Chapter 5 Volume 1 Doubt-4

The mere knowledge of that which exists independently of me takes place on the same precondition of freedom as in the former system; so far the two systems are identical.But according to the former system—and here begins the struggle between the two systems of theory—my sensuous faculties are still under the dominion of nature, continually moved by, produced by, and In this case, too, thought merely looks on here and there; and, according to the present system, this faculty, so far as it exists, is governed by a power which is above all nature, which is completely free from the laws of nature, and which It is the power of the concept of purpose, the power of will.Thought no longer merely looks on, but generates action itself out of itself.In the former system there are external forces, invisible to me, which put an end to my indecision and limit my activity and my immediate awareness of my own activity - my will - to At one point, just as the activity of the plant, which is not determined by itself, is limited; and in the present system, there is the ego itself, who is independent of the influence of all external forces, freed from this influence, and ends his life. indecision, and determines himself according to the knowledge of the highest good which he freely arrives at in himself.

Which of the two opinions should I take?Am I free and independent, or am I nothing in myself but the expression of an alien force?I just realized that neither of the two claims is well-founded.As far as the first assertion is concerned, it says nothing but its mere inconceivability; as regards the second, I extend a principle which, in its own right, is perfectly true beyond its true According to the range that can be achieved.If intellectual power is a mere expression of nature, I am quite right in extending the principle to intellectual power.But whether the power of reason is like this is the question.To answer this question, one has to draw inferences from other principles, instead of presupposing a one-sided answer at the beginning of the inquiry, and drawing from this answer the conclusions I have originally put into it.In short, neither of these two opinions can be proved by arguments.

Direct awareness does not solve this problem either.I can never be conscious of either the external forces which determine me in the system of universal necessity, or the power inherent in me by which I determine myself in the system of freedom.Therefore, whichever of the two opinions I accept, I always accept it simply because I have already accepted it. The free system satisfies my mind, the opposite system kills and destroys my mind.Standing there indifferently and rigidly, just watching the alternation of various events; being a dull mirror, reflecting various fleeting images-I really can't bear this kind of life, I despise it and curse it.I want to love, I want to immerse myself in sympathy, and appreciate the joys and sorrows of the world.The highest object of this sympathy for me is myself, and the only way in which I can continually realize this sympathy is my actions.

I will do my best to do all things well; I will be happy when I am right, and sad when I am wrong; and even this sorrow is sweet to me, because it is pity for myself , is a guarantee for an improved future.There is life only in love, and without love there is death and destruction. But the opposite system acts ruthlessly and arrogantly, mocking this love.If I had obeyed this system, I would not exist, I would not act.The object of my heartfelt love was then a phantom, a great illusion to be specified.In the place of my being and action is an alien power, totally unknown to me; how this power is exercised is nothing to do with me.With heartfelt love and good will, I stand there in shame; what I consider to be my highest good, and only for which I would live, is regarded as a ludicrous folly .My holiest things are ridiculed by all.

Undoubtedly it was the love of this love, the very interest in this interest, which led me, before embarking on the inquiry which now embarrasses and despairs me, to have considered myself, unconsciously and directly, as free and independent; and it was this interest, no doubt, that led me to add to belief an opinion which has nothing but the assertion of its own inconceivability and the unprovability of its opposite ; and it is this interest that has so far restrained my continued attempts to find out about myself and my abilities. That contrary system, tedious and inexorable as it is, is infinitely powerful in explaining things; it even explains my interest in freedom and my aversion to contrary opinions.

It can explain everything I can find in my consciousness against it; and whenever I say that it is so, it always answers me with the same flat and self-possession: "I also Say so, but in addition I will tell you the grounds on which things must be so." To all my complaints it would answer me thus: "When you speak of your heart, your loves, your interests, you from the standpoint of the immediate consciousness of your ego; you yourself admit this when you say that you are the highest object of your concern. After all we know, and have been analyzed above, that your This you, who is so ardently concerned, is at least after all an impulse of your peculiar inner nature, if not an activity of your peculiar inner nature; ; we can then understand why this impulse must manifest itself in consciousness as love, as an interest in free and unique activities. But if you move from this narrow point of view of self-consciousness to the general view of the universe which you have promised to take you will see that what you call your love is really not your love, but an alien love, the primordial force of nature in you to maintain itself as such. Concern. You must never appeal to your love in the future, because even if this love proves something else, here even its premise is not true. Do not love yourself, because you do not exist; It is the forces of nature within you that are concerned with its own preservation. You have long since admitted beyond dispute that although plants have a unique impulse to grow and develop, the specific function of this impulse still depends upon some Power. If the plant is given consciousness for a moment, it will feel that it is interested and fond of this impulse to grow. Use rational grounds to convince the plant that this impulse can do nothing by itself. On the contrary, the impulse expresses itself. the degree to which a plant will always depend on something other than impulse; the plant may say exactly what you have just said; Higher, natural products that contemplate the whole of nature."

How can I object to this notion?Had I agreed with its grounds, with this well-known universal view, I would undoubtedly have blushed and been speechless.So the question is: should I take this view at all, or should I stay within the bounds of immediate self-consciousness?Should love be subordinated to knowledge, or should knowledge be subordinated to love?The latter has a bad reputation among reasonable people, the former would get me into indescribable troubles, because it would lead me to destroy myself.I cannot take the latter position without making myself seem rash and stupid, nor can I take the former without destroying myself.

I cannot always hesitate; all my peace and all my dignity depend on the answer to this question.It is equally impossible for me to decide for myself; I have absolutely no grounds for either the former or the latter. What an unbearable state of indecision and indecision! By the best and most courageous decision of my life, I have fallen into this situation! What power can rescue me from this situation?What power can save me from myself?