《哲学史-philosophy of history(英文版)》philosophy of history(英文版)-第8章

it；　—　an　organisation　produced　by　and　from　Reason。　I　wish；　at　the　very　outset；　to　call　your
attention　to　the　important　difference　between　a　conception；　a　principle；　a　truth　limited　to　an
abstract　form　and　its　determinate　application；　and　concrete　development。　This　distinction　affects
the　whole　fabric　of　philosophy；　and　among　other　bearings　of　it　there　is　one　to　which　we　shall　have
to　revert　at　the　close　of　our　view　of　Universal　History；　in　investigating　the　aspect　of　political　affairs
in　the　most　recent　period。　
§　17
We　have　next　to　notice　the　rise　of　this　idea　—　that　Reason　directs　the　World　—　in　connection　with
a　further　application　of　it；　well　known　to　us；　—　in　the　form；　viz。　of　the　religious　truth；　that　the
world　is　not　abandoned　to　chance　and　external　contingent　causes；　but　that　a　Providence　controls
it。　I　stated　above；　that　I　would　not　make　a　demand　on　your　faith；　in　regard　to　the　principle
announced。　Yet　I　might　appeal　to　your　belief　in　it；　in　this　religious　aspect；　if；　as　a　general　rule；　the
nature　of　philosophical　science　allowed　it　to　attach　authority　to　presuppositions。　To　put　it　in
another　shape；　—　this　appeal　is　forbidden；　because　the　science　of　which　we　have　to　treat；
proposes　itself　to　furnish　the　proof　（not　indeed　of　the　abstract　Truth　of　the　doctrine；　but）　of　its
correctness　as　pared　with　facts。　The　truth；　then；　that　a　Providence　（that　of　God）　presides　over
the　events　of　the　World　—　consorts　with　the　proposition　in　question；　for　Divine　Providence　is
Wisdom；　endowed　with　an　infinite　Power　which　realises　its　aim；　viz。　the　absolute　rational…design　of
the　World。　Reason　is　Thought　conditioning　itself　with　perfect　freedom。　But　a　difference　—　rather　a
contradiction　—　will　manifest　itself；　between　this　belief　and　our　principle；　just　as　was　the　case　in
reference　to　the　demand　made　by　Socrates　in　the　case　of　Anaxagoras"s　dictum。　For　that　belief　is
similarly　indefinite；　it　is　what　is　called　a　belief　in　a　general　Providence；　and　is　not　followed　out　into
definite　application；　or　displayed　in　its　bearing　on　the　grand　total　—　the　entire　course　of　human
history。　But　to　explain　History　is　to　depict　the　passions　of　mankind；　the　genius；　the　active　powers；
that　play　their　part　on　the　great　stage；　and　the　providentially　determined　process　which　these
exhibit；　constitutes　what　is　generally　called　the　“plan”　of　Providence。　Yet　it　is　this　very　plan　which
is　supposed　to　be　concealed　from　our　view：　which　it　is　deemed　presumption；　even　to　wish　to
recognise。　The　ignorance　of　Anaxagoras；　as　to　how　intelligence　reveals　itself　in　actual　existence；
was　ingenuous。　Neither　in　his　consciousness；　nor　in　that　of　Greece　at　large；　had　that　thought　been
further　expanded。　He　had　not　attained　the　power　to　apply　his　general　principle　to　the　concrete；　so
as　to　deduce　the　latter　from　the　former。　It　was　Socrates　who　took　the　first　step　in　prehending
the　union　of　the　Concrete　with　the　Universal。　Anaxagoras；　then；　did　not　take　up　a　hostile　position
towards　such　an　application。　The　mon　belief　in　Providence　does；　at　least　it　opposes　the　use　of
the　principle　on　the　large　scale；　and　denies　the　possibility　of　discerning　the　plan　of　Providence。　In
isolated　cases　this　plan　is　supposed　to　be　manifest。　Pious　persons　are　encouraged　to　recognise　in
particular　circumstances；　something　more　than　mere　chance；　to　acknowledge　the　guiding　hand　of
God；　e。g。　when　help　has　unexpectedly　e　to　an　individual　in　great　perplexity　and　need。　But
these　instances。　of　providential　design　are　of　a　limited　kind；　and　concern　the　acplishment　of
nothing　more　than　the　desires　of　the　individual　in　question。　But　in　the　history　of　the　World；　the
Individuals　we　have　to　do　with　are　Peoples；　Totalities　that　are　States。　We　cannot；　therefore；　be
satisfied　with　what　we　may　call　this　“peddling”　view　of　Providence；　to　which　the　belief　alluded　to
limits　itself。　Equally　unsatisfactory　is　the　merely　abstract；　undefined　belief　in　a　Providence；　when
that　belief　is　not　brought　to　bear　upon　the　details　of　the　process　which　it　conducts。　On　the　contrary
our　earnest　endeavour　must　be　directed　to　the　recognition　of　the　ways　of　Providence；　the　means　it
uses；　and　the　historical　phenomena　in　which　it　manifests　itself；　and　we　must　show　their　connection
with　the　general　principle　above　mentioned。　But　in　noticing　the　recognition　of　the　plan　of　Divine
Providence　generally；　I　have　implicitly　touched　upon　a　prominent　question　of　the　day；　viz。　that　of
the　possibility　of　knowing　God：　or　rather　—　since　public　opinion　has　ceased　to　allow　it　to　be　a
matter　of　question　—　the　doctrine　that　it　is　impossible　to　know　God。　In　direct　contravention　of
what　is　manded　in　holy　Scripture　as　the　highest　duty； —　that　we　should　not　merely　love；　but
know　God；　—　the　prevalent　dogma　involves　the　denial　of　what　is　there　said；　viz。　that　it　is　the　Spirit
（der　Geist）　that　leads　into　Truth；　knows　all　things；　perates　even　into　the　deep　things　of　the
Godhead。　While　the　Divine　Being　is　thus　placed　beyond　our　knowledge；　and　outside　the　limit　of　all
human　things；　we　have　the　convenient　licence　of　wandering　as　far　as　we　list；　in　the　direction　of　our
own　fancies。　We　are　freed　from　the　obligation　to　refer　our　knowledge　to　the　Divine　and　True。　On
the　other　hand；　the　vanity　and　egotism　which　characterise　it　find；　in　this　false　position；　ample
justification　and　the　pious　modesty　which　puts　far　from　it　the　knowledge　of　God；　can　well　estimate
how　much　furtherance　thereby　accrues　to　its　own　wayward　and　vain　strivings。　I　have　been
unwilling　to　leave　out　of　sight　the　connection　between　our　thesis　…　that　Reason　governs　and　has
governed　the　World　—　and　the　question　of　the　possibility　of　a　Knowledge　of　God；　chiefly　that　I
might　not　lose　the　opportunity　of　mentioning　the　imputation　against　Philosophy　of　being　shy　of
noticing　religious　truths；　or　of　having　occasion　to　be　so　in　which　is　insinuated　the　suspicion　that　it
has　anything　but　a　clear　conscience　in　the　presence　of　these　truths。　So　far　from　this　being　the　case；
the　fact　is；　that　in　recent　times　Philosophy　has　been　obliged　to　defend　the　domain　of　religion
against　the　attacks　of　several　theologic