On the History of German Religion and Philosophy

Author: (German) Heinrich Heine
Translator: Hai'an
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2000-01-01
Features: In 19th-century Germany, the philosophical revolution preceded political change, a unique event in the history of philosophy. The earliest to discover and write about this was Heine in his History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany. This book is one of Heine's most brilliant political essays. In his own words, it aims to critically describe the true spirit of Germany and introduce the revolutionary significance of German philosophy, making readers aware of Germany's revolutionary tradition. Therefore, do not merely view this book as a history of philosophy or a history of religion.
Preface: In The End of Classical German Philosophy, Engels wrote: "Just as in 18th-century France, in 19th-century Germany, the philosophical revolution also preceded political change. Hegel's system was even elevated to the state philosophy of the Prussian monarchy! Behind these professors, behind their pedantic and obscure language, their clumsy and dry statements, could there be hidden revolution? But what the government and the liberals failed to see, at least one person saw in 1833—Heinrich Heine." Here, Engels refers to Heine's remarks on the German philosophical revolution in History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany. History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany was written between 1833 and 1834, translated into French in 1834 and published in The Two Worlds Review in three installments; it was published in German in 1835 but heavily censored by the censors; in 1852, it was republished with additions based on the French translation (as the original German manuscript was lost at the time). After Heine's death, the original German manuscript was rediscovered, and the current editions are all based on the corrected German manuscript. This book was once published as a standalone French edition together with On Romanticism, using the same title as the work by the famous French noblewoman writer, Madame de Sta?l, who wrote De l'Allemagne (On Germany). As Heine himself said, Sta?l's On Germany was a glorified description of the backward feudal Germany, while his On Germany aimed to critically describe the true spirit of Germany and introduce the revolutionary significance of German philosophy to French readers, while also making the German people aware of their own revolutionary tradition.
This book is divided into three parts: The first part discusses the history of religion (from the rise of Christianity to the German religious scene during the Reformation); the second part discusses the origins of German classical philosophy, introducing the philosophies and influences of figures like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz; the third part discusses the development of German classical philosophy from Kant to Hegel, focusing on its revolutionary significance.
Heine's book begins with a critique of religion. In the first part, he tells French readers: "Because religion still holds sway in Germany today, we must dismantle its power. The situation there is like that before your revolution—Christianity and the old regime have formed an indissoluble alliance. As long as Christianity still affects the masses, the old regime cannot be broken." (See page 12 of this book). In his book On Romanticism, written from late 1832 to early 1833, he also described Catholicism as "a reliable pillar of autocracy" by promoting doctrines that "should disdain all worldly wealth, demand obedience like a dog, and patience like an angel."
As for the philosophical discussions, as Heine himself said in the second part of this book, "we are always concerned with issues of social significance" and "issues where philosophy and religion compete" (see page 55 of this book). Thus, the purpose of this book is very clear—to prepare public opinion for the impending bourgeois revolution in Germany.
The main argument of Heine's book is to prove that the development of German religion and philosophy since Martin Luther has been a preparation for the social revolution in Germany. He not only pointed out that German classical philosophy since Kant hides revolutionary ideas but also linked a series of thinkers since Luther to social revolution, offering his own interpretation and promoting the demands of the bourgeois revolution at the time.
Heine believed that the history of German religion and philosophy since the Middle Ages has been a struggle between reason, freedom, and democracy on one side and religion, ignorance, and autocracy on the other, gradually winning victory. He interpreted the Reformation as the rise of reason, Spinoza, Lessing, and Kant as atheists, and the philosophies of figures like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel as precursors of democratic revolution. Although many of these arguments are not entirely appropriate and often misjudge the characters, their basic tendency was still helpful to the bourgeois revolution at the time. Therefore, the significance of this book in the development of German revolutionary thought before Marxism should still be recognized.
However, we cannot overestimate Heine and this book. Despite the materialist tendencies in his worldview on some specific issues, his social and historical views were still idealist. His understanding of the opposition between materialism and idealism was also vague, often not distinguishing between the two philosophical camps based on the fundamental question of philosophy—whether thought and existence are one or two. As a result, he even called Aristotle a typical materialist. He also exaggerated the revolutionary significance of Kant's philosophy and failed to analyze its incompleteness from the perspective of the contradictions faced by the German bourgeoisie, instead explaining it through psychological factors.
Politically, Heine was a radical democratic member of the bourgeoisie. He was a radical poet and a political essayist. Many of his prose works and political essays had profound ideological depth. For example, when discussing the issues of the era, he said: "What is the great issue of our time? It is liberation. Every era has its issue, and solving it pushes humanity forward." (Travel from Munich to Genoa, 1828). The "liberation" that Heine yearned for, to some extent, went beyond the horizons of the bourgeoisie. He aspired to socialism, but his socialist views were heavily colored with Saint-Simonism, and he could never truly understand scientific socialism.
Overall, his philosophical and political views were full of contradictions. His life path was also winding and uncertain. In the Preface to the French Edition of Lucretia, written in 1855 and later regarded as his "political will," he reiterated his belief that "the future belongs to the communists," but at the same time, he was overwhelmed with "inexpressible sorrow" and even "feelings of hatred and fear"—worried that the victorious proletariat would cause him to lose all the beautiful cultural wealth of the old romantic world.
Heine's History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany is one of his most brilliant political essays. We translated and published this book mainly to provide readers with material for studying Marxist and Leninist works, especially Engels' The End of Classical German Philosophy. Of course, this book is also useful for researching the historical figure of Heine.
This book is divided into three parts: The first part discusses the history of religion (from the rise of Christianity to the German religious scene during the Reformation); the second part discusses the origins of German classical philosophy, introducing the philosophies and influences of figures like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz; the third part discusses the development of German classical philosophy from Kant to Hegel, focusing on its revolutionary significance. Starting with a critique of religion, it ultimately argues that the development of German religion and philosophy since Martin Luther has been a preparation for the social revolution in Germany.
Excerpt: The second part begins by discussing the great religious revolution in Germany, represented by Martin Luther. Now, we will discuss the philosophical revolution that emerged from this religious revolution—yes, this is indeed the final result of Protestantism. However, before describing how this revolution was launched by Immanuel Kant, we must mention some philosophical events abroad: the significance of Spinoza; the fate of Leibniz's philosophy; the relationship, friction, and disputes between philosophy and religion, etc. Among these many philosophical issues, we are always concerned with issues of social significance and the competition between philosophy and religion to solve them. Now, this concerns the nature of God. Devout believers say, "God is the beginning and end of all wisdom!" A philosopher, despite his confidence in his knowledge, cannot but agree with this pious statement. The father of modern philosophy is not usually Bacon but René Descartes. As for the extent to which German philosophy is rooted in Descartes, we will make it very clear shortly. René Descartes was French, and the honor of pioneering modern philosophy should also be attributed to the great French. But this great France, a noisy, turbulent, and incessantly chatterbox of a nation, is not suitable for philosophy. Philosophy may never flourish on this soil. Descartes felt this, so he moved to the Netherlands—a quiet, silent country of the Dutch, where barges ply the canals. There, he wrote his philosophical works. Only in the Netherlands could he liberate his spirit from traditional formalism and establish a complete philosophy based on pure thought. Such a philosophy, like every true philosophy that followed, neither borrowed from faith nor from experience. Only in the Netherlands could he delve into the depths of thought and grasp self-awareness at its core; through this thinking, he confirmed self-awareness in the famous proposition: Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). Apart from the Netherlands, there was probably no other place where Descartes would have had the courage to articulate a philosophy that openly challenged all past traditions. The honor of establishing the independence and autonomy of philosophy should be attributed to Descartes. From then on, philosophy no longer had to beg theology for permission to think; it could now stand as an independent science alongside theology.
I did not say, "in opposition to theology," because it was generally accepted at the time that "the truth we gain through philosophy is ultimately the truth that religion has given us." As I mentioned earlier, the scholastic philosophers were the opposite—they not only acknowledged the supreme authority of religion over philosophy but also declared philosophy to be a game and a futile debate whenever it contradicted religious doctrines. The scholastic philosophers, under any circumstances, only sought to express their thoughts. They said that one plus one equals one and proved it; at the same time, they smiled and said: "This is an error of human reason. Whenever human reason contradicts the resolutions of the ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, human reason is always wrong. One plus one equals three—that is the truth that has already been revealed to us by the Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Spirit!" The scholastic philosophers secretly formed an anti-clerical opposition. But on the surface, they pretended to be very submissive, even fighting for the church in many cases. When the church held religious ceremonies, they walked proudly among the ranks of the church, just like French opposition party members attending celebrations for the restoration of the monarchy. The farce of the scholastic philosophers lasted for more than six centuries and became increasingly tedious.
Descartes destroyed scholasticism while also destroying the outdated opposition of the Middle Ages. An old broom, due to long use, was not only bald but also covered with too much dust. The new era required a new broom. After every revolution, the previous opposition must be disbanded; otherwise, many foolish things will arise. This is something we have experienced firsthand. The first to oppose Descartes' philosophy was not the Catholic Church but the scholasticists, this group of out-of-touch elements—the old opposition of the church. The Roman Pope did not ban Descartes' philosophy until 1663. I should assume that the French have a full understanding of the philosophy of their great philosopher, Descartes, and I do not need to elaborate here on how the two opposing doctrines—idealism and materialism—borrowed necessary materials from Descartes' philosophy.
What I refer to as the two opposing doctrines here are idealism and materialism. People, especially in France, call these two doctrines spiritualism and sensationalism, but I use the names spiritualism and sensationalism in a different sense. To avoid confusion of concepts, it is necessary to discuss these two names in detail. Since ancient times, there have been two opposing views regarding the nature of human thought, that is, the ultimate source of the knowledge of the spirit, and the origin of ideas. One view holds that our ideas can only come from the outside world; our spirit is just an empty container, and the process by which various intuitions absorbed by the senses are digested is roughly like food eaten into the stomach. Using a more easily understood metaphor: these people regard our spirit as a tabula rasa (a clean slate), on which experience writes certain fresh things according to certain writing rules every day. The other opposing view holds that ideas are innate, that the human spirit is the source of various ideas, and that the outside world, experience, and the sensory medium that serve as a medium only make us aware of what already exists in our spirit; they merely awaken ideas that lie dormant there. The first view is called sensationalism, sometimes also called empiricism; the other view is called spiritualism, sometimes also called rationalism. However, this can easily lead to misunderstanding, because in the previous volume, I have already mentioned that these two names have been used for many years to indicate the two social systems common to all life phenomena. Therefore, let us use the name spiritualism to refer to the unlawful overreach of the spirit, which, while striving for exclusive praise, attempts to trample on matter or, at least, to insult matter; and let us use the name sensationalism to refer to the opposing faction, which fiercely opposes the aforementioned system, seeks to restore matter, and demands the restoration of the inalienable power of the senses. Correspondingly, I would rather give the names idealism and materialism to the philosophical views on the nature of human cognition. For the doctrine that holds that ideas are innate and that ideas precede experience, I call it idealism. For the doctrine that holds that spiritual cognition arises through experience, through the senses, and that ideas follow experience, I call it materialism.
The idealistic aspect of Descartes' philosophy never fared well in France, and this is deeply meaningful. Some famous Jansenists temporarily followed this direction, but they quickly lost their way in Christian spiritualism. It may be precisely because of the above reasons that idealism lost credibility in France. The people instinctively sensed what they needed to accomplish. The French had already taken the path toward the political revolution that was about to break out in the late 18th century, and for this, they needed a guillotine and a similarly calm and sharp materialist philosophy. Christian spiritualism had joined the ranks of the enemies of the French people, so sensationalism became the natural ally of the people. Since the French sensationalists were usually materialists, it led to a misunderstanding that sensationalism only originated from materialism. In fact, sensationalism could also flourish as a result of pantheism, when its phenomenon was beautiful and outstanding. However, we absolutely do not want to deny the merits of French materialism. French materialism was a good antidote to the past evils, a desperate remedy for a desperate disease, and a mercury preparation for an infected nation. The French philosophers took John Locke as their master. Locke was the savior that the French philosophers needed. Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was the gospel of the French philosophers, and they firmly believed in it. Locke had been a student of Descartes and had learned everything a British person could learn from him, such as mechanics, chemistry, combination, structure, and calculation. There was one thing Locke did not understand—innate ideas. Thus, he completed a doctrine that our knowledge is obtained from the outside world through experience. He compared the human spirit to a computer, and the entire person became a British machine. This also applies to the people constructed by Locke's students, although they themselves wanted to distinguish themselves by various names. They were all afraid of the final conclusions of their highest principles. Followers of Condillac, when they were classified with followers of, or even with followers of Holbach, or even with followers of La Mettrie, would always be panicked. But this was bound to happen, so I might as well call all the 18th-century French philosophers and those who follow them today, without exception, materialists. The Man is a Machine is the most thorough work of French philosophy, and this title alone already indicates the conclusion of their entire worldview.