite something
\nmerely abstract or ideal.
\nThe substance of the argument is that the \u2018intellect\u2019, the principle of
\nnon-contradiction, is common sense, the point of view of materialism
\n(empiricism) and of science. Everything that philosophy or idealism
\nasserts \u2014 that the finite \u2018is not\u2019 and the infinite \u2018is\u2019 \u2014 the \u2018intellect\u2019 presents
\nin the reverse order. Materialism and science are, therefore, the Unphilosaphie,
\nthat is, the antithesis or negation of philosophy.
\nLet us now consider briefly the problem of the old or precritical metaphysics
\n(Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz), which also adopts the method of
\nnon-contradiction. Hegel’s thesis is that insofar as it is metaphysical, the
\nprinciple of this philosophy is the infinite, the absolute; that this philosophy
\nis therefore true philosophy or idealism. Its fault, however, lies in
\nthe method it uses. The content of this metaphysics is correct, the form
\nis wrong.7 The substance is \u2018philosophical\u2019, the method flatly \u2018scientific\u2019.
\nAs a result, the use of the principle of non-contradiction prevents the old
\nmetaphysics from realizing idealism.
\nThe argument to which Hegel frequently resorts in support of this is
\nan examination of the metaphysical proofs of the existence of God. An
\nexcellent example is provided by the cosmological proofs. \u2018Their starting
\npoint,\u2019 says Hegel, \u2018is certainly a view of the world in some way as an
\naggregate of chance occurrences\u2019, namely, as an accumulation of things
\nwithout value. But while in principle these proofs recognize that the
\nworld is merely ephemerality and valuelessness, and that God and God
\nalone is the true reality, the demonstrative method that they adopt in fact
\nsubverts the direction of their argument. They want to derive the existence
\nof God from that of the world, maintaining that the existence of the
\ncreature can demonstrate that of the creator. In so doing, they do not
\nrealize that in their syllogism, the world, which is \u2018nothing\u2019, becomes the
\n(mix of the proof, and that God, who is everything, becomes a mere
\nconsequence or something mediated. The creature, which is secondary,
\nbecomes primary; the creator, who is primary, becomes secondary. Thus,
\n” ibid., p. 316. On this most important page Hegel explains the difference between the
\nsays Hegel, Jacobi made the \u2018correct objection\u2019 that they \u2018seek the conditions
\n(the world) for the unconditioned; the infinite (God) in this way is
\nconceived as mused and dependent.\u201c
\nIn other words,
\nmetaphysical proofs of the existence of God are unsuccessful accounts and
\ndescriptions of the elevation of the Spirit from the world to God, because they
\ndo not express, or rather they do not emphasize, the moment of negation contained
\nin this elevation; since the world is occidental it is implicit that it is only
\nsomething ephemeral and phenomenal, in and for itself a nullity. The meaning
\nof the elevation of the Spirit is that, while being does indeed belong to the
\nworld, it is only appearance not true being, not absolute truth; that absolute
\ntruth lies only beyond that appearance in God \u2014 only God is true being. This
\nelevation, being a tran:i’ti’on and mediation, is also the sublation of the transition
\nand mediation, because that in whose mediation God could appear \u2014 the world \u2014
\nis, instead, shown to be nullity. Only the nullity of the being of the world gives
\nthe possibility of elevation, so that whatever is the mediator disappears, whereby
\nin this mediation itself, mediation is removed.\u2018
\nThe direction of the argument is, as we can see, that the \u2018intellect\u2019, the
\nprinciple of non-contradiction, is so closely tied to materialism that even
\nwhen it is applied to metaphysical or idealistic premises, it distorts the
\nmeaning of \u2018philosophy\u2019 and forces it to say the opposite of what it has in
\nmind. The finite, which is nothing, is consolidated by the intellect, which
\nrenders it a \u2018stable being\u2018 or foundation. It reduces the infinite, which is
\nthe true reality, to something caused and dependent. The finite, which is
\nthe negative, becomes the positive, i.e. effective existence. The inhnite, on
\nthe other hand, which is the true real, becomes something unreal or
\nnegative, a \u2018void\u2019 beyond, \u2018something mental or abstract\u2019.
\nIntellect and reason, then, are two distinct logics:
\nIn ordinary inference the being of the finite appears as ground of the absolute;
\nbecause the finite is, therefore the absolute is. But the truth is that the absolute
\nis, bcause the Finite . . . is not. In the former meaning the inference runs thus:
\nthe being of the finite is the being of the absolute; but in the latter thus: the
\nnon-lvemg of the finite is the being of the absolute.\u201d
\n.
\nscience are Unphilosophie. Hence it all depends upon how far a philosophy
\ncan actualize this principle, that is, the realization of idealism. The condition
\nupon which this realization depends is the destruction of the finite,
\nthe annihilation of the world. (Later we shall see how Hegel obtains this
\nannihilation.) Once the linite is destroyed, the infinite, that is the Spirit or
\nGod, which \u2018intellectualist\u2018 metaphysics relegates to the \u2018beyond\u2019, passes
\nfrom the beyond to the here and now and becomes existing and real. This
\nis the realization of philosophy. It is the immanentization of transcendence,
\nthe \u2018secularization of Christianity\u2019,\u201c the incarnation or actualization
\nof the divine Logos. In other words, the difference between the old
\nand the new metaphysics is the difference between ordinary theology and
\nspeculative theology, between theism and philosophy, between precritical
\nmetaphysics and absolute idealism.
\nFeuerbach saw this clearly. At the beginning of his \u2018Provisional Theses\u2019
\nhe wrote: \u2018Speculative theology may be distinguished from ordinary
\ntheology by the fact that the divine Being, which the latter removes to
\n. . . the beyond, is transposed to the here and now, making it present,
\ndeterminate and actual.\u201c Speculative philosophy, he adds in the Prineiples,
\n\u2018has made the God which in theism is only an imaginary being, a
\nremote, indeterminate, vague being, into an actual, determinate being’.\u201c’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u0627\u06af\u0631 \u062e\u0627\u0646\u0645 \u0641\u0631\u062e\u0646\u062f\u0647 \u0645\u062f\u0631\u0633\u06cc \u0633\u0648\u0627\u062f \u062e\u0648\u0627\u0646\u062f\u0646 \u0645\u062a\u0648\u0646 \u062f\u0634\u0648\u0627\u0631 \u0641\u0644\u0633\u0641\u06cc \u0631\u0627 \u062f\u0627\u0631\u062f \u0645\u0637\u0644\u0628 \u0632\u06cc\u0631 \u0631\u0627 \u0628\u062e\u0648\u0627\u0646\u062f \u0648 \u0627\u0632 \u0622\u0646\u0686\u0647 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0647 \u0644\u0627\u0627\u0642\u0644 \u067e\u06cc\u0634 \u062e\u0648\u062f\u0634 \u0634\u0631\u0645 \u06a9\u0646\u062f \u0648 \u06a9\u0645\u062a\u0631 \u06cc\u0627\u0648\u0647 \u0628\u06af\u0648\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u0628\u06cc\u0634\u062a\u0631 \u0628\u06cc\u0646\u062f\u06cc\u0634\u062f. \u062f\u0631 \u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0647 \u0632\u06cc\u0631 \u0644\u0648\u0686\u0648 \u06a9\u0648\u0644\u062a\u06cc \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc \u062f\u0647\u062f \u06a9\u0647 \u0647\u06af\u0644 \u062c\u0647\u0627\u0646 \u0631\u0627 \u0641\u0631\u0639 \u0648 \u0627\u0635\u0644 \u0631\u0627 \u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0647 \u06cc\u0627 \u0644\u0648\u06af\u0648\u0633 \u0645\u0633\u06cc\u062d\u06cc \u0645\u06cc \u062f\u0627\u0646\u062f. \u062c\u0647\u0627\u0646 \u0641\u0642\u0637 […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":557,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2351"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/557"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mahmag.org\/archive-farsi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}