Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/181

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

by a finite particular end, which in its particularity represents itself as universality, and expands itself so as to reach universality, but which is all the same still empirical and external. It is not the true universality of the Notion, but one which, comprising the world and the peoples of the world within itself, extends them so as to reach universality, while it at the same time loses its determinate character, and has for its end the cold abstract Power, and is in itself devoid of an end.

In external existence these three moments are represented by the Jewish, the Greek, and the Roman religions. Power, as subjectivity, determines itself as wisdom acting in accordance with an end; this end is, to begin with, still undetermined; particular ends come into existence, and finally an empirical universal end appears.

These religions correspond in reverse order to those preceding them. The Jewish religion corresponds to the Persian, the element of difference common to the two being that, regarded from this standpoint, the determinateness represents the inner nature of the Essence which is the end of self-determination. At an earlier stage, however, in the religions which precede, the determinateness had a natural character. In the Persian religion this was represented by light, this element being in its nature universal, simple, and physical. This was accordingly the final stage reached, taking the natural as a starting-point, Nature being thus comprehended in a unity which was similar to that of Thought. Here, in the Jewish religion, particularity is represented by a simple abstract end, namely, power, which is really only wisdom. Regarding the question from the second standpoint, we have in the Greek religion many particular ends and one Power above them; in the Hindu religion there are in the same way the many natural realities, and above them Brahma, the self-thinking One. Considering the matter from the third standpoint, we have an empirical universal end which is itself the selfless, all-destroying Destiny, not