The Science of Knowing
GA 2
XI. Thinking and Perception
[ 1 ] Science permeates perceived reality with the concepts grasped and worked through by our thinking. Through what our spirit, by its activity, has raised out of the darkness of mere potentiality into the light of reality, science complements and deepens what has been taken up passively. This presupposes that perception needs to be complemented by the spirit, that it is not at all something definitive, ultimate, complete.
[ 2 ] The fundamental error of modern science is that it regards sense perceptions as something already complete and finished. It therefore sets itself the task of simply photographing this existence complete in itself. To be sure, only positivism, which simply rejects any possibility of going beyond perception, is consistent in this regard. Still, one sees in nearly all sciences today the striving to regard this as the correct standpoint. In the true sense of the word this requirement would be satisfied only by a science that simply enumerates and describes things as they exist side by side in space, and events as they succeed each other in time. The old style of natural history still comes closest to meeting this requirement. Modern natural science really demands the same thing, setting up a complete theory of experience in order then to violate it right away when taking the first step in real science.
[ 3 ] We would have to renounce our thinking entirely if we wanted to keep to pure experience. One disparages thinking if one takes away from it the possibility of perceiving in itself entities inaccessible to the senses. In addition to sense qualities there must be yet another factor within reality that is grasped by thinking. Thinking is an organ of the human being that is called upon to observe something higher than what the senses offer. The side of reality accessible to thinking is one about which a mere sense being would never experience anything. Thinking is not there to rehash the sense-perceptible but rather to penetrate what is hidden to the senses. Sense perception provides only one side of reality. The other side is a thinking apprehension of the world. Now thinking confronts us at first as something altogether foreign to perception. The perception forces itself in upon us from outside; thinking works itself up out of our inner being. The content of this thinking appears to us as an organism inwardly complete in itself; everything is in strictest interconnection. The individual parts of the thought-system determine each other; every single concept ultimately has its roots in the wholeness of our edifice of thoughts.
[ 4 ] At first glance it seems as though the inner consistency of thinking, its self-sufficiency, would make any transition to perception impossible. If the statements of thinking were such that one could fulfill them in only one way, then thinking would really be isolated in itself; we would not be able to escape from it. But this is not the case. The statements of thinking are such that they can be fulfilled in manifold ways. It is just that the element causing this manifoldness cannot itself then be sought within thinking. If we take one of the statements made by thought, namely that the earth attracts all bodies, we notice at once that the thought leaves open the possibility of being fulfilled in the most varied ways. But these are variations that can no longer be reached by thinking. This is the place for another element. This element is sense perception. Perception affords a kind of specialization of the statements made by thoughts, a possibility left open by these statements themselves.
[ 5 ] It is in this specialization that the world confronts us when we merely make use of experience. Psychologically that element comes first which in point of fact is derivative.
[ 6 ] In all cognitive treatment of reality the process is as follows. We approach the concrete perception. It stands before us as a riddle. Within us the urge makes itself felt to investigate the actual what, the essential being, of the perception, which this perception itself does not express. This urge is nothing else than a concept working its way up out of the darkness of our consciousness. We then hold fast to this concept while sense perception goes along parallel with this thought-process. The mute perception suddenly speaks a language comprehensible to us; we recognize that the concept we have grasped is what we sought as the essential being of the perception.
[ 7 ] What has taken place here is a judgment (Urteil). It is different from the form of judgment that joins two concepts without taking perception into account at all. When I say that inner freedom is the self-determination of a being, from out of itself, I have also made a judgment. The parts of this judgment are concepts, which have not been given to me in perception. The inner unity of our thinking, which we dealt with in the previous chapter, rests upon judgments such as these.
[ 8] The judgment under consideration here has a perception as its subject and a concept as its predicate. The particular animal in front of me is a dog. In this kind of judgment, a perception is inserted into my thought-system at a particular place. Let us call such a judgment a perception-judgment.
[ 9 ] Through a perception-judgment, one recognizes that a particular sense-perceptible object, in accordance with its being, coincides with a particular concept.
[ 10 ] If we therefore wish to grasp what we perceive, the perception must be prefigured in us as a definite concept. We would go right by an object for which this is not the case without its being comprehensible to us.
[ 11 ] The best proof that this is so is provided by the fact that people who lead a richer spiritual life also penetrate more deeply into the world of experience than do others for whom this is not the case. Much that passes over the latter kind of person without leaving a trace makes a deep impression upon the former. (“Were not the eye of sun-like nature, the sun it never could behold.” Goethe) Yes, someone will say, but don't we meet infinitely many things in life about which previously we had not had the slightest concept, and do we not then, right on the spot, at once form concepts of them? Certainly. But is the sum total of all possible concepts identical with the sum total of those I have formed in my life up to now? Is my system of concepts not capable of development? Can I not, in the face of a reality that is incomprehensible to me, at once bring my thinking into action so that in fact it also develops, right on the spot, the concept I need to hold up to an object? The only ability useful to me is one that allows a definite concept to emerge from the thought-world's supply. The point is not that a particular thought has already become conscious for me in the course of my life, but rather that this thought allows itself to be drawn from the world of thoughts accessible to me. It is indeed of no consequence to its content where and when I grasp it. In fact, I draw all the characterizations of thoughts out of the world of thoughts. Nothing whatsoever in fact, flows into this content from the sense object. I only recognize again, within the sense object, the thought I drew up from within my inner being. This object does in fact move me at a particular moment to bring forth precisely this thought-content out of the unity of all possible thoughts, but it does not in any way provide me with the building stones for these thoughts. These I must draw out of myself.
[ 12 ] Only when we allow our thinking to work does reality first acquire true characterization. Reality, which before was mute, now speaks a clear language.
[ 13 ] Our thinking is the translator that interprets for us the gestures of experience.
[ 14 ] We are so used to seeing the world of concepts as empty and without content, and so used to contrasting perception with it as something full of content and altogether definite, that it will be difficult to establish for the world of concepts the position it deserves in the true scheme of things. We miss the fact entirely that mere looking is the emptiest thing imaginable, and that only from thinking does it first receive any content at all. The only thing true about the above view is that looking does hold the ever-fluid thought in one particular form, without our having to work along actively with this holding. The fact that a person with a rich soul life sees a thousand things that are a blank to someone spiritually poor proves, clear as day, that the content of reality is only the mirror-image of the content of our spirit and that we receive only the empty form from outside. We must, to be sure, have the strength in us to recognize ourselves as the begetters (Erzeuger) of this content; otherwise we see only the mirror image and never our spirit, that is mirrored. Even a person who sees himself in a real mirror must in fact know himself as a personality in order to know himself again in this image.
[ 15 ] All sense perception dissolves ultimately, as far as its essential being is concerned, into ideal content. Only then does it appear to us as transparent and clear. The sciences for the most part have not even been touched by any awareness of this truth. One considers the characterizations given by thought to be attributes of objects, like color, odor, etc. One therefore believes the following characterization to be a feature of all bodies: that they remain in the state of motion or rest in which they find themselves until an external influence alters this state. It is in this form that the law of inertia figures in physics. But the true state of affairs is completely different. The thought, “body,” exists in my system of concepts in many modifications. One of these is the thought of a thing which, out of itself, can bring itself to rest or into motion; another is the concept of a body that alters its state only as a result of an external influence. I designate the latter kind as inorganic. If, then, a particular body confronts me that reflects back to me in the perception this second conceptual characterization, then I designate it as inorganic and connect with it all the characterizations that follow from the concept of an inorganic body.
[ 16 ] The conviction should permeate all the sciences that their content is purely thought-content and that they stand in no other connection to perception than that they see, in the object of perception, a particular form of the concept.
11. Denken und Wahrnehmung
[ 1 ] Die Wissenschaft durchtränkt die wahrgenommene Wirklichkeit mit den von unserm Denken erfaßten und durchge-arbeiteten Begriffen. Sie ergänzt und vertieft das passiv Aufgenommene durch das, was unser Geist selbst durch seine Tätigkeit aus dem Dunkel der bloßen Möglichkeit in das Licht der Wirklichkeit emporgehoben hat. Das setzt voraus, daß die Wahrnehmung der Ergänzung durch den Geist bedarf, daß sie überhaupt kein Endgültiges, Letztes, Abgeschlossenes ist.
[ 2 ] Es ist der Grundirrtum der modernen Wissenschaft, daß sie die Wahrnehmung der Sinne schon für etwas Abgeschlossenes, Fertiges ansieht. Deshalb stellt sie sich die Aufgabe, dieses in sich vollendete Sein einfach zu photographieren. Konsequent ist in dieser Hinsicht wohl nur der Positivismus, der jedes Hinausgehen über die Wahrnehmung einfach ablehnt. Doch sieht man heute fast in allen Wissenschaften das Bestreben, diesen Standpunkt als den richtigen anzusehen. Im wahren Sinne des Wortes würde dieser Forderung nur eine solche Wissenschaft genügen, welche einfach die Dinge, wie sie nebeneinander im Raume vorhanden sind, und die Ereignisse, wie sie zeitlich aufeinander folgen, aufzählt und beschreibt. Die Naturgeschichte alten Stiles kommt dieser Forderung noch am nächsten. Die neuere verlangt zwar dasselbe, stellt eine vollständige Theorie der Erfahrung auf, um sie - sogleich zu übertreten, wenn sie den ersten Schritt in der wirklichen Wissenschaft unternimmt.
[ 3 ] Wir müßten uns unseres Denkens vollkommen entäußern, wollten wir an der reinen Erfahrung festhalten. Man setzt das Denken herab, wenn man ihm die Möglichkeit entzieht, in sich selbst Wesenheiten wahrzunehmen, die den Sinnen unzugänglich sind. Es muß in der Wirklichkeit außer den Sinnesqualitäten noch einen Faktor geben, der vom Denken erfaßt wird. Das Denken ist ein Organ des Menschen, das bestimmt ist, Höheres zu beobachten als die Sinne bieten. Dem Denken ist jene Seite der Wirklichkeit zugänglich, von der ein bloßes Sinnenwesen nie etwas erfahren würde. Nicht die Sinnlichkeit wiederzukäuen ist es da, sondern das zu durchdringen, was dieser verborgen ist. Die Wahrnehmung der Sinne liefert nur eine Seite der Wirklichkeit. Die andere Seite ist die denkende Erfassung der Welt. Nun tritt uns aber im ersten Augenblick das Denken als etwas der Wahrnehmung ganz Fremdes entgegen. Die Wahrnehmung dringt von außen auf uns ein; das Denken arbeitet sich aus unserm Inneren heraus. Der Inhalt dieses Denkens erscheint uns als innerlich vollkommener Organismus; alles ist im strengsten Zusammenhange. Die einzelnen Glieder des Gedankensystems bestimmen einander; jeder einzelne Begriff hat zuletzt seine Wurzel in der Allheit unseres Gedankengebäudes.
[ 4 ] Auf den ersten Blick erscheint es, als ob die innere Widerspruchslosigkeit des Denkens, seine Selbstgenügsamkeit jeden Übergang zur Wahrnehmung unmöglich mache. Wären die Bestimmungen des Denkens solche, daß man ihnen nur auf eine Art genügen könnte, dann wäre es wirklich in sich selbst abgeschlossen; wir könnten aus demselben nicht heraus. Das ist aber nicht der Fall. Diese Bestimmungen sind solche, daß ihnen auf mannigfache Weise Genüge geschehen kann. Nur darf dann dasjenige Element, welches diese Mannigfaltigkeit bewirkt, nicht selbst innerhalb des Denkens gesucht werden. Nehmen wir die Gedankenbestimmung: Die Erde zieht jeden Körper an, so werden wir alsbald bemerken, daß der Gedanke die Möglichkeit offen läßt, in der verschiedensten Weise erfüllt zu werden. Das sind aber Verschiedenheiten, die mit dem Denken nicht mehr erreichbar sind. Da ist Platz für ein anderes Element. Dieses Element ist die Sinneswahrnehmung. Die Wahrnehmung bietet eine solche Art der Spezialisierung der Gedankenbestimmungen, die von den letzteren selbst offen gelassen ist.
[ 5 ] Diese Spezialisierung ist es, in der uns die Welt gegenübertritt, wenn wir uns bloß der Erfahrung bedienen. Psychologisch ist das das erste, was sachlich genommen das Abgeleitete ist.
[ 6 ] Bei aller wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitung der Wirklichkeit ist der Vorgang dieser: Wir treten der konkreten Wahrnehmung gegenüber. Sie steht wie ein Rätsel vor uns. In uns macht sich der Drang geltend, ihr eigentliches Was, ihr Wesen, das sie nicht selbst ausspricht, zu erforschen. Dieser Drang ist nichts anderes als das Emporarbeiten eines Begriffes aus dem Dunkel unseres Bewußtseins. Diesen Begriff halten wir dann fest, während die sinnenfällige Wahrnehmung mit diesem Denkprozesse parallel geht. Die stumme Wahrnehmung spricht plötzlich eine uns verständliche Sprache; wir erkennen, daß der Begriff, den wir gefaßt haben, jenes gesuchte Wesen der Wahrnehmung ist.
[ 7 ] Was sich da vollzogen hat, ist ein Urteil. Es ist verschieden von jener Gestalt des Urteils, die zwei Begriffe verbindet, ohne auf die Wahrnehmung Rücksicht zu nehmen. Wenn ich sage: Die Freiheit ist die Bestimmung eines Wesens aus sich selbst heraus, so habe ich auch ein Urteil gefällt. Die Glieder dieses Urteils sind Begriffe, die ich nicht in der Wahrnehmung gegeben habe. Auf solchen Urteilen beruht die innere Einheitlichkeit unseres Denkens, die wir im vorigen Kapitel behandelt haben.
[ 8 ] Das Urteil, welches hier in Betracht kommt, hat zum Subjekte eine Wahrnehmung, zum Prädikate einen Begriff. Dieses bestimmte Tier, das ich vor mir habe, ist ein Hund. In einem solchen Urteile wird eine Wahrnehmung in mein Gedankensystem an einem bestimmten Orte eingefügt. Nennen wir ein solches Urteil ein Wahrnehmungsurteil.
[ 9 ] Durch das Wahrnehmungsurteil wird erkannt, daß ein bestimmter sinnenfälliger Gegenstand seiner Wesenheit nach mit einem bestimmten Begriffe zusammenfällt.
[ 1 ] Wollen wir also begreifen, was wir wahrnehmen, dann muß die Wahrnehmung als bestimmter Begriff in uns vorgebildet sein. An einem Gegenstande, bei dem das nicht der Fall wäre, gingen wir, ohne daß er uns verständlich wäre, vorüber.
[ 11 ] Daß das so ist, dafür liefert wohl der Umstand den besten Beweis, daß Personen, welche ein reicheres Geistesleben führen, auch viel tiefer in die Erfahrungswelt eindringen, als andere, bei denen das nicht der Fall ist. Vieles, was an den letzteren spurlos vorübergeht, macht auf die ersteren einen tiefen Eindruck. («Wär' nicht das Auge sonnenhaft, die Sonne könnt' es nie erblicken.») Ja aber, wird man sagen, treten wir nicht im Leben unendlich vielen Dingen entgegen, von denen wir uns bisher nicht den leisesten Begriff gemacht haben; und bilden wir uns denn nicht an Ort und Stelle sogleich Begriffe von ihnen? Ganz wohl. Aber ist denn die Summe aller möglichen Begriffe mit der Summe derer, die ich mir in meinem bisherigen Leben gebildet habe, identisch? Ist mein Begriffssystem nicht entwicklungsfähig? Kann ich im Angesichte einer mir unverständlichen Wirklichkeit nicht sogleich mein Denken in Wirksamkeit versetzen, auf daß es eben auch an Ort und Stelle den Begriff entwickle, den ich einem Gegenstande entgegenzuhalten habe? Es ist für mich nur die Fähigkeit erforderlich, einen bestimmten Begriff aus dem Fonds der Gedankenwelt hervorgehen zu lassen. Nicht darum handelt es sich, daß mir ein bestimmter Gedanke im Laufe meines Lebens schon bewußt war, sondern darum, daß er sich aus der Welt der mir erreichbaren Gedanken ableiten läßt. Das ist ja für seinen Inhalt unwesentlich, wo und wann ich ihn erfasse., Ich entnehme ja alle Bestimmungen des Gedankens aus der Gedankenwelt. Von dem Sinnesobjekte fließt in diesen Inhalt ja doch nichts ein. Ich erkenne in dem Sinnesobjekt den Gedanken, den ich aus meinem Inneren herausgeholt, nur wieder. Dieses Objekt veranlaßt mich zwar, in einem bestimmten Augenblicke gerade diesen Gedankeninhalt aus der Einheit aller möglichen Gedanken herauszutreiben, aber es liefert mir keineswegs die Bausteine zu denselben. Die muß ich aus mir selbst herausholen.
[ 12 ] Wenn wir unser Denken wirken lassen, bekommt die Wirklichkeit erst wahrhafte Bestimmungen. Sie, die vorher stumm war, redet eine deutliche Sprache.
[ 13 ] Unser Denken ist der Dolmetsch, der die Gebärden der Erfahrung deutet.
[ 14 ] Man ist so gewohnt, die Welt der Begriffe für eine leere, inhaltslose anzusehen, und ihr die Wahrnehmung als das Inhaltsvolle, durch und durch Bestimmte gegenüberzustellen, daß es für den wahren Sachverhalt schwer sein wird, sich die ihm gebührende Stellung zu erringen. Man übersieht vollständig, daß die bloße Anschauung das Leerste ist, was sich nur denken läßt, und daß sie allen Inhalt erst aus dem Denken erhält. Das einzige Wahre an der Sache ist, daß sie den immer flüssigen Gedanken in einer bestimmten Form festhält, ohne daß wir nötig haben, zu diesem Festhalten tätig mitzuwirken. Wenn der eine, der ein reiches Seelenleben hat, tausend Dinge sieht, die für den geistig Armen eine Null sind, so beweist das sonnenklar, daß der Inhalt der Wirklichkeit nur das Spiegelbild des Inhaltes unseres Geistes ist und daß wir von außen nur die leere Form empfangen. Freilich müssen wir die Kraft in uns haben, uns als die Erzeuger dieses Inhaltes zu erkennen, sonst sehen wir ewig nur das Spiegelbild, nie unseren Geist, der sich spiegelt. Auch der sich in einem faktischen Spiegel sieht, muß sich ja selbst als Persönlichkeit erkennen, um sich im Bilde wieder zu erkennen.
[ 15 ] Alle Sinnenwahrnehmung löst sich, was das Wesen betrifft, zuletzt in ideellen Inhalt auf. Dann erst erscheint sie uns als durchsichtig und klar. Die Wissenschaften sind vielfach von dem Bewußtsein dieser Wahrheit nicht einmal berührt. Man hält die Gedankenbestimmung für Merkmale der Gegenstände, wie Farbe, Geruch usw. So glaubt man, die Bestimmung sei eine Eigenschaft aller Körper, daß sie in dem Zustande der Bewegung oder Ruhe, in dem sie sich befinden, so lange verharren, bis ein äußerer Einfluß denselben ändert. In dieser Form figuriert das Gesetz vom Beharrungsvermögen in der Naturlehre. Der wahre Tatbestand ist aber ein ganz anderer. In meinem Begriffssystem besteht der Gedanke Körper in vielen Modifikationen. Die eine ist der Gedanke eines Dinges, das sich aus sich selbst heraus in Ruhe oder Bewegung setzen kann, eine andere der Begriff eines Körpers, der nur infolge äußeren Einflusses seinen Zustand verändert. Letztere Körper bezeichne ich als unorganische. Tritt mir dann ein bestimmter Körper entgegen, der mir in der Wahrnehmung meine obige Begriffsbestimmung widerspiegelt, so bezeichne ich ihn als unorganisch und verbinde mit ihm alle Bestimmungen, die aus dem Begriffe des unorganischen Körpers folgen.
[ 16 ] Die Überzeugung sollte alle Wissenschaften durchdringen, daß ihr Inhalt lediglich Gedankeninhalt ist und daß sie mit der Wahrnehmung in keiner anderen Verbindung stehen, als daß sie im Wahrnehmungsobjekte eine besondere Form des Begriffes sehen.
11 Thinking and perception
[ 1 ] Science imbues the perceived reality with the concepts grasped and worked through by our thinking. It supplements and deepens what is passively perceived with what our mind itself has raised through its activity from the darkness of mere possibility into the light of reality. This presupposes that perception needs to be supplemented by the mind, that it is not at all a final, ultimate, completed thing.
[ 2 ] It is the fundamental error of modern science that it already regards the perception of the senses as something completed, finished. That is why it sets itself the task of simply photographing this completed being. In this respect, only positivism, which simply rejects any going beyond perception, is consistent. However, today we see in almost all sciences the endeavor to regard this point of view as the correct one. In the true sense of the word, only a science that simply enumerates and describes things as they exist side by side in space and events as they follow one another in time would satisfy this demand. The old-style natural history comes closest to this requirement. The newer one demands the same, but sets up a complete theory of experience, only to transgress it as soon as it takes the first step into real science.
[ 3 ] We would have to completely divest ourselves of our thinking if we wanted to hold on to pure experience. Thinking is degraded when it is deprived of the possibility of perceiving entities within itself that are inaccessible to the senses. There must be another factor in reality, apart from the qualities of the senses, which is grasped by thinking. Thinking is an organ of man that is destined to observe higher things than the senses offer. Thinking has access to that side of reality which a mere sensory being would never experience. It is not there to regurgitate sensuality, but to penetrate that which is hidden from it. The perception of the senses provides only one side of reality. The other side is the thinking perception of the world. At first, however, thinking confronts us as something completely alien to perception. Perception penetrates us from the outside; thinking works its way out from within us. The content of this thinking appears to us as an inwardly perfect organism; everything is in the strictest coherence. The individual members of the thought system determine each other; every single concept ultimately has its root in the universality of our thought structure.
[ 4 ] At first glance, it appears as if the inner lack of contradiction of thought, its self-sufficiency, makes any transition to perception impossible. If the determinations of thought were such that they could only be satisfied in one way, then it would really be self-contained; we could not escape from it. But this is not the case. These determinations are such that they can be satisfied in many ways. But then the element which brings about this multiplicity must not itself be sought within thought. If we take the thought definition: The earth attracts every body, we will immediately notice that the thought leaves open the possibility of being fulfilled in the most diverse ways. But these are diversities that are no longer attainable by thinking. There is room for another element. This element is sense perception. Perception offers such a kind of specialization of thought determinations that is left open by the latter themselves.
[ 5 ] It is this specialization in which the world confronts us when we merely make use of experience. Psychologically, this is the first thing that is factually derived.
[ 6 ] In all scientific treatment of reality, the process is this: We confront concrete perception. It stands before us like a riddle. We feel the urge to explore its actual what, its being, which it does not express itself. This urge is nothing other than the working up of a concept from the darkness of our consciousness. We then hold on to this concept while the sensory perception goes parallel to this thought process. The silent perception suddenly speaks a language we can understand; we recognize that the concept we have grasped is the being of perception we are seeking.
[ 7 ] What has taken place there is a judgment. It is different from the form of judgment that connects two concepts without taking perception into account. When I say that freedom is the determination of a being out of itself, I have also made a judgment. The elements of this judgment are concepts that I have not given in perception. The inner unity of our thinking, which we discussed in the previous chapter, is based on such judgments.
[ 8 ] The judgment under consideration here has a perception as its subject and a concept as its predicate. This particular animal that I have before me is a dog. In such a judgment, a perception is inserted into my thought system at a certain place. Let us call such a judgment a perceptual judgment.
[ 9 ] Through the perceptual judgement it is recognized that a certain sensible object coincides in its essence with a certain concept.
[ 1 ] If we want to understand what we perceive, then the perception must be pre-formed in us as a certain concept. If this were not the case, we would pass by an object without being able to understand it.
[ 11 ] The fact that this is so is probably best demonstrated by the fact that people who lead a richer spiritual life also penetrate much deeper into the world of experience than others for whom this is not the case. Much that passes the latter by without a trace makes a deep impression on the former. ("If the eye were not sunny, it could never see the sun.") But, it will be said, do we not encounter an infinite number of things in life of which we have not yet formed the slightest conception; and do we not immediately form concepts of them on the spot? Quite so. But is the sum of all possible concepts identical with the sum of those that I have formed in my life so far? Is my conceptual system not capable of development? In the face of a reality that is incomprehensible to me, can I not immediately put my thinking into action so that it develops the concept that I have to hold against an object on the spot? All that is necessary for me is the ability to allow a certain concept to emerge from the fund of the world of thought. It is not a question of my having been conscious of a certain thought in the course of my life, but of its being able to be derived from the world of thoughts accessible to me. It is irrelevant to its content where and when I grasp it, for I take all the determinations of the thought from the world of thought. Nothing of the sense object flows into this content. In the sense object, I only recognize the thought that I have taken out of my inner self. This object does cause me, at a certain moment, to drive this very thought content out of the unity of all possible thoughts, but it in no way provides me with the building blocks for them. I have to get them out of myself.
[ 12 ] If we allow our thinking to take effect, reality first acquires true determinations. It, which was previously silent, speaks a clear language.
[ 13 ] Our thinking is the interpreter that interprets the gestures of experience.
[ 14 ] We are so accustomed to regard the world of concepts as empty and devoid of content, and to contrast it with perception as something substantial and thoroughly definite, that it will be difficult for the true facts to gain the position they deserve. One completely overlooks the fact that mere perception is the emptiest thing that can be thought, and that it receives all its content only from thinking. The only true thing about it is that it holds the always fluid thought in a certain form, without our having to contribute actively to this holding. If one who has a rich soul life sees a thousand things which are nothing to the spiritually poor, this proves as clear as day that the content of reality is only the reflection of the content of our spirit and that we receive from outside only the empty form. Of course, we must have the power within us to recognize ourselves as the producers of this content, otherwise we will only ever see the mirror image, never our spirit, which is reflected. Even those who see themselves in a factual mirror must recognize themselves as a personality in order to recognize themselves in the image.
[ 15 ] All sensory perception ultimately dissolves into ideal content as far as the being is concerned. Only then does it appear to us as transparent and clear. The sciences are often not even touched by the awareness of this truth. Thought-determination is taken for characteristics of objects, such as color, smell, etc. Thus it is believed that determination is a property of all bodies, that they remain in the state of motion or rest in which they find themselves until an external influence changes it. This is the form in which the law of inertia appears in the theory of nature. The true facts, however, are quite different. In my conceptual system, the idea body exists in many modifications. One is the idea of a thing that can set itself at rest or in motion of its own accord, another is the concept of a body that only changes its state as a result of external influence. I call the latter bodies inorganic. If I then encounter a certain body that reflects my above definition in perception, I call it inorganic and associate with it all the definitions that follow from the concept of the inorganic body.
[ 16 ] The conviction should permeate all sciences that their content is merely the content of thought and that they have no other connection with perception than that they see in the object of perception a particular form of the concept.