Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/192

 nature. That, however, according to the view just indicated, would be “of evil.”

If a man has placed himself at the standpoint of empirical procedure, of observation, it is quite true that he cannot go further, for to observe means to keep the content of observation before one in an external way. But this externality or limitation is the finite, which is external in reference to an Other, and this Other is as the Infinite, what is beyond and above it. If I now go further, and begin to consider the matter from a spiritually higher standpoint of consciousness, I find myself no longer observing, but I forget myself in entering into the object; I bury myself in it, while I strive to know, to understand God; I yield up myself in it, and if I do this, I am no longer in the attitude of empirical consciousness, of observation. If God be no longer to me a something beyond and above me, I am no longer a pure observer. In so far, therefore, as a man intends to observe, he must remain at this standpoint. And this constitutes the entire wisdom of our time.

Men stop at the finiteness of the subject; this ranks here as what is highest, the ultimate, as what is immovable, unchangeable, hard as brass; and then over against it there is an Other, at which this subject finds its end. This Other, called God, is a something beyond the present, after which we search owing to the feeling of our finiteness, but we do nothing more, for our finiteness is fixed and absolute.

The fact of our being above and beyond the limit is, it is true, conceded; this going out of ourselves is, however, merely something attempted, a mere yearning which does not attain to that which it seeks. To reach the object, to know it, would mean, in fact, to give up my finiteness. But this is what is ultimate, and is not to be given up, and in it we are complete, satisfied, and are reconciled to it.

This entire standpoint must now be looked at more