human
one so often, that one cannot feel tempted to draw the sword against it again. And yet it has almost always been only moral opponents that have appeared in the arena, to assail the supreme essence in favor of--another supreme essence. So Proudhon, unabashed, says:[33]
gpt
Man is destined to live without religion, but the moral law is eternal and absolute. Who would dare to-day to attack morality? Moral people skimmed off the best fat from religion, ate it themselves, and are now having a tough job to get rid of the resulting scrofula. If, therefore, we point out that religion has not by any means been hurt in its inmost part so long as people reproach it only with its superhuman essence, and that it takes its final appeal to the
human
alone (for God is spirit), then we have sufficiently indicated its final accord with morality, and can leave its stubborn conflict with the latter lying behind us. It is a question of a supreme essence with both, and whether this is a superhuman or a human one can make (since it is in any case an essence over me, a super-mine one, so to speak) but little difference to me. In the end the relation to the human essence, or to
gpt
Man,
human
[34] Herewith, to be sure, we lose the narrow religious standpoint, lose the _God_, who from this standpoint is subject; but we take in exchange for it the other side of the religious standpoint, the _moral_ standpoint. _E. g._, we no longer say
gpt
God is love, but
human
Love is divine. If we further put in place of the predicate
gpt
the equivalent
human
then, as far as concerns the sense, all the old comes back again. According to this, love is to be the _good_ in man, his divineness, that which does him honor, his true _humanity_ (it
gpt
makes for the first time a man out of him). So then it would be more accurately worded thus: Love is what is _human_ in man, and what is inhuman is the loveless egoist. But precisely all that which Christianity and with it speculative philosophy (_i. e._ theology) offers as the good, the absolute, is to self-ownership simply not the good (or, what means the same, it is _only the good_). Consequently, by the transformation of the predicate into the subject, the Christian _essence_ (and it is the predicate that contains the essence, you know) would only be fixed yet more oppressively. God and the divine would entwine themselves all the more inextricably with me. To expel God from his heaven and to rob him of his
human
cannot yet support a claim of complete victory, if therein he is only chased into the human breast and gifted with indelible _immanence_. Now they say,
gpt
The divine is the truly human!
human
As if the dominion of morality were not a complete dominion of the sacred, a
gpt
human reason, was also capable of discerning God. What does that mean but that the reason laid claim to be the same visionary as the fancy?[35] In this sense Reimarus wrote his
human
Most Notable Truths of Natural Religion. It had to come to this,--that the _whole_ man with all his faculties was found to be _religious_; heart and affections, understanding and reason, feeling, knowledge, and will,--in short, everything in man,--appeared religious. Hegel has shown that even philosophy is religious. And what is not called religion to-day? The
gpt
the
human
gpt
which expresses the concept of a condition of being _bound_. To be sure, we remain bound, so far as religion takes possession of our inward parts; but is the mind also bound? On the contrary, that is free, is sole lord, is not our mind, but absolute. Therefore the correct affirmative translation of the word religion would be