Edition ausblenden
De Trinitate

III.

[III 5] Quid ergo amat mens cum ardenter se ipsam quaerit ut noverit dum incognita sibi est? Ecce enim mens semet ipsam quaerit ut noverit et inflammatur hoc studio. Amat igitur. Sed quid amat? Si se ipsam, quomodo cum se nondum noverit, nec quisquam possit amare quod nescit? An ei fama praedicavit speciem suam sicut de absentibus solemus audire? Forte ergo non se amat, sed quod de se fingit hoc amat longe fortasse aliud quam ipsa est. Aut si se mens sui similem fingit et ideo cum hoc figmentum amat se amat antequam noverit quia id quod sui simile est intuetur, novit ergo alias mentes ex quibus se fingat et genere ipso sibi nota est. Cur ergo cum alias mentes novit se non novit cum se ipsa nihil sibi possit esse praesentius? Quod si ut oculis corporis magis alii oculi noti sunt quam ipsi sibi, non se ergo quaerat numquam inventura; numquam enim se oculi praeter specula videbunt, nec ullo modo putandum est etiam rebus incorporeis contemplandis tale aliquid adhiberi ut mens tamquam in speculo se noverit. An in ratione veritatis aeternae videt quam speciosum sit nosse semet ipsam, et hoc amat quod videt studetque in se fieri quia quamvis sibi nota non sit, notum ei tamen est quam bonum sit ut sibi nota sit? Et hoc quidem permirabile est nondum se nosse et quam sit pulchrum se nosse iam nosse. An aliquem finem optimum, id est securitatem et beatitudinem suam, videt per quandam occultam memoriam quae in longinqua eam progressam non deseruit, et credit ad eundem finem nisi se ipsam cognoverit se pervenire non posse? Ita dum illud amat hoc quaerit, et notum amat illud propter quod quaerit ignotum. Sed cur memoria beatitudinis suae potuit et memoria sui cum ea perdurare non potuit ut tam se nosset quae vult pervenire quam novit illud quo vult pervenire? An cum se nosse amat, non se quam nondum novit sed ipsum nosse amat acerbiusque tolerat se ipsam deesse scientiae suae qua vult cuncta comprehendere? Novit autem quid sit nosse, et dum hoc amat quod novit etiam se cupit nosse. Ubi ergo nosse suum novit si se non novit? Nam novit quod alia noverit, se autem non noverit; hinc enim novit et quid sit nosse. Quo pacto igitur se aliquid scientem scit quae se ipsam nescit? Neque enim alteram mentem scientem scit sed se ipsam. Scit igitur se ipsam. Deinde cum se quaerit ut noverit, quaerentem se iam novit. Iam se ergo novit. Quapropter non potest omnino nescire se quae dum se nescientem scit se utique scit. Si autem se nescientem nesciat, non se quaeret ut sciat. Quapropter eo ipso quo se quaerit magis se sibi notam quam ignotam esse convincitur. Novit enim se quaerentem atque nescientem dum se quaerit ut noverit. [6] Quid ergo dicemus? An quod ex parte se novit, ex parte non novit? Sed absurdum est dicere non eam totam scire quod scit. Non dico: ‚Totum scit,‘ sed: ‚Quod scit tota scit.‘ Cum itaque aliquid de se scit quod nisi tota non potest, totam se scit. Scit autem se aliquid scientem, nec potest quidquam scire nisi tota. Scit se igitur totam.

Deinde quid eius ei tam notum est quam se vivere?

Übersetzung ausblenden
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo, on the Trinity

Chapter 3.--That When the Mind Loves Itself, It is Not Unknown to Itself.

5. What, then, does the mind love, when it seeks ardently to know itself, whilst it is still unknown to itself? For, behold, the mind seeks to know itself, and is excited thereto by studious zeal. It loves, therefore; but what does it love? Is it itself? But how can this be when it does not yet know itself, and no one can love what he does not know? Is it that report has declared to it its own species, in like way as we commonly hear of people who are absent? Perhaps, then, it does not love itself, but loves that which it imagines of itself, which is perhaps widely different from what itself is: or if the phantasy in the mind is like the mind itself, and so when it loves this fancied image, it loves itself before it knew itself, because it gazes upon that which is like itself; then it knew other minds from which to picture itself, and so is known to itself generically. Why, then, when it knows other minds, does it not know itself, since nothing can possibly be more present to it than itself? But if, as other eyes are more known to the eyes of the body, than those eyes are to themselves; then let it not seek itself, because it never will find itself. For eyes can never see themselves except in looking-glasses; and it cannot be supposed in any way that anything of that kind can be applied also to the contemplation of incorporeal things, so that the mind should know itself, as it were, in a looking-glass. Or does it see in the reason of eternal truth how beautiful it is to know one's self, and so loves this which it sees, and studies to bring it to pass in itself? because, although it is not known to itself, yet it is known to it how good it is, that it should be known to itself. And this, indeed, is very wonderful, that it does not yet know itself, and yet knows already how excellent a thing it is to know itself. Or does it see some most excellent end, viz. its own serenity and blessedness, by some hidden remembrance, which has not abandoned it, although it has gone far onwards, and believes that it cannot attain to that same end unless it know itself? And so while it loves that, it seeks this; and loves that which is known, on account of which it seeks that which is unknown. But why should the remembrance of its own blessedness be able to last, and the remembrance of itself not be able to last as well; that so it should know itself which wishes to attain, as well as know that to which it wishes to attain? Or when it loves to know itself, does it love, not itself, which it does not yet know, but the very act of knowing; and feel the more annoyed that itself is wanting to its own knowledge wherewith it wishes to embrace all things? And it knows what it is to know; and whilst it loves this, which it knows, desires also to know itself. Whereby, then, does it know its own knowing, if it does not know itself? For it knows that it knows other things, but that it does not know itself; for it is from hence that it knows also what knowing is. In what way, then, does that which does not know itself, know itself as knowing anything? For it does not know that some other mind knows, but that itself does so. Therefore it knows itself. Further, when it seeks to know itself, it knows itself now as seeking. Therefore again it knows itself. And hence it cannot altogether not know itself, when certainly it does so far know itself as that it knows itself as not knowing itself. But if it does not know itself not to know itself, then it does not seek to know itself. And therefore, in the very fact that it seeks itself, it is clearly convicted of being more known to itself than unknown. For it knows itself as seeking and as not knowing itself, in that it seeks to know itself.