Understanding taught by experience no longer muses about universal
nature, but acquires a knowledge of it by special studies. By degrees
philosophy, first unconsciously and lately clearly and plainly, has
taken up the problem of ascertaining the limits of understanding.
This philosophical problem first assumed the form of polemics. It became
opposed to the religious dogma which represented the human mind as a
small, subservient, limited and restricted emanation of the unlimited
divine spirit. This terrestrial emanation was regarded as too limited
to understand and find its divine source. The study of the limits of the
understanding has now emancipated itself from this dogma, but not to
such an extent that there is no longer any mysterious obscurity floating
around the understanding and intelligence, and especially around the
question whether the human mind can penetrate only into some things
while others will remain in the unscrutable darkness of faith and
intuition, or whether it may penetrate boldly and without hindrance into
the infinity of the physical and chemical universe.
We here desire to claim as a positive outcome of philosophy that it has
at last acquired the clear and exact knowledge that a socalled infinite
spirit, in the religious sense, is a fantastic, unscientific conception.
In the natural sense of the word, the human powers of understanding are
universal and yet in spite of their universality they are, quite
naturally, limited. The human understanding has its limits, why should
it not? Only drop the illusion that a dark mystery is concealed beyond
these limits.
The understanding is a force among others, and everything that is
located alongside of other things is limited and restricted by them. We
can understand everything, but we can also touch, see, hear, feel, and
taste everything. We also have the power of moving about, and other
qualities. One art limits another, and yet each is unlimited in its own
field. The various human powers belong together and constitute together
the human wealth. Be careful not to separate the power of understanding
from other natural powers. In a certain sense it must be separated,
because it is the special object of our study, but it must always be
remembered that such a separation has only a theoretical value.
Just as our power of vision can see everything, so our understanding can
grasp everything.
Let us look a little closer at this statement.
How can we see everything? Not from any single standpoint. In that sense
our powers of vision are limited. But what is not visible in the
distance, becomes so on approaching nearer to it. What one eye cannot
see, that of others can, and what is invisible to the naked eye, is
revealed by the telescope and microscope. Nevertheless the vision
remains limited, even though it may be the sharpest, and armed with the
best artificial means. Even if we regard all the eyes of the past and
future generations of humanity as organs of the universal human vision,
this vision still remains limited. Nevertheless, no one will complain
about the limits of human power, because we cannot see sounds with our
eyes or hear the light with our ears.
The understanding of man is limited, just as his vision is. The eye can
look through a glass pane, but not through a plate of iron. Yet no one
will call any eye limited, because it cannot see through a block of
metal. These drastic examples are very opportune, because there are
certain wise men who reflectively lay their finger on their nose and
call attention to the limits of our intellect in that sense, just as if
the knowledge gained on earth by scientific means were only a nominal,
not a real, understanding and knowing. The human intellect is thus
degraded to the position of a substitute of some "higher" intellect
which is not discovered, but must be "believed" to exist in the small
head of a fairy or in the large head of an almighty being above the
clouds. Would any one try to make us believe that there is a great and
almighty eye that can look through blocks of metal the same as through
glass? The idea of a spiritual organ with an infinite understanding is
just as senseless. An unlimited single thing, an unlimited single being,
is impossible, unless we regard the whole world, the world without
beginning and without end, the infinite world, as a unit. Within this
world everything is subject to change, but nothing can go beyond its
genus without losing its name and character. There are various kinds of
fire, but none that does not burn, none which has not the general nature
of fire. Neither is there any water without the general nature of water,
nor a spirit that is elevated above the general nature of spirits. In
our days of clear conceptions the tendency toward the transcendental is
mere fantastic vaporing.
It is not alone unscientific, it is fantastic, to think even afar of a
higher power of thought or understanding than the human one. One might
as well think of a higher horse which runs with eight, sixteen, or
sixteen hundred legs and carries away his rider in a higher air at a
higher speed than that of the wind or the light.
It is a part of the achievements of philosophy, of correct methods of
thought, of the art of thought or dialectics, to know that we must use
all conceptions, without exception, in a limited, rational, commonplace
way, unless we wish to stray into that region where there are mountains
without valleys and where every theory of understanding loses its mind.
It is true that all things, including our understanding, may be
improved. Everything develops, why should not our intellects do so? At
the same time we may know _a priori_ that our intellect must remain
limited, of course not limited in the sense of the dunce, just as our
eyes will never become so sharp that they can see through metal blocks.
Every individual has its limited brain, but humanity, so the positive
achievements of philosophy have shown, has an intellect of as universal
a power as any that can be imagined, required, or found, in heaven or on
earth.
We maintain that philosophy so far has acquired something positive, has
left us a legacy, and that this consists in a clear revelation of the
method of using our intellect in order to produce excellent pictures of
nature and its phenomena.
For the purpose of making the reader familiar with this method, with
this legacy of philosophy, we must enter more closely into the essence
of the instrument which lifts all the treasures of science. We are
especially interested in the question, whether it is a finite or
infinite and universal instrument with which we go fishing for truth. It
is the custom to belittle the faculties of the human understanding, in
order to keep it under the supremacy of the divine metaphysical augurs.
It is quite easy to see, therefore, that the question of the essence of
our powers of understanding is intimately related to, or even identical
with, the question of how we may be permitted to use them, whether they
should be used only for the investigation of the limited, finite, or
also for the study of the eternal, infinite, and immeasurable.
We object here to the tendency of belittling the human mind. About a
hundred years ago, the philosopher Kant found it appropriate to draw the
sword against those who played fast and loose with the human mind,
against the socalled metaphysicians. They had made a miraculous thing of
the instrument of thought, a matter for effusions. In order to be able
clearly to state the outcome of philosophy, we must acquaint the reader
with the fact that this instrument of thought, in its way, is one of the
best and most magnificent things in existence, but that, at the same
time, it is bound to its general kind or genus. The human understanding
perceives quite perfectly, but we must not have an exaggerated idea of
its perfection, any more than we would of a perfect eye or ear, that, be
they ever so perfect, cannot see the grass grow or hear the fleas cough.
God is a spirit, says the bible, and God is infinite. If he is a spirit,
an intellect, such as man, then it would be fair to assume that man's
intellect is also infinite, or even is the divine spirit itself which
has taken up its abode in the human brains. People cudgeled their brains
with such confused conceptions, so long as the object of modern
philosophy, the intellect, was a mystery. Now it is recognized as a
finite, natural phenomenon, an energy or a force which is not the
infinite, though it is, like all other matter and force, a part of the
infinite, eternal, immeasurable.
Leaving all religious notions aside, the infinite, immeasurable,
eternal, is not personal, but objective; it is no longer referred to as
a masculine, but as a neuter. It may be called by many names, such as
the universe, the cosmos, or the world. In order to understand clearly
that the spirit which we have in our minds, is a finite part of the
world, we must get a little better acquainted with this infinite,
eternal world. Our physical world cannot have any other world beside it,
because it is the universe. Within the universe there are many worlds,
which all of them make out the cosmos, which has neither a beginning nor
an end in time and space. The cosmos reaches across all time and space,
"in heaven and on earth, and everywhere."
But how do I know what I state in such an offhand manner? Well, the
knowledge of the universe, of the infinite, is given to us partly by
birth and partly by experience. This knowledge is inherent in man just
as language is, viz., in the germ, and experience gives us a proof of
the infinite in a negative way, for we never learn the beginning or the
end of anything. On the contrary, experience has shown us positively
that all socalled beginnings and ends are only interconnections of the
infinite, immeasurable, inexhaustible, and unfathomable universe.
Compared to the wealth of the cosmos the intellect is only a poor
fellow. However, this does not prevent it from being the most perfect
instrument for clearly and plainly reflecting the finite phenomena of
the infinite universe.