Th e Anaes th eti c Revelati on .

By w h at foll ows I rath er h o p e to si g nalize th a n p urpos e

t o define a discovery —unuttera b le by any yet accessible t o
,

all an d of sin g ular interest if not of n ovel instan ce —which

,

h as been u sual with m e for n o w n early fourteen years I .

h ave oft en attempte d an accoun t of it , an d still h av e h ap

p ily d eferre d p ublic ation warned by th e fate of ph i l os o
,

p h ers which w as ever to h ave p ublished too soo n at l ast

, .

B u t w eary of reticence , I at lengt h resig n to that course of

n ature w h erein every conceit of the ul t imatu m h as com e t o
be correcte d in turn as but a stage of growth I am n ow .

forty years o ld , as m en reckon , an d do ubtin g th at I sh al l

ever be better able t o forestall my critical advantage a n d ,

in dul g ing a scruple at lon g er d elay lest by som e a dven

t ure t his m atter shoul d altogether die wit h m e , I take t h e
.c h ance o f being calle d a m ad on e in my d ay , in order t o
.

d eclare h owever imp erfectly , an d t o leave in the w orl d thi s

w hich is n ow my assurance an d poise where before were
,

d oubt an d vacilla t ion .

B ut the substance of th e discovery here alle g ed , althou g h

access ibl e t o even vulgar empiri c ism , can h ar dly b e eithe r
critically entertaine d or thankfully received without som e
a ppreciation of philosophy I n
. various guise — as truth ,
t h e true the g ood th e absol ute t h e i dent i c al the apodeictic ,
, , , ,

t h e p erfect , th e ultim ate Go d H eaven , etc , is s ou g ht , a s

.

I shall say suprem e bein g , or u nconditione d life —fro m

, ,

, ,
4 T HE GIST O F PH ILO SO PH Y .

which ( or rath er , fro m w h at th is contradiction intim ates)

I h ave m any times returned ; an d as I take this for th at
s atisfactio n of philosophy u nattaine d in its w ay it w oul d
,
.

beh oove m e to rel ate m ore distinctly th an as th ey n ow p ass

, ,

th e uneasiness which is th e instigatio n o f p hilosophy , an d

th e knot or coil which baffles p hilosoph ical expli c ation ,
together with th e m ost plausible m ethod s of philosophical
endeavor h eretofore ; a n d this preparat i on I shall fi rst essay,
with wh at cogency pert a ins .

An d n ow it shoul d seem an easy task , ( for a ph ilosop h er

at least,) to tell outri g ht w hat phil osophy is , an d is about ;
but vex ati ously enou g h , n o p hilosoph er h as succeed e d bet
ter in d e fi ning th an in fi ndin g wh at h e sought S o p er
.

pl ex e d i s the philosophical spirit even i n his cal m est

,

d etermin ation th at a d efinition of p hilosophy ( or of augh t

,

else ) i s impossibl e w hile ( an d for th e sam e reason th at)

p hilosophy en dures . Tech nically , p hilosop hy is th e desi re
*
fo truth ; an d as an art it migh t b e called th e art o f defi
r

n i t i on ; b ut wh at truth is , an d w h ether or n ot it is an d
,
“ ”
w h at i s ( or any other p redicate) m ean s , an d h o w on e
thing sh oul d express or contain , or give un d erstan din g o r
,

content o f another : t hese are still qu estion s in p hilo soph y,

as is also a question th e anom aly of asse rting an d p ursuin g

as a style of course , although th e desideratu m m ay p erh aps
event n ot by observation n or by de fi nition but by som e
,

silent retrocessi on , w hich sh al l l eave th e p hilosophical c on

d ition p athol ogically reproache d with th e presence o f a
question rath er th an with th e w ant of an answer .

There is this o d dity in questionin g w h at tru th is , an d

especially in questionin g wh eth er or n o t it is t h at h e w h o
speaks or writes th ereof m ust i n h onor be p resu ming its
possession But philosoph y di ffers from th e quest of knowl
.

e dge i n th a t philosoph y proceed s fro m a question of t h e

,

p ossibility an d reality of knowledge , a n d d ou bts of “ an

a n swer in w ord s to a question of things ” Th e diction ary
.

s eem s to s a tis fy comm on sense by de fi ning truth as conform

 '
rnn
x GIST on Pn rnos or n r . 5

i ty t o fact , as i nstanced in a ny description w herein an

-

ori g inal is recognized But philosop hers aver : If th e

.

o ri g i n al is reco g nize d i n th e truth it must h ave bee n co g

‘

n i z ed before as th e original ; else h ow sh all th e likeness or

conformity b e claime d ? or as between w h at i s i t claime d ?

Again they aver : In conformity o r likeness o f form , ,

th ere is not c laimed a likeness o f essen c e ; or if indee d

t here b e likeness of essence then th e same esse n ce distin , ,

g ui s h ed is a di fferent in dividu ality

,
In on e sense or other .

'

t ru t h is cl ai med as ot h c r of th e true although th e topic is ,

s in g l e An d w h en the topic is L ife —th at g reat con cern

.

w i t h u s all —w e are forced to confess th at i f by means of ,

truth w e are to be wiser in life , truth of life m us t be di ff er

ent as distinguished fro m l ife ; else on e of th e t erms is s u
perfi uo us .

It seems an easy an d a very proper thi n g to say th at th e ,

s uccess of p hilosoph y d epen ds on t h e possi b ility of life

e ntering in t o th ou g h t an d l an g u a g e ; an d as this c an hard

l y be h ope d for th e p urs uit at first vie w seems fit t o be

, , ,

g iven u p B ut thinking m ore c arefu lly we c onfess t h a t

.
,

a ltho u g h life may be cons idered as in itself ind epen den t

o f lan g ua g e o r lo g ical th o ug ht our life a s ind ivid uals , is , ,

s uch only by an d in consequen ce of formal p articulars o f

t hou g ht w hi c h m ake u p o ur self an d to doub t th at th e

“ ”
,

form an d p arti c ulars of thou g h t by w hich w e be c ome as per ,

son al are t ruly life , is to do ubt th at ou r life is real —is life

,

Th e u se of
il oso ph y w i l l b e i n s tan t l y b r o ugh t t o p op ular a p
ph
p ea r a n c e b y a c onsi d era ti on o f Web st er s d e fi n iti on of tr u th
du e
’

to w i t Th e q u a l it y of b e i n g t r u e ; as (a ) c on f orm it y t o f a ct or
rea”l ity ; e x a ct a ccordan c e t o th at w h ich i s o r h a s b een o r sh a l l
b e —Of t h i s e x p l ana ti on a n d of t h e d i sp ositi on w h ic h a cc ep t s it
, ,

. , ,
it i s t h e q u a l it y o f p h i l oso h y t o ask t w o qu e sti ons : fi rst Th i s
t o fa c u or r ea p ity ) —
,

Con f or m i t i s it n o t its e l f fa ct a n d rea l ity

”

s e c on d T i s A cc or dan c e t o t h a t w h ich i s ) —
, i s n ot it ? Wh a t !

c a n a cc or d t o t h a t w h ic h i s sa ve t h a t w h ich i s n ot ? Or b es i d es
, ,
w h a t i s i s th ere s om e w h a t t h a t a ccor d s t o it
, Her e b e it h er t r uth
i s n ot o r e l se it i s l ik e n ess o f b ei n g a n d n o t b e i n g ra t e r t h a n t rli c
, ,
b e i n g o r b e i n g t ru e So of t ruth as a cco r dan c e t o w h a t h a s b een
, .
,
a n d w h a t sh a ll b e ; d oes it a cc or d i n t h e s e resp e ct s : th a t it h a s b een ,
a n d sh a ll b e but i s n o t n o w, Wh a t k now l edg e i s ; w h e t h er p ossi
-

bly it i s ; h ow it c a n b e ou t of t h e c ont en t of a th i n g ; a n d esp e ci a l

l y h ow it c a n b e of a ll so t h a t a ll m a y b e sa f e i n i n t e ll i g en c e ;
, ,

t h ese a r e t h e fu n da m e n ta l q u esti on s i n p h i l os o h i c a l cu ri osit y

w h c h h ave n ot b een ans w ere d a n d c a nno t b e w i se y i gnore d
i
, .
6 T HE GIST or PH I LO SO PHY .

at all S o th at rebuking philosoph y is in e ff ect d enyin g

.

o ne s self —which is n ot easily d on e

’
.
,

T he in veterate an d abidi n g kn ot or twist w hich ba ffle s

'

philosophy ( as a p ursuit of th e t rut h of life) is in g eneral ,

t erms th e i dentity an d di ff erence of th e sam e an d th e o t h

,

er ; and in particular t erm s the id entity an d diff eren ce

,

o f being an d kn owin g o f life an d l ogic of thin gs an d

, ,

thinkin g of reason an d sen se of reali t y a n d appearan ce

, , ,

of somethin g an d n othin g o f u nivers al an d p articul ar

, ,

of on e an d all Which ever of t hese couples w e co g itat e

.

an d take ap art on eith er h an d w e are force d t o con fess

,

t h e sam e i n th e other—i dentity an d diff eren ce .

As a su ffi cient illustration of th e p hilosophic al di ffi culty

w e t ake th e i dentity an d di fference of bein g an d kn owin g ,
a n d in dul g e th e c uriosity of knowi n g wh at w e a r e We .

i mmediately encounter this p uzzl e : If w e kn o w wh a t w e

a r e still w e know a s w e are —for w h a t i s k now n an d w h at
, ,

kn ow s are then th e sam e — an d th en al so bein g an d kn ow

ing are the same —an d wh at w e are is simply k n owl edg e
,

yet knowled g e of ( or of ) wh at we a r e T h e distin ction i s

, .

s till open between bein g an d kn owled g e

,
—th e i dentity a n d
d iff erence are alike confest ; — an d th e q uestion , Wh at ar e
w e i is o n ly reput an d em p h asise d wh a t are w e th en , if w e
kn ow so intimately ? W hy are w e n ot satisfied —Th ere
a e two consideration s wh erein w e are n ot satis fi ed on e i s
r ,

We know m any particul ars which w e d o n ot u su ally thin k

w e a r e ; an d th e oth er is , In all w e kno w of w h at w e a re
th ere is n o satisfaction for an other curiosity n am el y wh y , ,

we are — w e doubt our possessin g real knowled g e of augh t

,

w hile w e lack t h e secret of com m an ding its p resen ce an d

its absence .

While prevails this philosophical n o t ion —th at kn owl

e dge is a n ecessity of presence a n d o f being —th ere i s
n o peace t o u s save in th e belief th at a ll i s known th at n o
blin d fate , prior to wh at is , n ecessitates th at a l l first i s an d
o nly secon dly is known
, but t h at kn owledge is fi rst an d
o riginal , with s a fety in its o wn h an ds B ut w h en w e sp e a k
.
 T HE e rs 'r O F PH I L O SO PHY . 7

of kn owle d g e as of or off al l being , ei t h erq

w e claim kn owl
e d g e a s oth er of all being , or else k nowled g e itself m ean s

bei n g an d on e of th e two w ords is superfluo us Y et i n as

, .

m uch as , even i n th e s upposition t hat kn owledge is an d

only is an d means bein g o ur con dition insists upon kn owl
,

e d g e as o f som e p articular althou g h th at p articul ar w ere

,

kn owled g e i t sel f there still 1 em a i n s a sense i n wh ich th ere

,

i s bein g o t her th an ( or in ) kn o w led g e , an d knowledge as

o f all is oth er o f all ; whi c h implication perhaps su g geste d
“
a sayin g o f P armenides Th e more is th ought
,
as if ,

w h atever m ay b e known th ere is more , by th e tho u ght o f

,
“ ”
it th an is k nown w hich more is m etalogical an d never
, ,

a t h i s —a n o bj ect or au g ht to b e foun d —bu t som ewh at cer

,

t i fied from behin d kn owled g e in re g ions not to be referre d

,

t o as pra c ti c able g roun d for speculation Y et clearly to .

,

m en t io n or assum e this u nkno w n groun d as su c h is to treat , ,

as if kno w n m ore than is c onfest as kno w n ; an d such

,

re ference is i dle sav e wi t h an un derstanding or ad mission

,

o f an intuition of bein g b a d aside from form al knowle dge .

O f w h atsoever w e desire a d efinition , or a form al settin g

forth in li g h t or knowled g e , w e already confess some i n
f orm al p ossession i h ou r bein g else w h y th e c uriosity f or,

defi nition ? as defini t ion of w h at ? There seems to b e an ‘

i nd efinite substan c e of intelli g ence of w hi c h kno w led g e i s ,

an ad de d an d e xterior form , or set of forms .

O bserve t h at in a s u pposed relieving o f the impli c ation

,

o f bein g an d kno w l ed g e by kn owin g wh at w e are not o n l y

, ,

m ust w e b e all t hat w e kn o w but w e presum e th at wh at ,

w e a re c oul d h av e i t s c ontents better appreciated out w ard

l y as in k n o w
,
ledge picture or expression than t h ey are
, , ,

realized i d en tically at h om e But t his presumption is n ot

.

p ra ct icall yj ustified ; for On th e other hand o f wh atsoever ,

w e m erely kno w as seeming external , we doubt th at w e

,

po ss ess th e secret because w e are n ot i t in its life Wh en

,
.

w e l ook u p on an y pi c ture reflection or wh atever is visibl e , ,

as cl aimin g in itself to represent a n original life we are ,

com pelle d to confess t h at if our observation is true t o t h e .

8 THE '
o rs r OF PH I LO SO PHY .

life —possesses or really contains its secret t h en life i s

‘

do ubled in th e truth and in trying t o see o r to a c c ou n t for

on e w e h ave foun d another i n truth or knowl ed g e w h ich
,
,

other w hen truth or kn owle dge of a ll is con c erne d m u s t ,

—
,

—
be as other of all , both being an d n ot bein g w hic h h ar d
,
’
dilem ma h as brought som e h ard sayin gs into th e w orl d t as
w hen Z oph ar t h e Naamathite tell s Job : The secrets of w i s
dom are t h e double to th at w h ich is ; as wh en P a rm e
“

n id es says : The m ore is th oug ht a s w he n Aristo t le s a y s

”
the absol ute is Th ough t th ough t ; as w h en S t Jo h n
“
'

”
says : Th e Wor d w as mad e fl es h ; as wh en Jesu s says :
“

“
I a m the truth as w h en F ic h te says : Consciou snes s i s
” “
Bein g ou t of its being ; as wh en H egel t ells of Bein g
( bot h noun an d participle) pro duced as w hen E merson
says : We a r e wis er th an we kn ow
“ ”
.

This t h en seems to be the groun d of philosop hical e x

,
”
o f w h at
“
p a t i a t i on kno wl d
e g e of all ,
o r kn o w ledge
”
is , leaves a dis t inction between kn o w ledge an d w h at i s ;
and whe n w e speak of th ought w e distin g uish be t w een ,

thou g ht an d wh at is th ou g h t (of ) —al t h ou g h w e w ere th ink

in g or proposin g t o think o f t h ou g ht ; s o t hat t h o u g h t a n d
, ,

thinkin g or knowled g e an d kn ow i ng seem rel ated as o h

, ,

j ec t an d action — whi c h l ast can not w ell b ecom e a n obj ect

o f knowled g e but m u s t be identically live d
, Y e t “ m o re .

is inferred ; whether knowin g be act f act substan ce or , , ,

il l usion , h o w c an i t be a topi c of consideration u nl es s i n

”
s om e sense i t is as an obj ect t o so me o t h er o r t o i t sel f
“
, ,

as other
Regarding any obj ect topic o f kn owledge l e t u s d e
or
,

clare this : We s ee on l y w h at w e d o n ot s ee t h rou g h —onl y

w h at stan d s forth to w on der resis t s penetration an d i s n ot
, ,

resolved —the given —t h e m atter o f experienc e —

, an d thi s ,

the sam e w h ether as a m ere obj ect t o th e eye o r a s an y c on ,

s is t ency o f i dea or any lin g u al expressi on

, or abstrac ti on , ,

o r e motion W ore w e comm an din gly pos s es t Of every se c re t

.

constitution al in th at which confron ts o r arrests u s t h e re

wo u l d b e n o resistin g op a ci t y ex t ant —n o m a t t er o f e x peri
,
 T HE o rs r OF PH I L OS OPHY . 9

ence an d won der— n ough t given Wherefore K an t ( an d .

P lato before hi m w h en h e says col or i s commensurate with

,
“
si g ht ) hel d th at we see or k no w n o t t h i n g s i n th em
'

” ”— “ ”
selves b ut appearan ces
,
inferrin g th at appearances ,
,

”
t h ough known as h e says are not t hings i n thems elves , ,

but are rel ated t o knowing somewh at as p ain i s rel ated to ,

fe el i n g .

FrO m t h e fact t hat w i t hin or behind o ur o w n form or

appearance w e feel a private p oten cy of life whic h as ex , ,

er c i s e d is a reason o r g roun d fo r c h an g es in appearan c es

, ,

w e usually infer t he sam e g round behind o t h er appear

a n c es an d conclu de t h at if life is reality there is reality
, , ,

w ith out u s as w ell a s w ithin us B ut i f th e only nee d of .

s om e w h at beh in d form an d color o f w hich somewhat t h ey ,

”
sh all be th e m ere form an d c olor is of a g roun d o r
“
,

reason for their standin g fort h a s they do , th e integrity of

t h e somewh at suppose d beh in d ex t ernal form and col o r
will be q uestion able if th ose q ualities sh a l l be foun d a c
c ordin g to so m ewh at else w h ere than th us a s x s uppos e d

b ehin d t h em an d also n ot accordin g to o ur will Now

, .

aside fro m t h e fact th at w e h ave n o conception of aught

rem ain in g if the q ualities app aren t are taken away , w e
h ave all learned th at sensible presents—form color sound , , ,

resistance etc , are to u s m ore an d less present an d absent

,
.
, ,

a ccording to o ur or g an s an d the m edium s betw een t hem

a n d th eir obj ects ; an d whe t her this a cc ording is actively

o n th e part o f the obj ects or on th e par t of th e or g an s

,

( i e in wh i c hsoever any c h ange woul d be prior, and i n

. .

w hichsoever conse q uent) all obj ects claimed as external t o-

us m ust h av e t his q uestion able in their obj ective inte g rity “

th ey are at l east p artly as w e are , an d w e are at leas t p artly

”
a s they are T hus appearan ces althou g h in on e respect
.
,

( topically ) n ecessarily t hin g s in th emselves an d in another ,

respe c t thin g s in ourselves , yet taken as a wh ole —taken as

ac t , f ac t an d substa n ce wh ich j ointl y m ay b e c alle d e x pe
, ,

r i en c e— this experience contemplate d as if by o n e o utsi d e

,

o f experien ce — alien to th e w orl d t ra n s c en d en t a l l y— se em s

fi
 10 T HE GI s r
'
OF PH I L OS OPHY .

th e result of two factors : a subj ect an d an obj ect —bu t

there is y et n o d eterminatio n wh ether t h es e t w o are indi
v i du a l s or p arts o f an indivi dual
—for thi s l ast sayin g ,

( parts of an although nonsen se t o reason is

“
,

reasonabl e t o sense ; empirically each o f us as on e is a sub

,

j cet obj ect although ration ally this i s imp ossibl e Wh ence
-
,
.

are confest i den tity an d di ff eren c e in o ur p erson ality .

'

H ere w e confi dent of life behin d ou r ap p earan ce a t least

, ,

mi g ht well infer th at o ur life involuntarily an d u nwittin gly

“ ”
proj ects all th at w e see or know , as a self d i d n ot o ur ,

p ains if n ot our pl easures at th e presen ce o f extern al s ( s o

, ,

c alled ) insist on our res p ectin g th em as in th em selves effi

,

cient in dependently of o ur d esire an d very will It w ere .

stran g e w e can but think that wh at w e are sh oul d so h ate

, ,

an d hur t us or be g roun d of th at wh ic h sh oul d i n any w ay

,

ann oy or opp ose u s ; — for this inw ard antagonism revolt s

fro m any possibl e c on ception of a g roun d or reason for
anythin g wh atsoever It is n ot th e v astness of th e o uter
.

s pa c e a n d beau ty w hich deters u s fro m con ceiving t h em as

Optical illusion s proj ecte d by th e vital soul ; for nothin g i s
m ore fertile th an l ife ; an d a mile outwar d i s n o furth er
th an th e mile inward w hi c h m easures it ; but w e m arvel at
th e a n t a g om s m o f g roun d an d c onsequent —of creator an d
creature .

P hilosophy lon g a g o referred this anta g onism w hic h at ,

first is h el d t o lie between us an d th e unobed ien t o uter

w orl d t o th e ant a gonism o f t wo fa c ulties in u s n am ely
.
, ,

Sense an d Un derstan din g : o f w hich t h e o ffi ce of t h e fi rs t

is t o c onfess the presen c e of th ings , an d th at of t h e seco n d
i s to q uestion the g r oun d o f th e p resence an d ( or) i t s con
f es s i on .But this step 1 n a dvance l ed only t o a n ew a n d equal
di fii c ul t y : As kn o w led g e requires som e sort of uni t y of
appearances an d things , i n o 1 d er th at a pp earances m ay b e
real , o r th at thin g s m ay ap pear as th ey m e so th e t w o ,

fa culties sen se and un derstan din g require to b e m ad e on e

, ,
,
or el se th ere 1 s an enti r e m an w h o as a third con sid er a tion
,
,

owns th ese faculties an d i s p erfect an d i d en tical as a c riti c

,
 T HE GI ST OF PHI Los OPHY . 11

of both of th em An d th u s far in th e history of ph i los o

.

ph y th ese f aculties are in antagonism an d the un it i s n o t ,

foun d Un derstan ding accu ses sense of deception — dec ep

.

tion of th e m an excep t h er sh are i n him ; an d sen se tor

,

m ents th e m an with p ain s w hich un derstan din g cann ot

en abl e him t o ignore An d neither will th ese two faculties
.

a g ree before t h e m an n or can th e m an determine t o w h i c h

,

of th e t w o voices h e sh ould listen ; for th ere appears n o

ch oice betw een them save u p on th e unw arranted ( a n d

,

t hough w arrante d yet unavailing) a s s umptio nt hat sen se is

,

o rg anic an d perish abl e while understan di n g or reason i s , ,

universal an d imm ortal .

When w e sensibly see th e i mag e o r picture of our roo m

in th e mirror an d ration ally conclude t h at no room is th e r e
,

a s th ere appears , reaso n assumes a deception of sense B u t .

t here is then som ewh at worth y o f h er remark no m atter

, , ,

w heth er ch aracterized as an act a fact or a falsity ; sh e, ,

c onfesses th e t h u s n es s , even in d enyin g th e t h er enes s o f th e

i llusion ; an d alth ough a ffi rmin g th at th e illusion i s n ot

outward in m atter, but is an error in on e sid e of th e min d
a fi r m i n g th at it is not th ere w h eth er seen or n o t but only ,

a s seen an d th at th ere is n o u nseen color nor unfelt p ain

, , ,

an d t hat th ese seemin g realities are mistakes whic h but for

sense were n ot — yet this denial of any supposed substance
,

i n th e illusion d oes n ot wipe ou t th e fact o f the illusion

w hich fa c t Reason , ( herself practical only by mean s of a
sensible element ) confesses in t he boast of its detectio n
. .

S he does n ot reli eve th e m an from the p oten cy of th e thin g s

of sense b y sim ply pron ouncing them unsubstantial ; th e
m istake is fact an d p otential o ver th e peace of th e m an ,
t h ou g h th ere be n ought mistaken , n or any ground for mis
takin g —for sense is part o f th e m an an d is as i ns epera b l e
, ,

fro m hi m as reason .

Th e q uestion raised h ere is not merely sophistical as ,

w h eth er an illusion or a f alsity can really be ; any on e m ay

detect th e waste of word s in speaking of a definite falsity ,

or of a real illusion ; but the question i s p ra c t 1c a l in th e

12 TH E e rs r OF PH I LO S OPH Y
'
.

fi rst d e g ree H ere is one faculty in th e m an clai ming an d

.
,

a n other faculty repudiatin g t h e presence o f s om ewh at ; an d

the m a m — pleasan t ly o r p ainful l y a ffecte d by sense o n t h e
o n e p art an d o n t he o t her p ar t assure d th at as n augh t ,

—
,

really is t here h e sh oul d not be so a fecte f d raises th e

,

d ouble question as t o w he t her or n ot au g h t is th ere an d a s

,
,

to w h o he is th a t th us seem s t o transcen d bo t h facul t ies or

voices ye t uses bo t h when h e criticises eith er W h o is th e
,
,
.

m an ? Is h e either o r bo t h of t hese faculties ? O r are bot h

o f t h ese m er e con d itions in som e w h at w h i c h m ay su rvive
‘

t he m
If t h en th e first achievement of p hilosophy i s t he d et ec
tio n of deception in th e senses i t is sadly plu m e d w i t h ,

d o ub t s as to w h e t her th a t o t h er faculty w hich c on demns th e

s enses i s o f a m ore c o mm an din g o rder an d of a hi g her d es

t iny t h an are those o f sense ; for once d eceived b y augh t so

.
,

p alp abl e an d so poten t as sense gives s t ern a d monition , ,

l es t we be d eceived a g ain t o p a t ien t susp ense o f an y j u d g

,

m en t w hi c h m ay be determine d by o ur co n di t ion An d I .

a m fully assured of a li fe ( so c allin g it because so m e n am e

is co nvenient) in w hi c h i s n ei t her lo g ical reason n or p erc ep

t ive sense , but only t h e m etalo g ical or u n d ist in g uish able of
w hic h t hese a re condi t ioned an d kn o w abl e part icul ars —i n ,
'

wh i c h life t h e con fusion o f i d en t i t y an d d i fi e re n c e an d o f ,

universal an d par t i c ul ar t roubles t h e so ul n o l onger Th i s

, .

as surance i s in memory o f t ha t life beyon d cond ition or

n ame an d fro m w hich I have many t im es return ed as
, ,

o t h ers also m ay ; an d i t i s only because t h e p ossibility of

th at life forbids that philoso phy sh ould rea c h i t i n t his our
con dition that I woul d admonish philosophy of h er o w n
,

w ea kness in h er o w n way before I speak of t h a t u n c on di

,

t i on a l satisfaction An d freely I c onfess w it h al l n o rm al

.
,

s anity th at I c annot n orm ally conceive h o w t here m ay be

,

life w i t hout p erson ality o r consciousn ess th at i s n ot o f so m e

,

p articul ar in l ogical form — I only remember t h at so i t i s ;

,

b u t philoso phy n orm ally pos s es t o f but t h e t wo facul t ies

,
,

s ens e a nd reason vainly strug gl es i n t h e coil of i d enti t y

, and
 T HE GIST OF PH I LO S OPHY . 13

d iff erence to fin d th e conten t unity of life instea d of t h e

,

an tagonism o f reality an d app e ara nce of bein g an d thought ,

.

For t his is th at Truth , w hence philosophy t akes its n am e

th ou g ht as reality ; or l ogically th e wor d of l if e ; a nd I
, ,

w oul d exp ose th e failure Of philosophy to discover it .

Therefore Observe carefully th e follo w in g —Truth if it ,

be n ot an idl e w ord t autolo gical an d one with th e w ord

, ,

life but is w orth y a n am e of its o w n as of or o ff th e life

, , ,

infers th at li fe can b e exp res t as bei ng i n a n oth er ; an d if ,

truth h as any use or desirableness it lies in the present

m ent into th e w orking capacity Of some faculty som ewh at
n ot other w ise apprehensible B ut this p eculiar presence .

c la i med s epa r a t ely as trut h —distin g uish e d as truth —is surel y

,

a r e presentmen t Of somewh at which h owever intan g ibl e

-
, ,

before , w as firstly ( or is at th e same time) p osited detected , ,

an d confest i n bein g by some oth er facul t y of co g nition or

h ypo t h ecation It t ru t h and l if e are n o t t h e sam e then h ow

.
,

ever like they m n s t di fi er Truth then as th e likeness o f

'

, .
,

t h at visible to th at invisibl e reverts as l ikeness or h armon y

,

be tween his faculties in th e Observer ; an d inasmuch as but

on e Obj ect is claimed in t h e visible an d th e invisible then ,

while t h e visibl e an d th e invisible —the ori g inal reali t y an d

th e app ari tion —are on e, th e observer must either be t wo ,

or p ossess t w o faculties himself being a third and sep arat e

,

consideration an d only as th e visible an d the invisible a re

t wo an d distinguish abl e can th e Observer be on e ; an d onl y “

w h en th e duplexity of bei n g as r eality an d appari t io n i s, ,

v anquish ed can w e proclai m th e visibility of reali t y , or t h e

,

reality o f O b serva t ion .

F ichte w h o is ori g in al h erein states th e m atter th us

, ,
”
L ife or Being a lon e i s ; an d i s mea n s knowledg e : Bein g
, ,
“

“ is ” only because
a nd i n th at it app ea r s , as i n conscious

n ess, or form or m anifestation —as if Being , inherently

d ark or l atent —i n i s t i n g —sh oul d i n the sam e time a n d
,

place , a n d without ch ange o r m otion ex ist or be c om e t o ,

-
,

”
l ight form or d efinition , as consciousness an d an d so is ;
, , ,

a n d B eing i s in n o oth er sense or m anner An d furth er, .

14 T HE GIST OF PH I L OS OPH Y .

a nd
( this is the m eaning o f t r u t h )
, Bein g e x i s t s even a s i t
-

i n ist e ; or in kn owl edge it app ea r s as it i s : th us a ssertin g

-
,

th e equival ence o f being an d appearing an d th e truth of ,

o n e to th e oth er w hen th ey are distinguishe d in d o ctrin e .

B ut observe : If B eing is by kno w ledge or t h rou g h kn owl

,

e d g e surely i t i s not a s knowled g e , —

,
for t h u s w ere t w o
words ( being an d knowledge ) for on e m eaning ; or if
, ,

kn owledge is th e a c t Of being an d i s m ean s knows kn o w l

, ,

edge is distin g uishe d from being a s proc c s s is distin g uish e d

‘

fro m substance An d n ote th e practical conseq uence O f

saying th at bein g is only by and in knowled g e —
.

this w o ul d
a fii rm Of us that w e are d ead an d n othin g if wi t h o u t

kno wledge ,— whereas we sleep in safety , an d in d ue ti m e

l i fe ( or all th at w e mean by li te ) resum es c onsciousn ess a n d ,

w e a w ak e by a po t ency pr i org t o o ur knowledge an d will In .

t h is instance so far i s knowled ge fro m the g uid a nce or t he

fo undin g o f being th at it is as a toy in t he g rasp Of th e
unreasonin g life . An d in somnambulance even fo rm al
knowled g e seems active th ou g h voi d o f o ur re memberin g
personality —An d n ote further t h e consequence of sayin g
,

au g ht is only as i t appears -
th e c olor an d form O f th e
flo wers see n in the mirror are as real as color an d for m can
b e ; an d all t h at w e see in any flo wer i s of color an d form ;
yet th e obj e c t in the mi rror is n o t taken for a real d o uble ,

o f which th e c olor an d for m bel on g t o a n i t behin d them

,

n or supposed to possess tha t life o f t h e bouq uet be f ore t h e

mirror—that li fe w hich w e are an d t ry to kno w —Y et fur .

t her if w e sh all admit t h e demonstratio n o f ph ysical

science , th at vision as w ell as soun d an d t o uc h is m ediate
that the eye t akes time to see as w e l l as th e ear t o h e ar
the n a star m ay h ave been so far a w ay th at if it h ad
perished before t h e d ays o f Ad am it mi g ht still be v isi
,

ble from h ere yet a h undre d years ; s ur el yz wh a t i s n o w s een

is n o t th e bein g Of th e star, for h ere is an app e ar a n ce
t o w hich n o o ut w ard reali t y belongs An d ( pop ul a rly
.

speaking) as somewh at appears an d is n ot , so also there i s

w hich appears not ; as in th e earth s mo t ion w h en w e r e
’
-
,
 16 T HE GIST O F PH I L O S OPHY .

forth by a likeness Of app earance as o f A taken twice by

th e senses , while th e subtler facul t y —that which sym p a
!

t h i zes wi t h th e life o f A , an d w oul d kno w w h en c e it is an d

why it is— stan ds idle If A were wise h e w o ul d n o t take
.

” —
this A o f refi exi on this m a n i n th e mirror , in exch ange
“ “

”
for h i s soul .

Give th e formula a g eneral appli c ati on t hus : Al l= All ,

h ere by the formul a all is proposed , i n th ough t of a ll , a s

, ,

equal an d oth er of all ; an d th at w hi c h is equal an d oth er

is th e do uble Of a d efinite w h ole — “
an d th us eve r th e m ore.

” “ ”
i s th ought , an d wisdom is th e do uble to th at w hich is .

Being alon e is sai d F ichte —is by conscio usness ; an d

,
”

in a doctrine of knowl ed g e consciousness as distinguish ed

, , ,
“ ”
is Being out Of its being Th e c ontrad iction in vol ve d
.

in this utterance h e w oul d n ot dei g n to scru t inize b ut said ,

“
otherwise it cannot be an d so it is ; ask n ot for t h e
,
”
i t h th e Fa c t H e w as st aunch e d i n t h i s
.

ti on of th e dynamic an d transcendin g
g enius of life itself, w hic h I s a w are O I aw ake only as bein g
'

exceeds or i s th e same in n ew time , as Bein g pr odu c ed ( t h a t

,

is ,p op ul arly speakin g sel f extended ) ; but this pro cess i t

,
- -

w as n o t for him t o illu minate .

H ere begins t h e operatio n Of H egel , w h o dema n d s t h e

freshest pat ience an d th e stillest attention — t o be re w ard e d ,

w ith somethin g less th an th e kingdom o f h eaven .

Th e F ich tean Bein g —uni versal an d static —canno t g o

o ut of its bein g ( as h e said) save i n to a consequen t c o n ~

sidera t io n— nu other of all F ichte w oul d n ot follo w it

.
.

But is there oth er o f all Y es said P arm en ides t h ou g h t

,

i s oth er of all ; yes sai d Z oph ar th e Naam athite th ere is a

,

d ouble to that w h ich is ; an d yes sai d in e ffec t H egel ,

th ere is an other of al l in n e w n ess Of th e sam e —i n being

“ ” —
p ro duced ; there is a n otion c ontaining an d ex cee ding
th e duplex of i dentity an d di fference as the unity o f m an ,

contain s and exceed s th e clashing faculties of sense an d

un derstan din g ; an d I n all con sid eration s g reat or little , t h e
absolute I s on e an d it is this n otion Is there an antith esis
. :
 T HE GIST O F PHI L O SOPHY . 17

O f p a rt iculars ? th ere is t h e n otion containin g them Are .

t h ere cross universals ? th ere is th e universal notion contain

-

i n g th em Being an d bein g ( continuin g) substance an d

.
,

p r ocess noun, an d participl e identity an d difference —,

i mpl i
c s te d an d explicated in couples by th e l o g ical sense an d
u n derstanding—h av e for each couple a n otion al unit i n
r ea s on —i n w hic h n o t ion th e i dentity an d di ff erence o s c i l
, ,

l atin g push th e unit life onward O nward but n ot out Of

, , , ,

t h e system ; for if w e overh aul t h e unit —the concret e n o

ti on —w e sh all instantly anti t hesis e it w i t h its own n e g a
tion — put its bein g side by si de with its n on being an d
,
-
,

uplift in lo g ic th e universal n otion o f being an d not being ,

an d c row n th ese with th e no t ions Of absolute assertio n an d

c ontradiction in turn — all to no en d save a seo di ng of our
,

fi nite c ondition an d a sickenin g Of all philosophy

, .

We sh all better ap p roach H e g el if we may for t h e m o

ment turn th e light Of H e g elianism on two opposing sys
tems—th at of Hera c l ei t u s an d th at Of t h e E leatics .

O bserve th at an other of all as s p a c i c a l l y an d static ally ,

exterior to all is illo gical or inco g itable only because un i

,

v ersal space ( or say the compass Of t h e s pa c i c faculty ) can

n ot b e transcended by th at fa c ulty— ( call it the faculty Of

th e present tense or of a c tu ality) — b ut at t he use Of thi s
,

f acul t y anoth er facul t y lies i dle — ( c all this th e cri t ical , or ,

p oten t ial fa c ul t y by w h ich fa c ulty th e sp e cie universe , as

i f it w ere a disc is turned ed g e w ise toward us an d set a t
,

right angles across th e universe of dura t ion in which th e

-
,

s p ac i c t otality shows as endurin g , bu t a m oment s thick

,
’

n ess—like a curtain h un g b etween th e future an d the p ast ;

— for all th at is to the facul t y of a c tuality or sense , is i n
,

th e present tense , an d t o thi s faculty neither th e p ast n or

t h e future i s If we suppose n ow a t otality embracing n ot
.

only wh at i s ( sensually Observed) but also w hat has been

an d w hat shall be this l a st totality mi g ht be hinted as a
,

panoram a , wh ereof th e section expose d t o vie w sh ould

stan d for th e content Of th e present tense , between tw o
equ al an d fore fin i s h ed rolls ( the p as t an d th e future , )
-
,
18 T HE GIST OF PH I LO SOPHY .

w hich rolls as on e win ding an d th e oth er unwindin g an d

, ,

m ov i ng th e picture in exposition , are a n ovel ty t o t he lo ca l

spectator , but an Ol d a ff air to th e sh o w ma n w h o h as a ,

n otion Of th e whole canv ass Th e show m a n h ere stan d s

.

f or th e critical or p otential faculty ( memory an d h ypot h e

c ation ,
an d as h e gives n o special a t tentio n t o th e a c t ua l
fi eld of sensual observation , w h at h e apprehend s as th e
t otality of bei n g h as n ot the demonstration of n ature or
newness by process of time , an d n ot only d oes n o t ( as d oes
the other) show its totali t y in th e presen t tense bu t h as n o ,

rel ation t o any tense or tim e wh atsoever T h us to on e .

faculty th e s pa c i c universe is all an d presently w hile t o th e ,

other only th e eternal is an Obj ect For if w e look for th e

.

worl d by the light of reason w e shall n ot fin d ro o m for i t .

Th e present wh ere th e worl d shoul d b e Observe d h as n o

, ,

breadth t h e finest lin e of division bet w een w h at h as been

a n d wh at sh all be ( nei t h er Of w hich is to sense ) m ust yet
, ,

be m a g nified b y scrutiny an d split in h alves bel on g in g on

both h ands until th ere rem ains only a notion o f d ivisio n ,
,

bet ween be c oming an d dep arting as th e concrete content

,

o f th e present ; there is n o definite precipitate Of th e

pro
c ess of becomin g n or any resid uum Of th e process o f d e
,

p artin g but c ogitation ch anges the w orl d back an d fort h

,

fro msubstance to action —from a noun to a p articiple —b y

th e alternate predomin ance o f sense or reason in th e Oh
server Th erefore Hera c l ei t us wh o a c knowledged reality
.
,

o nly i n the present tense , said Of all thin g s T hey are an d

,

a r e n ot ; or All is of two elements of which on e i s an d th e

, ,

o th er is n ot ; or again , All fleets —while th e E leatics h el d

r e al I t y as independent Of Observation an d th erefore n ei t h e r
,

becomin g nor deceasing n or i n any w ay touche d by tim e ;

,

a n d h el d all th at of w hich we say i t i s simply because i t

becom es m anifest to observation i n the present t en se , as

s o m e illusion of w h ic h th e less said th e better —But b oth
, .

of these theories undoubtedly , were properties Of eith e r

,

part y which coul d be p artisan only by an arbitrary ex al t a

,

tion of a favorite faculty an d by criticising o n e a ltern ativ e

,
 T HE GIST OF PH I LO SO PHY . 19

by th e light or th e contr a st of the other It were an arro .

gance to say th at either Herac l ei t us or Z eno or P armenides

w as less th an a critic of bot h of th ese system s —more th a n
e ither an d m ore th an bot h —But th us it events wh en w e
,

w o ul d acknowledge a universal—somew h at sole , safe , nu

threatened b y an other , — an d w h en we w oul d say th e fi el d
i s cleare d an d clean pos s es t by th e s pa c i c un iversal as a l l
t hat is n ow and boldly declare th at wh at i s , as all , stand s
,

a podal an d unsustained th en 10 1 w e discover th at this “ i s ”

,

( as a v erb to th e sensible all) is but a sh allow predicate in

th e eye of th e critical faculty ; an d in th e hypothecation of
th e con t inuan ce Of this all , an d in the memory Of its en
d uran c e an d in conj ecture Of a possible g roun d wh er eby a l l
,
'

is rather th an is not or is di fl eren t l y, w e dread an other of

!
,

all ; for our all is still Of obse rvation , a this a t opic , an d ,

d oes n ot incl ude u s or our thou g ht An d althou g h to a

.

sin g l e facul t y t w o universals are ( or ot h er of th e universal

is) impossible yet t o th e myste ry of th e simultaneou s pres
,

en c e an d the alternat i n g predominance of t h e two faculties ,

( th e universal an d th e particular ) two universals are i n

s eper a b l e in th e w hol e Of thou g ht which is more th an
,

ei t her an d more th an b oth

,
An d lo g ic proper which
.
,

!
sho ul d be th e expression of this antithesis an d also of a ,

n e w antithe sis ari sin g fro m th e j uxtaposit i on Of lo g ic with

t hat first an tithesis ( a n d Of an other an d anoth er antith esis

,

I n fi n i t el y) is in its very g enius and pretensions an i n t e

,
r mi n
’
able efl or t an d an un finish e d consideration in which either ,

Her a c l ei t us or P armenides can m ake only an arbitrary p ause

z

—w hile H e g el says g o on ! ,

Now wh at distin g uishes H e g el is the determination th at

th e lo g ic Of li fe sh all be as life exceeding an d yet p er ,

fe et as exceed in g or as incl udin g excess H e sought by

,
.

t h e use of both faculties under th e g uidance of the unit of

j u dgment which th ey constitute or produc e to symp at his e
”

t o spread himself out upon — all , as of the same style as

h imself— h avin g as a genius of constitution the p erfection
~
Of process in th e p rocess of perfection on th e on e h and , an d
 0

20 TH E GI ST O F PH I LO SO PHY .

th e perfection of constitution embr a cing imp er fection as a

constituent on th e oth er h an d —or rath er an oth er h an d ;
his h ands are n um b erless F or it m ust follow a ft er H egel
.
,

m ay perfect a syste m of logic commensurate wit h life , th at

life an d logic become ant ith etic term s i n a n otio n t r an s
c en di n g both .

The di fli c ul t y Of un derst an ding w h a t h e desire d t o t el l

is th at it cannot be tol d ; an d all his cre dit is d ue only t o
,

his effort an d n ot to h is success Wh en H egel sai d th er e

, .

“
was but on e m a n wh o un derstoo d him , an d even h e di d
”
n ot th e m an h e meant w as h imsel f Th e m oment h e de
, .

scen ds from the genius of assertion t o t h e bo dil y limit s Of

'

assertion , we pick up only deciduo us leaves .

Th us when h e says L ife or th e absol ute i s Bein g p r o

, ,

da ood, all w ho live may identify w hat is trying t o enter h is

m ind but i t cannot be lo g ically thought
,
Wh at is alrea dy .

Bein g needs n o pro ducin g an d wh at is in process of pro

duction is n ot to be christened until it is born — But s ay s ,

b e this i s the absol ute quality, t hat every n ot i on h as in i t

,

its own ne g ation Well , n ot qui t e if th e ne g ation 1 3 c om

. .

mensurate w ith the notion , then , reversin g th e terms of th is

e q uation every negation h as in it its own n otion , a n d w e
,

h ave something equal t o n othing — w hich can be said only

,

Of a confest deception ; w hile only so me hi g h an d p r epon

der an t reality of life even thou g h it wer e in a combin ation
-

Of reality an d ne g ation —can j ustify any utterance or p ain s

i n re g ard to it O r if ne g ation an d a fli r m a t i on are equ al
.
,

i n th e n otion , h ow sh all there be any excess , any proce s s 2?

Or if negation and a fli rm a t i on both to g eth er are n ot th e
t otal of the notion —which also contains ( as prod uced ) th e
n ew n otion or th e newn ess Of th e notion — then this n ewn e s s

Of th e notion w as n ot inclu de d in that fi rst negation , wh ich

Sh oul d h a v e been com mensurate w ith th e tota li t o f th e
,
y
notion SO a g ain , if knowledge or logic becom es possibl e
.

a s ot h er of all in newness of th e same it is th e consequ ent

,

r a th er th an th e ground Of life
; it is thrust forw a rd a s a n
 T H E GI ST O F PH I L O SOPHY . 21

i m potent secon d rather than precedes a s an o rigin a l a n d

g uidin g principle .

’
H egel s is th e g reatest , the best and th ereby also t h e ,

worst of philosophies ; the greatest in that it shrew dly

mimics th e g e the worst in th at it m ost clearly
sh ows t h e use ! Illo g ical it cannot be called
t h e fault is in Its members , when lifted break ,

o f their own wei g ht and not because Of any fault in the

,
,

s yste m save th at it is unfinished an d that un fin i s h edn es s is ,

a n e c essity Of its g enius L ife is sensibly exceeding a n d

.

u nfinished ; its lo gic must be exceedin g an d unfinishe d

al so — but so it shoul d n ot be to H e g el for lo g ic unfinish ed ,

i s but d i a s oph i c or science o f th e fleeting an d is ever t oo ,

l ate for th e vitality Of t h e notio n —Wherefore th e labor of

,

H e g el like th at of all th e rest will be set aside in a corner

, ,

o f t h e mind , as another of those “

perp etual motio n ”
m achines th at will n ot g o .

Y et t o this conclusion there is of course a H egelian retort .

For if life exceeds l o g ic so does logic exceed life as wh en

, ,

a bstraction transcends sensi b le reality—thus : L o g ic has

its universal , as space , which p articul ars cannot frustr a te ;
l o g ical Sp ace is universal wh ether fi lled or empty ; and
,

only i n l ogi c can this universal be F or actually th e un .

l imi t e d or unconditioned coul d be only when there was n o

li mi t — an d n ot th en as s u c h for wh at sense were there in
,

n aming an u n limited while there was no such thin g as limit

-

t o give m eanin g t o the ne g ative qualification ? SO an a c

t ual universal can not be while any in dividual actually is ;
f or wh at sort Of actual universal is that which h as a h ole in
it for any p ar t icular h ead i —yet neither can it b e with out
a n indivi dual ,—for u ni versal is such only in bein g one all
,
-

o ver an d every where while the very l ife o f oneness is

,

li mit which universality ex cludes

,
.

Y et Sense m ust h ave th e last word —Is it merely i g n o

ran ce o f H egel s dialectic that keeps us miserable ? or w as
’

th e brain ben
- umbing H e g el ”
h appier than ot h ers l —It
‘

w er e excusable in a l ogic confessedly of d evelopment an d

22 T HE G I ST OP PHIL OSO PHY .

proces! a t least in part , that th e d ev elop ment sh oul d go on

a fter the brain Of th e lo g ici a n h ad turned to dust ; h e coul d
but s a y , a fter recording his m ortal installment Of life s pro ’

“ ”
cess , an d so on ! But n ot j ust th us m ay th e H egeli a n
“ ”
a n d S O on be taken , but I a Given th e brain of
'

H egel , th e H egelian metho d S on th e w ay toward

the logic Of th e notion , a n d ck Of i n fin i t ude i n

the H egelian capacity To clai m more than this : to wit ,
.

th a t H eg el s logic is equal to life , an d h as th e secret or ori

’

g i n of life , deman ds th a t th e lo gi c sh oul d serve an inte rest

a n d allay th e une a siness w e feel —sh oul d g ive us p eace an d
p ower i n worldly demonstration ; it shoul d bear fruit i n
better a n d h appier l i fe , an d not like a m ere mirror reflect
, ,

life as it comes Sh all a starveling student , p ushe d to th e

.

wall by every prosperous burg her, proclaim th e absol ute ?

’

Shall Poe boast th at h e h as foun d it , an d leave h i s ex ec u

tors look i ng va i nly t o fin d which of his tattere d p ockets h e '

p ut it in ? Is th ere not som e absurdity in cl aiming th e

secret Of th e thing while you c a nno t pro duce th e like , or
m ake fruit appear at th e m a g ic w ord of life Y et t h e
philosoph ers proper deride P lotinus and the Neo Platonists -

w ho attempted theurgy an d miracl e in g oo d faith —( an d i f

,

they coul d not make bread out of stones, yet stoo d resolve d
th ey mi g ht go to he a ven without i t ) for th e ph ilosoph e r
-

proper sh all hol d truth e q ual w ith th e l ife , an d sh al l h av e

his full dignity if h e may stan d without an d know , th ough
h e may not as within i dentically do an d be It m ust go .
.

h ard with him if h e c a nnot be h appy at the j ingl e of oth er

’
men s money a n d the savor of other m en s fare Y et ’
.

Wh o c an h o ld a fi re i n h i s h an d
B y th i n ki ng on t h e f ros ty Ca uc a s u s

Not a philosopher indeed ; yet m a rtyrs ble s se d mem o ry ?

,

h ave sung in fi re till this illusion faded Th e divin e i s sued

.

t hrough a n d displ a ced them . And ever thus divi nity sh ap e s

our en ds ; and th e river of thought is destine d n ot by th e

h e a dlong c urrent but by th e guid ance of th e ch a ngel es s

sh ore .
24 T HE GIST on PH I L OS OPHY .

of the world —for something greater th an kn owled ge mu st

,

j ud g e of the de fi nition of kn o w led g e .

B ut a l l philosophers w ho do not attain th e P yrrh onic

suspense of j udgment are disposed to g lid e over this di fli
“
c ulty of th e knowledge of all by an assertio n of s elf
, ,

knowled g e , —h olding t h e ego given as

” “
self evid ent ” -
,

“ s ubj ect Obj ect ”

or
“
knowin g itself ,
”
Even H egel tol er .

ates this vul g ar slei g ht a n d determine d th at ph ilosop h y

, ,

shall succeed i n a n y event seems satisfie d in such expre s ,

”
sion as thou g h t ( noun ) thou g ht ( pa rticiple)
“
thou g h t
”
t h at thinks itself thou g ht pro du c ed It seem s h ardl y .

worth while to say , th at w h en a relati o n to self i s declare d

—as in au g h t th at kno w s i t self or m oves i t self ”
it an d ,

“
self ” are by h abitual consen t an d simul t aneou s action
,

or oscilla t ion of o ur two faculties of c o g nition , m ad e int o

on e w ord , w hich ignorin g an d avoidin g th e very diffi cul t y

,

f rom w hi c h all philosophy sets o ut factitiously g l ozes ov er ,

subj ective an d obj e c tive a s a seamless unity for practical

purposes of p opular discourse ; but for a p hilosopher t o
deliberately i gn ore or consen t t o this g l oss i s to p resu m e
success .

If there is re q uisite a statemen t of self self m ay b e ,

define d as a sum Of knowled g e B ut as f or self k no w l .

“ -

”
ed g e a ll knowled g e is self knowled g e, as all p ai n i s s el f
,
-

pain ; yet it no more follows th at t h e m an kn o w s hi msel f

in the on e case than it does t h at he hurts h imself i n th e
other ; self is the kno wled g e an d th e p ain .

This l i t tle slur covers th e whole of Transcen dent alism ,

w hich cannot escape th e do g m ati c assertio n th at th e Kritik

Not so d oes Ou r St eit h en Pear l A n d rew s w h en h e r n

clai m s Um v er s ol og y —a c ano n o f u n i versa l c r iticiz
“

d o c t r i ne o r l og ps o f AIL a n d i n f ers of c o u rse

i g
t h e w h o l enes s , ,
asp ect Ot b ei ng I n ord er t o l earn if t h e u n i ve rse h a s b een f ou n d
‘

.
,

e r I t 1 8 k now n b y t h i s u n i v erse or ano th er I w ro t e

a n d k n ow n w h e
a n d as k e d h
,

m thTo wh om 1 3 t h e w h o l eness asp e ct o f b e i n g ?

,
I : He ’
-

a ns
on
w
.
e re d: I c on f es s t h e q u esti on i s as bli n d t o m e as Tr i n i s m i s t o
I e n qu I r ed al so w h a t w a s t h e w or d (g one o u t o f t h e p l a te ) o f
o

8 Gl ossar y d e i n m s i den t ty
f H e h a d n o t m i sse d t h e w or d but
'

sup poses I t w a s sam eness W

.
i .

h en w e c onsi d er t h a t s a m en es s i s o f
.

t w o or m ore a n d t h a t t h e d efi n I t i on of i d en tit y i s t h e m a i n p ro bl e m
.

o f p h i l osop h y t h i s an sw er I f fi na l i s u n s a ti s fa ctor y
.

, , , .
 T H E GIST O F P HI L OSO PHY . 25

of Reason m ust b e a kn owledge of knowledge , a n d is liable

to t he question h ow knowled g e Number Two is wiser th an
kn owl edge Number O ne unless knowled g e Number Three
,

w oul d be w iser th an knowl ed g e Number T wo , an d so o n .

T O make j udgement topical to j ud g em ent is merely to con

fess in th at instan c e th e d uplexity Of bein g an d thought .

S elf as kn owled g e ( if we shoul d admit that deception

a s importa n t) might , in the metho d of knowled g e , h e sai d
t o b e caused or proj ecte d b y th at life w hich abid es while
kno w led g e sleeps , an d so aught or all might un der protest
be said to cause t o sus t ain , or to know its self, —
, but this is
n ot t o th e p urpose If au g ht an d its self are on e w ord an d
.

thin g th e tw o terms are t autolo g ical —there is n o division

,

i n th is on e t hing i ts elf ; an d if au g ht and its self, or all a n d

i t s self, are the sam e in t w o takings , with tim e or trans
c en d en c y or pro duction between the takin g s yet thes e tw o
,

a re equ al in all respects ,— s o that if au g h t kno w s , o r sus

t ains , or causes itself, it is kn own , sustained , or c a used by

itself i n th e same moment t hus in t h e matter Of pri nciple
or origin exch an g i n g th e properties Of g round an d c on s e

quent i n a m anner impertinent to an explan ation of why

.

th e wh ole goes forward instea d Of b ackwar d in history .

This su m Of observatio n is th at self whi c h Jesus denied ,

c o uchin g all his doctrine fro m th at which proj ects this

self H e th a t sent me -
n ot i ndee d denying self as

kn owled g e nor in the m eth o d of this w orld , —for in this

,

c onfusion self is un avoidably to be admitted be fore it can

b e denied ,—bu t renouncing an d ignorin g it ever as an un

accou ntable deception , a lie an d a father Of lies , an d
h esitatin g not to assume a basic i dentity behin d th e self,
“
contravenin g its importance if not its reality . My F ather
an d I are on e — “
He th a t h ath seen m e h ath seen th e
“ ”—
F ath er yet n o m an h ath seen Go d at any tim e nor
”
m e either in th e p roper sense : f o r
“
by me here is n ot
,

m eant this limit of individuality , but th e ori g in of th e

d octri n e ; n or accordin g to th is li mit sh all th e great doc
t rin e proceed , but I n spite of an d i gnoring it An d this is
.
26 T HE GIST OF PH I LO S OPH Y .

that great an d only wise d octrine : Th at wh ich p roposes

“
I ” in every creature is identical an d of eq ual di g nity , no
m ore by t hy a ddition an d no l ess by thy l ack I n G od ,.

Socrates an d th e grasshopper h ave n o distinction Knowl .

~

edge apart th e being of an ant an d Of an an g el is th e

,

same The logos su b sides in Go d

. . Th en sh all th e S on
also himself b e subj ect unto hi m th at put all th ings n u
”
der him , th at God m ay b e all in all .

What is specially ch aracteristic Of all divine doctri ne i s

its inuend o Of imperson al yet wise li fe , ad dr est t o th e s ub
— “ ”
st a nce t o th e heart or th e
,
spirit — an d exp ecte d
rather to be sym p athetically ech oed t h an lo g ically kn o w n ,

as if the universal p urport w ere i n u s an d only dist orte d i n

,

any ambitious attemp t t o utter it part icularly i n t he worl d .

O nly through life an d in spite of form al speech c an w e

resou n d in ea c h oth er Jesus attempts the n oun p articipl e
.
-

“ ”—
Of being in th e saying I am th e truth , as if h e h a d said
un derstan d m e in your h eart or substance th e word i s
” ”
m ade flesh . Y et strictly thinking in all
,
self denial -
,

w heth er Of desire or Of Observation t here is a high er d e

,

sire of t h e same which is no t mean t to be denied ; an d i n

confessin g th e deception of co g nitio n we O p erate a hi g h er
co g nitio n whic h detects the deception an d wh ich is not
,

m eant to be rep udiated Th e coil is about u s —n ay w e are

.
,

an d are not th e coil ! If I den y m yself wh olly an d h eartily ,

wh at g oo d is i n this imp each e d man s denial ? If I d ecid e

’

with sense reason condemn s m e ; if I decid e with reason

, ,

sense torments m e an d wil l be respecte d ; if I h ol d th em

,

equal a n d both delusive beh ol d , wh en I say I am properly

,

neither but a critic Of both , I find my cri t icis m restricted

to th e two Ol d meth ods , th e universal an d th e p articular
the critical an d t h e d o g matic If I say th at truth of life
.

cannot be spoken , yet someh ow I live an d h ave sp oken ;

an d others h ave sp oken an d I un derstan d their impulse If .

disguste d with this entan gl ement I conclu de th at o nly si

lence is wise , h ow can I imp art m y wisd om ? an d if I kee p
silent , d o I n ot impotently sanction a l l th e folly spoken ?
 T H E GI ST O F PH I L O SO PHY . 27

‘
Sh all I say with on e breath th o u err es t ’ and truth c a nnot
be tol d —Verily th e Kingdo m of God cometh n ot with
,
’
,

Observation , b ut is i n us t o be sough t in th e Opposite di

,

rection .

We detect then , a weakn ess in th e ph ilosophic spirit , in

,

th at it p ursues th e conten t or contents Of life o ut w ardly in

a n oth er ( n amely truth ) in order th at it m ay comprehen d
, ,

an d sustain life in safety by manipulating a sustenance Of

being —l ackin g di g nity or faith to recline inward an d s e
,

e
,

sum e in w h at is as all that w hich w e might assume a n d

, , .

m u st confess as prac t ical somewh ere , n amely an apodal

s ufli c i en c y — to w hich sufficien c y a won der or a fear Of
,

wh y it is s ufli c i ent c an n ot p ert ai n an d coul d be attributed ,

onl y as an impossibl e disease or lack

B u t t o see m t o fi n d
Ask s w h at th o u la ck es t th o u gh t res ig ne d , ,

A h e al th y fr am e a q ui e t m i n d ” , .

C onsider th e weakness of ever char g in g th e vitality Of

a ugh t up on an other ( or upon its self ) in th at this other
, ,

but aff ords a p l ace of rid dance for th e mystery Of s ufli c i en ~

c y, which is n ot meant to b e refuted but m erely force d off ,

th e fiel d o f sp eculation because as individual in limit , w e ,

h av e it not , but a re m ad e by oth er This s u c i en c y c annot .

'

be g roun de d in knowledge n or enter k n O edg e, w h i c h it ,

precedes an d scorn s An d h e is both timid an d i n c on s i d

.

er a t e w h o takes it for an impossibility o f course th at ou r

'

soul wh ich assu mes an d p uts Ofl consciousness is this very

, ,

God in w hose build ( wh eth er it be of substance or action

,

or both or n eith er ) is th e su ffi ciency of life an d is all t h e

, ,
.

reality t o be confest extant That which the casuis t seeks .

th at but for which all w ere not—is that identically which

i s ; an d wh at it lacks of g roun d to kn owledge is wh at
kn owled g e l acks of i t — l n this weak spirit Of re feren c e to
.

oth er, th ough I h ad m ade all that i s observed as freely as ,

I write th ese w ords , I sh oul d not be content of its origin ,

b ut sh oul d defer t o fate in bei ng a nd fi n d susten ance in
.
,
28 T HE GI ST OF PH I L O SO PH Y .

p receden ce rather th an ignore susten ance in prim e vitality .

I n this metho d nou g h t is but w as c ause d an d is e ffect , an d

so of c ourse cause never is ; an d w h at never is n ever w a s ;
yet by the same m etho d , all th at i s is cause —cause of w h at
’

sh all be SO that w hich is stand s an d sto od c v er with o ut

.

c ause ; an d au g ht th at stan ds ill at ease l acks di g nity or

f aith wh ich it h a s th e ri g ht t o assu me an d n on e S hall say
, ,

it nay “
The kin g dom Of h eaven s ufi eret h violence an d
.
,

th e vi olent take it by force .

If we are t o be sa t is fi e d w e m ust b e satisfied without

—
knowled g e met a l og i c a ll y “
In my h eart th ere is light ”
.
,

said Jacobi but dire c tly I w oul d bring it in t o th e und er

,
”
s tan din g i t vanishes This is th e rin g o f true m e t al Y et
. .

Ja c obi m akes th e Old mistake as far as lo g ic is concerned , ,

when h e woul d put feelin g i n th e place o f knowled g e as ,

inform al certainty ; for feelin g also is org anic and relative ,

a thin g of contrast , a o n e made by oth er Th e sam e S h all .

be sai d of faith ; for w ithout works it is dead w hil e he ,

wh o does a g reat work h as already tran scen ded the a go

nism Of faith or its need .

Schellin g l abors vainly aga i nst the sam e emb arrassm ent .

S omethin g hi g h er than science I certainly do know ” h e ,

says ; we h ave wh at h e intends but i t is n ot in wh at h e ,

says “
. O nly i h th e h igh est science does t h e mortal eye
close an d then it is n ot man th at sees but etern al sigh t
, ,
”
th at h as c ome to s ee in him But see wh at ? Identical , in
.

p ossession wh at achievement rem ains for a faculty Of vis

,

i on Shall th e eye look forth into th e formless an d color

less an d look an d look an d s ee n ot ? L o g ically , is th at
, , ,

conscious w hich is not conscious of somewh at ? or is as a

knowing m achine runnin g with n o g rist i n the h opper ?
-

Sh all th e yvi ll tower in m aj esty a n d prevalence ag ainst

n othing — All these e fforts toward l o g ical content se rv e
only to m anifest our conditional une a siness , w hile yet
t hey give sure m onition of th e gre a t content whic h
provokes them Th e fac t th a t there is ph ilosoph y a t
.
 T HE GI ST O F PH I L OSO PHY . 29

al l i s a greater c o mfort th an any th a t philosophy h as at

t a i n ed .

With Kant , F ichte J acobi , H e g el , Sch ellin g a n d

, Emer
equipt t o th e a n c i en
fi ,
th e gran deur of w h ose simple aston

sultry H egelian n oon Mo derns h ave n ot surp asse d th em .

s a ve i n n ew excursions to w hich they w o ul d freely h ave ,

co nsented S ocrates w oul d h ave w orshipp ed Jesus ; an d

.

t h e static P lato w oul d h ave clappe d his h ands h ad h e seen

t h e H egelian n otio n beatin g h eaven w ard on its mi g hty
w ings All ph i l os oph i es a re but st ages in th e lo g ical en
‘

dea v or w hich sin ce H egel is p retty w el l g i ven up

, , Th e , .

best of l ater thinkin g is content wi t h confessin g “ a ligh t

”
fr o m within or fro m behin d which shines throu g h an d ,

n ul li fi es th e l ogical desire an d determines th at what w e ,

cann ot account for sh oul d n ot trouble our peace Thu s .

k nowled g e h as risen to sa g acity or wisdom and the sage , ,

sits a grad e high er th an th e philosopher .

A few of th e staminal assertions of th e Greeks will sh ow

th e i r co mm on n otion Of knowledge as a necessity of bein g
, ,
”
an d th e only li g ht Th e O ne is God , said Z en Oph an es
. .

Th e wh ol e i s limited ; for it is j ust so much as it is an d n o

” “
m ore sai d Z eno
,
Number is th e substance of thin g s ,
.
!

“
sai d P yth a g oras Strife ( i e ant a g onism c ontrast) is th e
. . .
,

fat h er of things said Hera c l ei t u s

,
“
All thin g s were mad e .

Ye t Heaven and Ear th forbi d ! th at t o Ph ilosop h y h ow ever vai n

sh oul d b e p ref erre d t h e asser ti ons of Com m o n Sense w h i ch a r e ,

a b o ut a s lik e t o w i sdom or t o wi t a s h ash i s t o h ash eesh ; th e— y so u n d

v ery li k e a n d a r e e q u al l y i ns c r ut abl e
.
TO Co mm on Sense t o t h e .

Lock es a n d B a c ons t o t h e Sc o tch s ch oo l a n d t o m ost t h eol og i c a l

. .

s c h oo l s o uts i d e of G er m an y p h i l osop h y m ean s but seri o u s refl e cti on

,

g enera lly Seri ou s refl e cti on it su re l y i s but fu nda m en ta l l y c h i efl y

. , , ,

a l l but e x clu s i ve l y of a si n g l e t op ic , t o Wl t : t h e os s rb i l i t y Of k now l

,
e dg e a n d t h e p ossibi lity of b e i ng w i th out k now e dg e No a c c u m u : .

l a ti on n or cl ass i fi cati on Of k no w l e dg e n o de ducti on Of l a w s ,

‘ !

t h ere from n or a n y a da t a t i on t o t h e w an t s Of m en n ot eve n t o

, .

t h e i r e t e rn a l h a p i n es s a t h a n y re l evancy t o t h e s m l e eflfor t p u t
,

f ort h t o u n r i d d e t h e di a l e ctic du l eXI t y th a”t k n i t s t e natu re Of

.

t h o u gh t a n d b”ei n g A ll th at of n du c t i on a n d D e duct i on Of
. ,
,

Prog ress i on a n d Positi v i sm a n d Sc i en c e f ro m e n d t o e n d

—
’

, , ,

is but se c on d a r y a n d s ub se q u en t a n d u nava ili n g t o p h il oso p h y th e

w on d er O f t h e g o ds .
30 T HE GIST OF PHI Los OPHY .

by the L ogos , says S t Joh n after th e others Th ese s a y

. .

ings all h ave on e m eaning nam ely that o nly by li mit con
, ,

tr a st , discrimination , can thin g s exist an d w hether th is -

is or is n ot a correct statement o f t h e case Of thi ngs , it fol

lo ws n ot th at w i t h ou all were n ough t
because this w orl d of

”
alone th e g ods cannot sh ow us for on e ever stand s betw een.

two as the simple di fference ; an d on e is n ot p erfected i n

,

Observation until w e com e to oth er ; an d on e can not stan d

alone ; wh erefore the p ossibility Of thin g s ( in d ividu al) is
the p ossibility of conception B ut even as identity d oes not
.

depen d upon th e proposition o f identity , n or life up on

knowl edge so does n ot th e inh eren t content of au g h t de
,

pen d upon th at sensible limitin g wh ich g ives onen ess or ,

i ndivid uality A h ol e abides as a h ol e only w hile t h at

.

abides in which it is a h ole ; bu t th e conten t qu ality O f th e

hole is n ot a ffected by removin g th e limits which in divi d
u a l i ze an d lo c ate it in kno w led g e This c ontent is n o t .

m ade by limit nor does any ques t ion arise in con t en t as to

,

h ow or wheth er a t all it is m ade .

Th e necessity of bein g an d th e necessity o f t hin g s are

diverse con si derations “
Strife is th e f ath er Of thin g s ”
.
,

sai d Her a c l ei t us : th at is contrast on e a g ainst other ; this

, , ,

tolerably accounts for th e thin g s but wh at a c counts for the ,

father ? Wh o is th e g ran dfa t her Of thin g s 2—Grantin g

knowled g e , thin g s come easily , inferred by contrast : thus
conception of nothin g infers spa c e an d sp ace infers time , ,

an d this infers coetaneity an d this rel ation an d t h i s p osi

, ,

tion an d this motion an d this irritation an d t his h eat

, , ,

light an d color — an d so on to S ubstance ; t h ence are ac ore

,

tion limit , form , unity , Individuali t y thence p r oper t y ,

proprie t y , self interest , resistance L ife —
,

an d so on p erh ap s
,

to intelligence an d apod al s ufli c i en c y But before all this .

,

is a question of th e necessity of being at a l l o f which P h i ,

'

l os oph y i n its m eth o d sh oul d seek an answer as requisite t o

t h e peace of bein g Wh erefore th e philosophical m etho d
.
32 T HE GI ST O F PH IL O SO PHY .

the gun c annot shoot into its ow n m uzzl e In strictn es s , .

we cannot declare , nam e , n or assert c on cernin g th e n u

kn own —w e know n ot of augh t unknown ; an d o nly th at
we sh oul d be forever silent while yet w e expect to be di
,

vincly understoo d above th e letter symp ath etically h int i ng

,

the mystery of identity in fello wship , w e coul d n ot say of

being th at i t i s an d th u s n ecessitate a contrast of it with
,

the sp ace it fills , or with other or different t h at mi g h t h a v e

“
been in its place ; for w ell said D emocritus B eing i s by ,

n othin g m ore real th an n othing —t o knowledg e th at is—i n ,

which all considerations , as topical are of equal reality , .

SO being , as t o us , top i c a lly is fro m u s , an d so i s by

,

kn owledg e, as F ichte said ; yet n ever drea m th at this

“
is ,

as form , or m anifestation , or r efi exi on is th e o n ly predica t e

,

of divine being ; for being i s in a m eaning p rior t o an d

deeper th an m ani festation in form F i chte fin ally saw this
.

dimly For of God h e said : Th ou a r t ,” etc

. b u t as I .

”
now an d ever must conceive of bein g Th ou a r t not This .

So rt of confession cost him his profession al ch air ; for t o

his wise censors , w h o fancie d Go d as som e sh ap e with ide a s .

this was atheism .

As wh at is then or at least as of wh at is , w e were soun d

,

an d content i f w e w ere so : in oth er con dition

-
F aith .

comes n ot by doubtful tests , but i s ever a fore g one conclu

sion It arrests u s rather th an i s assume d by u s Its di g
. .

n i t y an d courage are simpl y divine th e gift of Go d ” and

, ,

accordin g to n ou g ht besides ; especially m ay I say n ot ao ,

cordin g to knowled g e C ourage as by knowledge i s i n a

.

sense Of saf e t y , in w hi c h c ourage h as n o p art ; for th e m ore

definite sense Of sa fety th e l ess m erit Of courage Y our
, .

bully Samson an d Marcius an d Wallace , an d P lantagenet

, , ,

safe i n th eir knowled g e of superior strength an d ad dres s ,

sh al l n ot b e mentioned with m any a littl e h ero w ho , di
vincly resentful Of accid ental a dvantages , an d h avin g n o
h ope Of successful battle , w oul d yiel d only his li fe —for ,

such h ave th at w ithin regardless of safety or self w hich

 T H E AN ESTHETI C RE VE L ATION
r . 33

’
ye a rn s i n th e p a ren t s love , an d begs t o s uffer instead of th e
c hild , a n d i s above a ny p ossible goo d of th e individu al .

Why sh all Socr a tes call Ion inspired i n hi ? rli a ps odi es

“ ”
,

yet fail t o see th a t l ove an d co urage , or faith , are all di

vin e ? F or him w ho h a s done his best th ere is a n h onest
ignorance t h a t s h a ll face th e hi g h est inquisition Wh a t
_
.

boots al l o utward susten ance when th e floo d covers the

“ ”
drow ning m an with dread f ul n oise Of w ater in his ears
, ,

an d his he art cries o ut Which w ay t o the Kingdom of God ?

How sh al l h e escap e inw ard wh ere the Kin g do m of Go d
,

is i f h e shriek abroad prayers addrest i nto th e re al m of

,

Observ a tion ? How shall h e sooth e his fri g htene d chil d

with doctrine t aking responsibility for a noth er i n his h oli
,

est l ove u nless, though mistaking , h e m ay be worthy as

,

au g h t th at sent him h ere ? Nay son an d brother Courage !

, ,

Mine be thy retributi on ! To the hi g hest Court th at ques

tio ns m orta l p atience after the t rut h of the life , I an d m y
so rrows li ft a brow of brass whether to d ay or t o morro w
,
.

TH E AN ESTHE TI C REVEL ATI O N .

B y th e An ae s t hetic Revel ation I m ean a certai n s urvived

c on dition , ( or uncon d i tion ) i n w h ic h is the satisfaction of

p hilosoph y by an a ppfec i a t i on of th e genius Of being which ,

appr eciation cannot be broug h t out of th at conditio n into

t h e n orm al san i ty o f sense —c annot be formally remembered
b ut rem ains informal forg o t ten until we return t o i t
,
.

As h ere w e fi n d i n t ran c es m en,

Forg e t t h e d rea m t h at h app ens th en ,

Un til th e y fa ll i n t ran c e ag ai n .

O f t his condition alth ou gh it ma y h ave been attaine d

.

o th erwise , I k now only by th e use of an aesthetic a g ents

. .

A fter exp eriments ranging o ver n early fourteen years I

a ffi rm — w hat any m an m ay prove at will —th at there is a n
invari able an d reli abl e con dition ( or uncondition ) ensuing
a b out th e in stan t of recall from an aesthetic stupo r t o sensi
”
bl e observation , or comin g to in w hich th e genius of
,
34 T HE ANZESTHETI C RE VEL ATI O N .

being is reve aled ; but because it cannot be rememb ere d in

th e n or ms l on di t i on it is lost altogeth er th rough th e i n
?
frequency g an aesthetic t reatm en t i n any in divi dual s case
.
’

ordin arily an d buried , amid th e h u m of returning c o mm on

,
“
sen s e un der th at epitaph of all illumination : this is a
,

queer wo rl d ” Y et I h a v e w arn e d oth ers t o exp ect thi s

.

wonder on enterin g t h e an aesthetic slu mber an d none s o

,

c autioned h as fail ed t o report of it in terms w hic h a ssured

me Of its reali zation I h ave sp oken with v arious p erson s

.

a lso w ho in duce a ne sthesis profession ally ( dentists , s ur

g eons, wh o h ad Observed th at m any p atients a t t h e
m oment of recall seem a s h a ving m ad e a startling yet :

somehow m atter Of co urse ( an d even grotes que) disco ve r y in

- - .

their own n ature and try to speak of it , but invariably fail

,

in a lost mood of introspe ction O f w h at astonish es them

.

it is h ard to giv e or receive intim ation ; but I think m ost

person s wh o sh all h ave tested i t will accep t this as t h e
ce ntral point of th e illumin ation : Th at sanity i s n ot t h e
ba sic qu ality of intelligence but is a m ere con dition w hich
,

i s variable an d like th e hu mmin g of a wh eel , goes u p or

,

down th e musical g amut according to a physical a ctivity ;

an d th at only in sani t y is formal or contrasting th ough t ,
.

while th e n ake d life i s realized onl y outside of sanity alto

geth er ; an d it is the in stant c ont rast Of this “ t a stel es s
” ”
water o f s ouls wit h form al th ought as w e c om e t o th a t
,

l e a ves in t h e pati ent an astonishment th at th e a wful mys

t er y Of Li fe is a t last but a h omely an d a common t hing
,

a n d t hat asid e fro m m ere formality the m aj estic an d t h e

absurd are of equal dignity Th e astonish m en t is a g g ra
.

y ated a s a t a thing of course , m i sse d by sanity in o verste

p
pin g, as in too foreign a search or with t oo ea g er an atte n
,

tion : as in findi ng one s spectacles on one s n ose or i n

’ ’
,

m akin g in th e d ark a st ep higher th an th e stair My .

fi rst experien c es o f this revelation h a d m a ny v a rieties of

em otion ; but as a m an grows cal m an d d etermi n ed by
experience i n general , so am I n ow n ot onl y fi rm a n d fa
mili a r i n this once weird con dition but trium ph a n t —di
,
v
 T H E AN AEST H ETI C RE VEL ATION . 35

vin o To min d s Of sanguine i magin atio n th ere will be a

.

s ad ness i n t h e tenor of th e mystery as if the key n ote

of -

t he universe were low —for n o poetry n o e motion known

,

, ,

t o th e n ormal sanity Of m a n can furnish a hint Of its pri

m ev a l prestige a n d its all-but appalling solemnity b ut for
,

s uc h as h av e felt sadly t h e instability of temporal things

t he re i s a c omfort of serenity an d ancien t p eace ; w hile for

t h e res olve d and im perious spirit th ere a re m aj es t y and s u

pr a m a oy u nspea k able Nor can it be lon g until all wh o

‘

e nt er th e a n ws t h et i c fi on di t i on
( an d there are h un dreds
)
e ve ry s ecular d ay will b e tau g ht to expect this revelation
,

a n d will d ate from its experien ce th eir initiation into th e

Secret o f L ife .

Men an d brethren in to t his pervading genius we pass, ,

for g ettin g an d forgo t ten an d thenceforth each is all , in God

. .

T h e re is n o high er n o d eep er n o ot h er than th e life in

, , ,

w hic h w e are fo und ed .

Th e On e rem a i ns . th e m an y ch ang e a n d pass ;

and each an d every o f us is the O ne that remain s —L isten ,
t h en t o th e ch armin g of th e P rince Of P eace w h o takes
, ,

a w ay t h e sin of th e world an d say each for himself My

“
, , ,
”—
F ath er an d I are one Mourn n o t for th e dead wh o h ave
u
.
,

a w oke in t h e b os om of Go d Th ey care not they think .

,
‘

n ot an d wh en w e are w h at they are w e too shall think of

, ,

t h em n o m or e — Mu c h mi g ht I say of th e goo d of this dis

c o v e ry i f it were as it soon m ay be generally known of
, , , .

No w for th e first time t h e an cient proble m is referre d to

e mpirical resolution w hen th e ex pert an d the n ovice m ay
,

m eet equ ally on the sam e g ro und My worldly tribulation .

rec lines on its divin e composure ; an d thou g h not i n h aste

“ ”
t o d ie I c are n ot t o be dead but look into th e future
, ,

w ith seren e an d ch angeless cheer This worl d i s no more .

t h at alien terror which was taught m e Spurnin g th e cloud .

grimed an d still sultry battlem ents wh ence so lately J eh ov a n

t hun ders boomed my gray gull lifts her wing against the
.

nig htfall an d takes th e dim lea g ues w ith a fearless eye

,
.
36 T HE ANZESTHETI C RE VEL ATION .

By this revelation w e enter to the sadness a n d t h e m aj esty

of Jesus— to th e solem n myste r y w hich i nspire d th e prop h

ets o f every g en eration By som e accid en t of bein g th ey

.

entered to this con dition This is the V “

.
-
oice of O n e c i y
ing in th e wilderness Mak e straigh t th e w ay of th e
,

H e th at h ath ears t o hear let him h ear H eed n ot for th em .

selves th e voice n or th e h an d , which ever d eny them selves

remember only h ow m any inspi red times it is spoken
an d written I AH—th at Go d who m faltering spirits seek
'

in far Ofi courts Of h eaven while beh ol d th e kingd om of

-
,

“ ” “ ”
God is neith er lo ! h ere n or l o ! there but within you ; it
i s the Soul Th o u sh alt v anish but t li e Soul is etern al : I
.
,

speak n ot of souls An d beh ol d I say u nto you , th e Su

.
,

preme Genius doth n ot facultize ; t h e g lory i s not w h at i t

d oes but what it is ; it h ath no ol d n or n ew , n o h ere n or
th ere ; it stays n ot to remember to w on der t o comp are ; t o , ,

th e v eh m of th e p atrician P resence , omniscience w ere an

i dl e labor an d d elay and prophecy is forestalled an d boo t
,
'

less i n t h e sole s uffic i en c y wh os e p aean h ath n o echo .

This is the Ultim atum It i s n o gl ance between con di

.

tions , as i t in passin g from this sphere Of existence w e might

catch a glimpse of
Th e Go ds wh o h a u n t .

Th e luci d i nt ersp a c e Of w or l d a n d w Ori de

Wh ere never c re ep s a cl o u d or m oves a wi n d , .
.

Nor ever fall s t h e l eas t w h it e star of snow ” ,

an d lose th em again as w e pass on to another orb an d or

g a ni za t i on This thick net o f space c on t aining all w orld s
.

—this fate Of being which contain s both g ods an d m en i s

,

th e capacity of the Soul , a n d can be cl ai me d as g reate r

t han u s only by cl aiming a greater th an th e g reatest an d
denying God a n d safety As sure as bein g —wh en ce i s all
,

our care —s o sure is content beyon d duplexity , antith esis , or,

trouble w here I h ave trium ph e d in a solitud e th at G o d

,

is n ot above .

“
It is written th a t th ere was w a r in h eaven ,” th a t ceon s -

of dominion , as absolute as any behel d th e b a nners

, of Ln
 THE AN ! E ST HETI C RE VEL ATI O N . 37

cifer s tr eakin g with silver an d c rim son th e m ists Of t h e

m ornin g a n d h eard th e h eavy g uns o f Mol och an d Belial
,

beatin g on t h e h eights of t h e m in d ; an d I r e a d that de a d

m en h ave appeared as h um an forms n o u gh t o f this can I
-

d eny m ore or better th an I c an d eny m ysel f

,
Th e tales ,
.

w h eth er th ey be true o r false are a s ,

subst a ntial as t h e
t hin g s o f w h ich th ey tell .

We a r e su ch stu d
‘

As d r ea m s a r e m a de o f a n d ou r litt l e l i fe
.
”
I s ro u n ded w ith a sl ee p .