Earliest System-Programme of German Idealism

7/28/2019 Earliest System-Programme of German Idealism

1/12

HEGEL'SDEVELOPMENT

Toward the SunlightrTTo-r8orBr ' lq35 HanH. S. HARRIS

o

/ OXFORD \AT THE CLARENDON PRESSr972

C


2/12

:iffi

"8 BERNE t793-1796

I

49ere not neoessary for the reopcning of the temple gates.cplendour and the mord gubetance (Ens\ of that idealhuman life everywhere where men cleave firmly to the ifit of the'old covcnant' between Hegel and H0lderlin: 'For free truthalone to live, peece with the etanrte lSatnngj ordaingthoughtr and feelings, never to conclude' (linesPeperzak serms to me to be right,therefore, dispose of all ttreruppoecdly 'pantheistic' implications of the by saying thatHegel identifieg God with'the human of the free heart'.!The Goddegs here ig the great Earth and the mysticunion the worshipper experienceo is union of his finite lifewith the infinite life of nature ag a But that is all a figure forthe Phottarie, Hegel has already us aB plainly as he could whatthe Godhead ig for a rationaltenr. He deliberately adopts st the beginning of Tlu Life otthat essay the moet flatfootedlyprosaic style that he canthe intellect, repreeented avoiding both the subtleties ofof the Absolute Ego,, him by the Fichte-Schelling theorythe ambiguitieg of metaphor whicheppeal strongly to i but are the comrnonest source ofmirunderstanding ordinary men. But what ig there gaid soplainly that no li man of good will can misundergtand it, istplo laao of its moving power. The imagination and theheert go emPtt . We can see from the poem that Hegelbelieved;of free reason could be brought to life. One is left"irst how soon the parallel between the mysteries ofthe miracle of Easter struck him. That parallel, surely, ;'required key to the problem of how to apply his secondChristianity in e conl,tt' tioe wayl

PcpcrzaL, p, tzf,.Wc,hrve hcrc anothcr r,eason for thc cancellotion of linee lo-8 in Elctub: lf,philboophical ure of the term 'ego' ws8 too recherch6 for Thc Lite of Jctu,th.n thc line 'was mein ich nanntc gchwindet' could hardly be allowed to gtsndin a pocnr.

REASON AND FREEDOMAPPENDIX

THE 'BARLrBsr sYsrEM-PRoGRAMME oFCERMAN IDEALISM'to

According to Miss Schiiler's ordering of the surviyrng manuscriptsthelast theoretical essay that Hegel wrote at Bernc wes ttre so-celled'earliegt system-Progott*. of-Gerrran idealism'.t It was for a longd;; ;;Jtrily tr.ta-Ort this essay was writt$ bI Schelling.,-or. byS"tdfi"t *a HOfaer[n together,-and sent to ]Iegel (preeumably in aletter that ie now lost), *[o copied it out, either wholly or in part'becauge he found it interesting.I suppose that the missing itttgt Tiglt t+ Tn uP.-or S::,1gtS*"*"hpt of the esssy winen iq th" hand of Scbelling-or H0lderlinmisht be'found. But u;til eomething of this sott occu6 I think it canil;';h; ;il rtt hlpotheses about llegel's copying thefngment thatwe sctually have fro;D another author are grftuitous.l It is not -evenno.orrty lo depart from the chronology proposed Uy YT Schiiler-Uut ri*l tbe fragment is a fairly shorlone we cannot ab8olulely insistthat thoae schoh; who wish toas@unt for the suppooed influencc ofHdlderlin upon it by transferring it from l7e6 to. t797 are wong.

Th; irriti p"ogi"ptr of, eine- Ertih begins with the words 'FromNature I come to tL uorh of man'.It was fresumably this sentence th$suggested the title 'syatem-prograrnne'.But the grwious two P-aT'St"phr are part of a theory 6f pi."tiol reason, and of rational faith inthe Kantian Eense, oot oi a 'philosophy of natur.e' of the Lind thrtS.t tffing was tttottly to begin'writing. fhey remhd one immediatelyof Hegeib rernark to S.n.Ui-ng in lguary- tipSlot'if"he had time' hcwould try to 8ee how far oni could qg_!4 from the ficld of monlin "fogyio thst of 'physical theology'. What he.war-pro?osr.ng p do etthe ouir"t of the p&it manuscript wes not quite !ret' for he docs no3begi" here from'a moral faith in-the cxisrcnce of God but from theI c*u EtLih, Doh,, p. 2rf2,t, (Ttre recdcr rhould noto thst Hofrneigter h''tif*iii-nUid out Ue'rtUreviations ir thc urenurcrip; For a lctter-perfcct,*"r"iipri"n see F.rhmans, i. 6917r\, '^ 'I Thb view has been argued very cogently by O# Ptggelcr-('H3fcJ, drrVerfasser d6 iltcsten Spimptogr;-; a33 aiutcncn leeliubur'; Hcgcl'sta;^,-siil"et ; a;gdi :,i,-g{l turtil I read Poggpler'r articlc I had nottr""gtdoi*"r*tl"i;h;litd";iiorHegpl'Thtuthcwbolcofrnyrccorrtruc'tm -"f Hegcl'r ea*f ae"etof^uot was compJctcd witho$ tcfottncc to it. Tbcfest tbat thc fraguJnt ai htH* fie neatly'in-to itr placc in my eccorrnt irlhopc-


3/12

*rbideal of the free self-conscious Ego-'the Vorstellung of myself as rnabsolutely free being'. This, not the existence of God, is now for himthe firgt premiss (asu ldee) of metaphysics; and since the first complacscntsnce of the fragment that we have roundly asserts that 'the wholeof metaphysics falls for the future in the area of moral philosophy' I donot ace how we can escape the conclusion that, in spite of the topicaldivision betwecn 'nature' and 'the work of man', thi whole essay wrrconcerned with ethical theory.'Kant with hig pair of practical postulates has only given tn examplc'of the hew moral meaphysics; he has not produced the 'completcsystem of dl ldeas, or, what is the same thing, the system of all practicrlpgatulatcr'.r Thig is what the new Ethics-the metaphysicd tctemcntof the ncw age, as the Ethics of spinoza was that of the-older ono-willprovide. a whole world comes into being out of nothing along withsclf-conscioue freedom; and this is the only 'creation oui of nothing'that ig really conccivable.Thus frr we are promised only a rational reinterpretation of a tradi-tional theological dogma. But now Hegel tells us irow he proposca tornake the transition from Ethihotheologie to Phyihotheologic. He will'give wings' to Physics and endow iiwith the freedo--or the newcreetivc spirit by starting from the right question: 'How mugt a worldbe conetitnted for a moral being?' This moral salvation of Physico ir rguriousproject, and we might be pardoned for wanting to befieve thrtit was Schelling's, not f.Iegel's, if we did not know ihat Hegel hd

conceivcd it when he first began to study Fichte. He probably made aggriouo atte{npt to carry it out in the 'system' manuscript of rEoo.until then he seerns to have been preociupied with the problem ofapplyrng his new Ethics to 'the work of man'. eThe 'Idee der Menschheit', says Hegel, cannot provide ue with enIdea of the 'State' because the 'state' ie something mechanical and,Mcwchheit ie a living organic ideal. There cannot be an ldee of the'macline at all because only an objective (Geganstand) of freedom can bcuL fdce. So we must 'go beyond the Statei which can only treat freeTen as cogs. In dealing with this topic Hegel promises that he will'!.y dglo the principles for a History bf Mankind and strip to the shinthe whole wretched human structure lMmschmwrkfof State, constitu-tion, government, code of law'.t l(ant cnuneratcs his practical postulates dlfrerently in difierent placec; butit ir clear that in his canonical doctrine, eo to epeak, th"tu are three',poanriater9f pr,rc p-racticat treason': Freedom, God, ani Immortality. onlyboa -aIrnrnortality reocive dietinct treatrnent as poetulates in thi r.*trd Cntdgrt ,bowcvcn-and preurmably these two are 'seinen beiden praktischen Postulat;n'.lhir ir confirnrd by the prominencc given to theee w,o lden later in the frag-mcnt.

REASON AND FREEDOM zsrThis.proposed treatment of human politics and its history is the mostgurprising novelry in einc Ethih. For ihie is the firgt time as far as weIlo*' thry r-Ieg9l has ever written as if he might bc prepared to give upnrs_essentially Hellenic conception of the political comrnunity as a self-sufficient-and hence necesrshly an ethical--


4/12

,52 BERNE 1793-1796read it juet after he wrotclcdcs Volh hat ihm eigene Gegenst&d*nottospcak of working on the budgetary strucarre of the Canton of Bernc inconnection with his Cart translation-there would be nothing wonderfulin his setting him+elf to show that the whole structure of contempo'rypolitical thought must be discarded.t Fichte seems, more than anyother writer, to have had the power to irritate Hegel into planr forthcorctical reconetnrction.The rest of the fragment provides Bupporr for thie view. For, et thirtime, a8 wc have suggeated, Hegcl probably felt himself to be at roimpasre in hig programme of practical religioug reform, and it woutdbe natunl enough for him to turn his attention to theoretical readingand ttrc reforsrulation of his own ideas. Thie had already happgneionce in eg1, when he temporarily set aside his blueprint for therehgbilitation of Chrietianity as t Volhneligion in order to straightcnout hi! ovm ideas about psychology. But that was a bypath, and didnot produce any startting icsults, whereaa here we arl'faced with rmajor theoretical development, together with its practical corollary (or'application'). It is no wonder, therefore, if the excitement of his'newdircovery combined with his critical reaction to Fichte and hie jaupdiccd obeerv:tion of the political scene to upset his intellectud balancca little, and cause him to iay things that weri valid only within a conocp-tual scheme which he could not finally accept.It is clear that he does not really accept it even here. For he says thrtthe trcement of free men as coga must cease; and eome kind of pofecattifc wilt cxist evcn when we have'gone beyond the Sate' and itrippedthe'whole wretched human struchrre of-State, constitution, goiitm- *meot, and code of law' naked. But Hegel is not interested, for the 'moment; in what the'absolute freedom of all spirits' will be like on the 'political level. He has found in the 'Idea of beiury, t^lren in its higher{ot,p.rt oJ whrt is to comc in the recond part; and, the final chaptcrof :tht qr1! part containr a 'dcduction of thc concept of r Rcpublic' thst il quitodcteitd coough to rccount for Hegcl'r reaction. Also we must remember-thrtFicbtc had elr,eady delivepd thp wholc treatige from the lectern, and gtudcntttryportr (including rome tlrat were trenchantly critical) were aiready cunutsoo Fie.htclwcrfori, grg22rand 432-6o; and compare the editors'intioduction,ibid",305-6._,- t A, rtmsrk of Hdldcrlin'r in hie letter of zo Nov. 1796 makes it clcar tbetHc&l mttrt brvc raid hc wss cuncntly occupied with ttri iroblem of Satc rndChurch cithcr i! th! private letter that he ccrtainly sent esrlier that same monthdong wifi kttctr eo (which war intendcd for the eyeo of the Gogel fomily) orebc in e dightly crrlicr letter thrt ir now lost: 'Mit den tungcn wiret Durro rcbrdcr ctrtc Unterricbt unrcrn Geist oft dr{rc&cn mu8, Dich dennoch licbcrbclchlfti8cn elr nit stact und Kirchc, wic ric gegenwlrtig aind; (,Bricfcri,4j).Thb odd antitlcrir only rcema naturcl to mc upon thc hypotheeir t[ai Hegcthad nc mercly rpoLen of hb intcrcrt in the problcm, but hid further gwgortcdthrt thc Reptentulh at T0bingen would Ue i geod pooition in which to punucia

REASON AND FREEDOMPletonic tense', the eupreme moral ided under which every other ldecin his Ethics must be gubgumed; and he wants to apply it at once to thcproblern of reforming Christianity which was always his mogt immedieteoonoern.' 'I em now convinced that the highest act of Vctnnft. . . is arresthctic act, and that truth and goodnas only bcortc sistcrs in bentythe philoaopher must have as much aesthetic powr as the poet. Themen without aesthetic sense are our Buchstdm-philoeopherg.' Thisrccognition that 'the highest act of Varunft is an aesthetic act' is emejor advancr in Hegel'e theory of human nehrncj for it involves atwolution in his conception of the relation betwecn Vcnutft ndPluntasic, We dready know that without aesthetic sens one cannot bet Volhsersieher; but the diecovery that without it one cannot be aphilosopher either, means that as Volhsersiehcr Hegel must bcgfur to behis own phitosopher; he cannot lean on others, and partiorlarly onKant, as he has done in the past.Ig he now leaning not on a philosopher, but on e poet? Did he g*this new insight not from Kant and Schiller but from Hdlderlin? It ispossible-especially if this piece was written in r797:but it is by nomeans certain, or even highly probable, and the answer to the questionir far leoe important than'some scholam scem to thinl. HbHerlincenainly had the idea first, and in view of its focal importance in thedcvelopment of Gernran thought after Kant, we could mrke e strongclaim for him as the'real founder' of absolute idealism. But Hdldcrlin'sinspiration came from the Citiqte of Judgenent snd from Schiller'eAcsthctic Latas; and anyone who shared hig aims and ideals, as Hegeldid, could have arrived at the idea by the very serne route.t We knowhow much impressed Hug"l was with the Aestheth Lcttcrtwhen he readthe fint instelments in 1795. Considering the problema thst he washinself concerned with, it would have been nahrral enough for himto rc-read the whole eeries in the summer of r796,zt HOlderlin firrt put forward thc therir that thc abgolutc 'unioa of subjcct andobjec-t'was aesthctic in a lettcr to Schiller (kttcr to4r 4 Scpt. 1795, G,S.d, vi.rtr), and the gourcc of hir inspiration ir clear cnougbwhcn hc tdb Nicthammer$,"t h" ir going to put his vicws into a ecrice of 'New Lcttcn on^ tbc AertheticEdncqtion of Mrn' (Letter n7, z4 Fcb. 1796, ibid., p. zo3).I Hegel wrotc to Schelling in Apr. qg5 (Bricfc, i. aS) tbet Schillcr'r l-ettcrst[Gt! I lmartctpiece'. But hc got thc title confuscd with l"!ing'r '&lucation ofthc Human Race' and hc had not yct read the whole rcrice gine the third part(I*ttcn xvii-svii) did not appear until Jrmc. Hegel refcn to 'thc firat toonurrbors' of, Dh Horat (i.e. Irn and Feb. rZgS). Tbc fint appcar?nce of theidce which I ta&c to have been crucial for thc,leap that Holdcrtin and Hegelmtde, although Schiller did not-the idca of bcauty ar tho 'consumrnstion ofhunanity'-is in Letter xv. S, which war in thc Febnrary numbcr. But Letterd. 6 and Letter sii. r ane much moro ruggr*irrc (rec Wilkinron andWilloughby, pp. toa-3 and r+6-5r).

153


5/12

BERNE 1793-1796'Po.tty thus acquires a highcr digtuty, it becomes once again at thcend what it was at the beginning-the teacher of manhindl for rcphilosophy or history remains at last, the bardic a* ldie Dichthnttlwill done guvive all other arts and sciences.' This first practical oonsc-quence or 'application' that Hegel deriveg from his new discovery irthe paniorlar element in eine Ethih that reminds us mmt forcibly ofH6lderlin. But thcre is not the slightest reason for thinking that Hcdcould not have come to this conclusion by himself in Berne without anyvery direct intervention by hig friend. From his earliest years he qnrimpreased by the role of the poet as a teacher in Greek society, and by

the achievement of Shakespeare in making the history of England rliving heritage for his fellow countrymen. Among German potsKlopstock is the one to whom he refers most explicitly; but Ktopstoctis, of course, the poet who failed the supreme test in the eyes of Hcdas a schoolboy, or the poet of the dying age, as he would say now. Thcpoetic impulse of the new age is rather to be looked for in Schiller.Schiller is the modern poet who exemplifies what Hegel means byclaiming that poetry '8urvive8' philosophy, just as Shakespeare shostus how poetry'gurives' history.rPoetry'oun'iveg'in fact as a necessary element in religion; and thusthis fragment heralds the most fundamental development of the Frenl-furt period: the claim that religion is somehow the ultimate or highestform of experience, and belongs to a different plane altogether from thgtoccrrpied by reflective rason. From the beginning Hegel had embracedthe view-held even by the most radical foes of 'superstition' in tlrcEnlightenment-that the masseg need a retigion that appeals to $ei$oen8es, to set them, or keep them, on the path of morality. But now hetells us that'not only the great mob but also the philosopher' needs sreligion of ttris gort. Thig is a radical departrue from the conception ofrational religion as the goal of human progress which dominates all hi!,work from the Ttbingen fragmcnt of rTgg to the concluding paragraph!of the 'Positivity' essay written in April qg6. But it is a natural out-growth of his reflections on the aesthetic and imaginative aspccB ofGreek religron, and of his renewed study of Herder, both of which erccleady documented in Jcdet Volh lut ihm eigene Gegetstdnde. The fir*section of that essay clearly demonstrat$ that the superiority of Greelreligion over Christi*ity arose largely from its mythical character. AI For Hcgel'e ochoolboy rcflections on thc Greek poete and KlopstocL rccDoh,, pp. 48-5r; for the contrsst betrreen Klopetock and Shakeepesre sec thGfirst rcction of, Jc&t Volh lut ihm cigerc Gegatstttndz, Nohl, pp. 2r4-tg (Kno:,Pp. r45Tr). Tbe contrast bctrreen thc status of mythology in Greek religion srdoilturc and itr ltatu! in Chri*ianity and modern culture, which is thc centrrltopic of this rcction, providcs ue with the context for a propcr urdentrndingrnd apprcciation of Hcgel'o propoeal that 'we must have s new mythology'.

REASON AND FREEDOM'historical' religion, such a8 Chrisrianig, is bound to be hostile tomyths; and a religion cannot reconcile and unify peoples if it ig hostileto their myths. So Hegel's final promise in thig fragment is that he will3Pl"in somcthing which, as he proudly sayE, no one has thought ofbefore: that 'we mugt have a new mytholog;y, which atands at thesctvice of the ldeen [i.e. of our new Ethics], it must be mythology ofReaEont.r-The last paragraph of the plan might almost havc come straight outof the Tilbingen fragment (Religion ist cine):Until we exprese the ldem aesthetically, i.e. mythologicelly, they haveno intercst for the paplc, and converselyuntil mythology is rational thcphilosopher mu8t bc aghamed of it. Thus in the cna cnfghtcned andunenlightened must clasp hands, mythology must becoirc philosophical(in order toX makc thc people retional, and philoeophy must bicomemytholqical in order to make the philosophere aensible [aiml(ich)].Then reigne eternal unity among ue. No more thc look of scorn tof thccnlightened philooopher looking down on the mobl, no morc til blindtrembling of the people before itg wise men and pricete. Then firet awqitsY "qoot development of all powers, of what is pectrliar to each and whetIt common to all. No power shall any longer be euppressed, for universalfteedom and equality of spirits wili reignt-A hidhet rpi"it sent fromhcaven must found this ncw religion among us, it will be the lagt (and)glcatest work of mankind.

Almost, but not quite. For the 'subjective' religion that makes reasonpalpable to the senses in Religion ht eine is only a t anarnai d of.Varunft,a childhood governess who rimains as an old friend in the house of thegrown man who is governed by his own reason; whereas this'mytto-logical philosophy' d=oes away with all'governors', even-by implication-with the authority of rea!il)n. Religion now is neittrer a governe$ noran lld friend, but a 'new spirit' of equality and freedom.The fragment eine Ethihfiewith perfect togic into the eract sequenceof Hegel's-manuscripts that is suggested by giaphic analysis. For In theI Thc idea of reforming mythology in thG renricc of rcason might very wellhnrc ocsured to schelling ii rzgai but evcn allowing for hir- wcll-knownv-olatility it hardly seems plauible to agcribe it to him k-tzg6. For this reasonslone it seetnE to me that any claim that Schelling \rrrs the original or the mainruthor of this piece muat bc get aside. If Hegel drdtranrcribe it from a manuscriptby someoneelae, thc onlyplausible hypothcsis is thetitis partof one of Holderlin'gplaru for the'New Aesthetic Letterr'. (Cf. Letter rr7, line 38:'And I ehallsdvancc [in tbc 'Lettcrs'] from philoaophy to poctry and rctigion.') Thc waythrrt cinc Ethih begins with the mlrgl ptrilogoptri of phyeicr tells rathcr stronglyagainrt trits hypothesis howevert Here I hsve ventured to read um in place of thcund that appears in ourprinted tcxt8. I assumc (for rearonc of eyntactical balancc *rat wiU I hopc beo\iour) tlnt wtd ic simply a lapws calami.In the rert of the fragment thiformrtd occurs only three timee; thl sbbrevistion lr. ir uscd nine times.

255

Ia,..


6/12

256 BERNE t79t-1796onc iide thc eseay Jedes Vok lut ihm eigmc Gcgenstdnde helpc u! morlthen anything elge to undcrstand why Hegel wrote it, and how he mcto.conceive the project of a 'mphology of ieason'; and on tfie othcr aidccinc Ethih h"lp. more than anphing else to explain why Hegel wcnt ooto write EIcusiJ. In the light of tfie doctrine that the highest sct ofVanatft ie acsthetic, md that even rational religion rnust be shrlllidt,Hegel'r invocation of the Great Mother appears no longer es I orcrc'rside'. It is a contribution to retional mphology, an expreasioo:-however lisping and imperfect-of the niw spirit of freedom rndequdity. Thc poetic fonnis not chogen simply bicauge it is historiallyappropriatc, but bccause it is only in the poetry that'survivee'them thsthietory end philomphy are frnally consurffnated.Therc is, in fact, no other point in the sequence of datable msnu'ecripts where this fragment could be inserted at all comfortably. Wcbavc alrcady noticed that the political doctrine of eke Ethihis essentidlytrrnritional bdtween that which we find in the'Positivity' esss)rr and tbeyiiwu rcported by Rosenkranz ftom Hegel's Kant studi$ of 1798 endwoilcd out in'rdie Vertasmngsschrift.t Something similar can bc ssidabout tbe thcory of religion put forward here. The problem of horr rreligion is foundcd holds the centre of the stage in the Frukfu*nanucripts. Hegel digcuses this problem theoretiiatty and studier tbcfourding of trro religions, fudaism and Chrisd*iry, in considereblcdcteil. Hc is concemed with comparative mythology in his cerliertstudier of tudaism; but after that thc place of myth in religion is dludedb bnly in thc most marginal way. Insiead the fundanental theais ig thrt'Religion ist cim mit der Liebe': all religion, Hellenic as well es ludrqChritdan, ii rnalyred as an aesthetic consciousness of love and of rnabsotute love-object. Only when this analysia is completed does Hegc!tnrn from the principle of Hers back to the principle of Phantasicwhichwas in the forefront of his mind in his last ;onthl in Berne., Therc rrclsigns that in the greet manuscript, of which the so-called Systmfiag'mcnt.is dl that we have, Hegel did attempt finalty to provide at leilBomc elemcntg of a nerr mythology.r But this attempt was made in thetotal context of a conception of religion that is both broader and decpcrthan thc onc sketched in cinc Ethih.I For r rummrry rccormt of the errolutionof Hegcl'r political idcar*ithotttlcfcrcnoc tb thc doctriner of, citu Ethih-ee the fust two seEtions of Chrg,ter Vbclow.I Ewn thc cxtrcmely proraic Alpinc diary bearo witnesr to thir conocrni rG!thc rcmarlr about tlrc Tatfcbbrilchc antd the neighbouring crag cited on p. 16rebovo.t Scc Chapter IV, Section ro below, pp. ggr1. Of couree if we poococdnrnd ould &tc, ell of the manuacripte from which Rogcnkranz took thc furyrs*l*torirlu Stulirlr tbe picture might look rather dificrent. It is rt leart pouibbfhrt therc'rtudicr' incMed an errey on'@mparative mythology'.

REASON AND FREEDOII! 257My conclugion therefore ig that the fragmcnt citu Ethih is indeed rpiecc of Hegel's own work, od not somcthing thet he copied; and thathc wrote it in Berne-or more precisely at Tschugg-in the surnmcrof 1796. There is, however, one fact sbout the manuscript which mightlccm to grve cause for gerious doubt about the authooHp, and whichaill remaing to be dealt with. The plan is presented as a ecriee ofintcntional gtatements in the first person singular, Bnd the last para-greph riss to a pitch of prophetic enthugiasm that is without parallelin Hegel's other'plan8'. Hegel did not in any other ingtance write outr Plm in the firat pereon aingular; and when one is making a plen inthig mode it is moie naturd to write 'Here I mtst do this' or 'Hcre IthouU do this'than'Herel tlull do this'. This lettcr modc of cxprcseion-like the little note of self-congratulation about the'idea which ar fargr I know has nevcr yct occurred to anyone else'-is only rppropriatewhen one ia setting forth one's plans for the information oi gomeoneidrc. Hegel did at least once promiae to do this in his cor*pondencewith Schehg; and we know by inference that he must actually havedonc it et least once in his correspondence with H6lderlin. H0lderlinrould have been by far the most netural recipient for this statement ofintentions, and peihaps it is legitimate to cxplain the tone of the lastprngnph by supposing that the 'calm Tastadanatsch' Hegel caughtr little of Holderlin's prophetic enthusiasm from the very act of *ritingto him about Bomcthing that he knew would be cloge to Hdlderlin's

hcert

$I

,


7/12

APPENDIXTexts

r. THB TUBTNGEN ESSAy OF t793Religion ist ehu

2, TtrE BERNE PLAN OP t794(o) Unter objehtioer Relig;n

THE'EARLIEgT sYsrEM-PRocRAMMEcERMAN t"'Xt,rnfERNE | 7 s6)4. THE FRANKFURT SKETCH ON'FAITH AND BEING' (t Zg8)Glaubn ist ilie Art

5. g0ronnltx'Ubn Urtheil und Seyf(Iena, April ryg1)

OF


8/12

APPENDTXOther commands concerning the wa(c) Withdrawal from public(D) Distribution offund possible iq

5to(')a commonthe State-with public

3. THE'EARLIEST SYSTEM-FRoCRAMME OFGERMAN IDEALrsnn' (nrinptt, t796)'eine Ethik 1 itl' trl . . . trr Ethics. Since the whole of metfpfry{ics falls for the future' *itttit moral thcory


9/12

st2 APPENDINI must become mythological in order to make the philosophers sensible\ fsinnl(ich)). Then reigns.etemal u{ty 1m9ng us. No more the look ofscorn [of the enlightened philosopher looking down on the mob], nomore the blind trembling of the people before its wise men and priests.Then frst awaits us equal development of a// powera, of what is peculiarto each and what is common to all. No power shall any longer besuppr$eed for universal freedom and equality of spirits will reignl-Ahigher spirit sent from heaven must found this new religion among ue'it will bc the last (and) greatest work of mankind.

i:riti\i

n.,;L'#l il x'J"11 :r rff&i "Ghuben ist die Artl[4 [g8r] Faith [Belie{l is the mode, in which the unity, wantinomy has been united, ia present in our Yorstellung.is the activity; this activity reflected as object is what jorder to unite, the terms of the antinomy must be as conflicting,rcognized; butbecause it hastheir relation to one another as an antinomy mus!what ig conflicting can only be recognized asatready becn united; the union is the measuring rod] againstwhich trhe comparison is made, against whj the opposites appear asif it ig ghown that theuch, appear as unsatisfied [unfuopposcd limited terms could not subsi such, that they would have toaufhcbm miiftafl, and thal,ancel themselves [or oneeven to be possible they [g8g] a union (just to be able toghow that they are opposed, theyfi is presupposcd) then it is thereby'proven, that they have to I I be united, that the union ought toexist [sar sol{1. But that union itself does exist, is not therebylproven, rattrer this mode presence of the Vorstellung of it is believed[matter of faith]; and cannot be proved, since the opposites are thedependent terms, I in respect to them the union is what is inde-

; and to prove means (to show) the dependencelendcnt [rwhat is in respect to thege opposite [dependent terms] maycerteinly be ir( another respect a dependent term, an opposite, inits turn; then there has to be once more a progression to a newruuon is now once more what is believed [a matter of faith].randation of this piece I have received much helpful advice from myDn \ilalter Bcringcr, witb whorn I have diccussed the tert at leagth.ctnnot bc held rerponsible for any mistskes that ther,e may bc in mytation rincc his orrn viewg about the argumcnt of the gkctch arc in miny

Dy anunion:d. In

difiercot from mine.

[a] Ifnion and Being are synonymous; in "u.ry proposition thccopula 'is' expresses thJuniott of sn6lect and predictia Leing; beingt rt o$y b_e believed in; belief F"ithl preruppo.es a being [as its d"tu"t1]it is therefore contradi"rg"y tolaytl"t in orier to belieie'[in ro-rtuioijone must first be convinced of [its] b"ir,g. This independence t rri,subsistencel, rhe absoluteness of being is ihat people rto-bl. o"Zr;A[theindependent belnq] is certainly asiumed to 6e, [ut just r.oed i,

THE FRANKFURT SKETCH (1298) sr3

inde-gen$erye ls9u*gbsitlence] of being is assumed to [so{l *nrir/6i.cin tfie fact that it rs, be it for us oinot, being is zupptsea66";;;:Fi"g that may be utterly sundered from *,-.o-.tfrin g rtwbrcl, th.r"lies no necessity that we should enter into relation witfft: how f*;:gTqqqg be, of which it would yet be possibre ttovh" did not believe[in] it? j'., i, is something possible, thinkable, y(ich yet we do notbelieve ffi, i.e. which is stilinot on that "r*.r9/9." -o"ty thinkable]neeessary-_ from thinkability being does notrf6[ow; it ttft thinkabdsomethingJ rs indeed so far as it is Jomethingr{hought.of; but somethingFgught_oi is a sundered trhing, opposed t{*ethiirker; it is no existenileingr orly thryugh this [way 6i *grt/g1cen a mistaLen view arise,that there are different modes of ot i being, and hence that one canin virtue of that say: 'there is sometfrng, butli it not on that account

[3] The thing finds only in One Being its union; for adistinct being in Respect presupposes a neture, which wouldalso not berespect [i.e.union; thushence a contradiction; a union could in the same

place ofplace ofand thusunited,

y' respect in which the being is distinct] also not be apositive faith [beliuf] ir a union of the jort that in the/one an! only possible union sets up aoother one; in theone and-only possible being it puts [poslts] another being;unites the opposites in a modl wh&eby ihey are indeedinc.omplgt"ly, -i.": ttrey are not united in tle respect inought to be united. - .',,tl.a+] In positive religion any union is supposed [solrJ to be BortrG-given; [but] what is given, that one stiu does not have till onot88 Mm


10/12

GEORG \TILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL

\TERKE 1Friihe Schriften

i',:iiltt':Trf,W

SUHRKAMP


11/12

li

[Das zilteste Systemprogramm des deutschenIdealismus]10Zg6 oder 1797)

- eine Ethik. Da die ganze Metaphysik ki,inftig in die Moralfiillt - wovon Kant mit seinen beiden praktischen Postula-ten nur ein Beispiel gegeben, nichts erschdpft hat -, so wirddiese Ethik nichts anderes als ein vollstlndiges System allerIdeen oder, was dasselbe ist, aller praktischen Postulate sein.Die erste Idee ist natiirlich die Vorstellung von mir selbst alseinem absolut freienl0flesen. Mit dem freien, selbstbewufitenVesen tritt zugleidr eine ganzeWelt - aus dem Nichts her-vor - die einzig wahre und gedenkbare Schapfung lusNichts, - Hier werde idr auf die Felder der Physik herab-steigen; die Frage ist diese: '!rie muf3 eine \ilfelt fiir einmoralisches tVesen beschaffen sein? Ich miichte unserer lang'samen, an Experimenten miihsam sdrreitenden Physik ein-mal wieder Fli,igel geben.So, wenn die Philosophie die Ideen, die Erfahrung die Daraangibt, kiinnen wir endlich die Physik im Gro8en bekom-men, die ich von splteren zeitaltern erwarte. Es scheintnidrt, dafS die jetzige Physik einen schcipferischen Geist, wieder unsrige ist oder sein soll, befriedigen k6nne.Von der Natur komme icjh aufs Menscltenaterk. Die ldeeder Menschheit voran, will idr zeigen, dafi es keine Idee vomStaat gibt, weil der Staat etwas Mecbanischas ist, so wenigals es eine Idee von einer Maschine gibt. Nur was Gegen-stand der Freihelt ist, heifSt ldee.'vlir miissen also iiber denstadr hinails! - Denn jeder staat mu8 freie Menschen als1 Hoffmeistd (cd.), Dokumente zu Hegels Entwicklung, S. zr9-zr; Schii-ler Nr. 15 (Friihsommer ry96). - Piiggclcrs Daticrungr t796 oder ctsteMdnate ry97,YgL, Anm' d' Red. S. 628.

234 23t

mechanisdres Rlderwerk behandeln; und das soll er nicht;also soll er aufhdren. Ihr seht von selbst, da8 hier alle dieIdeen vom ewigen Frieden usw. nvr antergeordnete Ideeneiner hijheren Idee sind. Zugleich will ich hier die Prinzipienfiir eine Gesihichte der Menscbbeir niederlegen und dasganze elende Menschenwerk von Staat, Verfassung, Regie-,urrg, Gesetzgebung bis auf die Haut entbldfien. Endlidrkommen die Ideen von einer moralischen \Welt, Gottheit,Unsterblichkeit, - umsturz alles Afterglaubens, Verfolgungdes Priestertums, das neuerdrngs Vernunft heuchelt, durdrdie Vernunft selbst. - Absolute Freiheit aller Geister, die die Iintellektuelle 'Welt in sich tragen und weder Gott noch Un- |sterblichheft au'l\er sicD suchen di.irfen. IZulerzt die ldee, die alle vereinigt, die Idee der Scbiinheit,das \(/ort in hcjherem platonischen sinne genommen. Ich binnun iiberzeugt, da8 der hiichste Akt der Vernunft, der, indenr sie alle Ideen urnfaBt, ein isthetisdrer Akt ist und dafiWaltrbeit und Giite nwr in der Scbiinbeit vetsdtwistert sind.Der philosoph mu8 ebensoviel Isthedsche Kraft besitzen alsder Dichter. Die Menscihen ohne isthetisdren sinn sindunsere Budrstabenphilosophen. Die Philosophie des Geistesist eine Isthetisdre Philosophie. Man kann in nichts geistreicJrsein, selbstiiber Geschichte kann man nidrt geistreich raiso-nieren - olfne isthetischen sinn. Hier soll oflenbar werden,woran es ei[entlich den Menscihen fehlt, die keine Ideen ver-stehen - uqd treuherzig genug gestehen, dafi ihnen allesdunkel ist, rsobald es iiber Tabellen und Register hinaus-geht.bie poesie bekommt dadurch eine hiihere \Wiirde, sie wirdam Ende wieder, was sie am Anfang war - Lehretin derMenscbheir; denn es gibt keine Philosophie, keine Geschichtemehr, die Dichtkunst allein wird alle i,ibrigen'Wissenschaftenund Kiinste iiberleben.Zu gleicher zeit hSren wir so oft, der grofle Haufen miisseeine sinnlidte Religiorz haben. Nictrr nur der gro8e Flaufen,auch der Philosoph bedarf ihrer. Monotheismus der vernunft


12/12

und des Herzens, Polytheismus der Einbildungskraft und derKunst, dies ist's, was wir bediirfen.Zuerct werde ich hier von einer Idee spredren, die, soviel ichwei8, nodr in keines Menschen Sinn gekommen ist - wirmiissen eine neue M;'thologie haben, diese Mythologie abermu8 im Dienste der Ideen stehen, sie mufi eine Mythologieder Vernunft werden,Ehe wir die Ideen Isthetisch, d. h. mythologisch machen, ha-ben sie fiir das Volk kein Interesse; und umgekehrt, ehe dieMythologie verniinftig ist, mu8 sidr der Philosoph ihrersdrlmen. So miissen endlich Aufgekl?irte und Unaufgeklirte

, sic.h die Hand reichen, die Mythologie mu8 philosophisdr)werden und das Volk vernilnftig, und die Philosophie mufi/mythologisch werden, um die Philosophen sinnlidr zu ma-I dren. Dann herrscht ewige Einheit unrer uns. Nimmer derveracltende BlicJ

Documents

Earliest System-Programme of German Idealism