THE MOMENT WHEN SYMEON THE STYLITE PUT THE FEET ON THE GROUND

 

The moment when Symeon the Stylite put the feet on the ground and what were his thoughts then

Chacun en sa chacunière (1)

In the moment in which Symeon the Stylite put the feet on the ground started thinking about the experiences he had over the column and about what he suffered in his personal travel to the underworld.  There he felt something like a flash of lighting going from one side to the other in his head.  He felt totally lost due to his lack of control. He felt an unpleasant sensation, where due to the lack of energy, or perhaps, due to an excess of energy, his mental faculties had disappeared.  It was not about the ‘epoche’ of Husserl. It was not a question of will, as he had not any intention of forgetting or laying aside the world. How to lay aside our surrounding while using the resources our surrounding has provided us with?  It was not about either the Hegelian sublation, the negation of the negation, as there was not any determination. The one concerning the faculties of the mind was the only negation there, he found himself in a situation previous to any determination. After a while a peculiar thought came to his mind. ’Perplexus sum, ergo sum’ (I am perplexed, therefore I am), he thought when he recovered his cognitive faculties in his mind. That would be the most basic proof of his existence. 

Before using any rational function, he was aware of being a being full of energy. In that conscience he had in a corner one unique watcher who was watching him: his capacity for reflection, his reflection on himself, and all that showed him that in the middle of that kind of lighting he was alive, though totally lost, in a unknown place  and not knowing what to do. When he recovered the rational faculties, being alone, he felt that he had nothing to lose, saved the life. Because of this he was determined to say something clear and distinct. All of that without irony (Don`t let Hegel get angry!) and without using a short and ironic style that showed the lack of coherence of the life.  ’That the lack of coherence which shows that our reasoning cannot be outright is something I knew well before’ – he told himself and followed with his thoughts:

‘Our totality is composed by different parts, it is not uniform, and what we now ignore can change our point of view.  The doubt principle that were expressed in Augustine became a method in Descartes. There using his mathematic spatial sense classified the whole world into two different forms.  But to make possible such proof of the existence the process of thinking is necessary. Because of this rather than a proof of the existence, his ‘cogito ergo sum’ is a proof of the thinking. The duality stablished by him between the ‘res cogitans’ and ‘res extensa’does not seem so clear nowadays. This dichotomy from the point of view of Kant is reflected among the phenomena that takes place before us (phenomena) and the ideas that arise from our minds (nuomena)’.  In the search of the perspective and in order to get new strength for the necessity of dealing with all the connections, followed with his chain of reasonings. Always staying in the physical world, indeed, because according to the words of Nicholas of Cusa’ since Infinite Power cannot be grasped by a finite’ (2) 

‘The science, if we push the positivism to the limits, does not want to know anything about the individual, inasmuch as he is categorized, the individual stay behind, defaced. He disappears completely in pieces, inasmuch as his characteristics are put into the ‘drawers’ of the categories. His own nuances are lost in the set of categories and subcategories. The ‘horses´´ of the categories ,each one pulling towards its side leave the individual quartered, who is no longer a body. How many parts will not have been left behind in the altars of simplification? ‘

‘And then with all these parts cannot be redone the whole. That is said in the second Law of thermodynamics, the loss of energy in the processes makes the reverse drive not possible, giving to the nature a unique direction. In the classification of characteristics something similar to the entropy is lost and so is not possible to redo the individual, as something irrecoverable is lost in the process. As far as the philosophy and thinking is to be applied to the whole, including in this totality the individual, they lose the category of that kind of science, if we agree with the narrower assumptions of the positivism, as they should work in non-scientific areas.  All this said, the problems will not end with the mere calling them Human Sciences’ (Geisteswissenchaft)’.

He remembered what Fromm said concerning the tendency that thought has. Our knowledge is always partial and we want to make from this incompleteness a totality. To do so  “we tend to …manufacture some additional pieces which we add to the fragments to make of them a whole, a system” (3). ‘The systematization and the desire to make a whole will be among the characteristics of our thinking, but it doesn`t mean that the universe is homogeneous and regular ’- added Symeon. And again he got absorbed in thought:

‘The psychoanalysis of Freud has entered in the sphere of the individual with the purpose of making that sphere a scientific one. There the influence that his life events and the crystallized stimuli in social life have for his personal experiences are investigated. The neurosciences through the analysis of the brain and of the nervous system investigate the individual from another point of view. This way the measurement, and in some way the characteristics of the ‘res extensa’ has entered in the area of the ‘res cogitans’, using the language of Descartes, investigating the structure of the nervous system and the interaction of their components in the production of the cognition and the behavior. But, to what extent has been made science of the individual, this way? When we thought that we are making use of our decision-making capacity, it will be not our ‘decision’ only the product of some physiological instance? And taking it to the limit, to what extent are we entitled to question our freedom of decision? And, how would give the positivism to the psychoanalysis the title of science?’ “Let me see how I get out of trouble alive from this bullring, seeing the enormous size of the horns of these questions!”-said to himself passing his hand across his forehead.

‘The search by the Physics of the last component of matter shows that the ‘thing-in-itself’ (Ding-an –sich) is yet further than the possible experience. On the other side the limits and shortcomings of the neurosciences show that the ‘(human) being-in-himself/ herself’ [(humane) Seinde-an-sich] is also further than the possible experience.  In this ‘further’ (Jenseits) the reason can prove an statement and its opposite.  So said Kant:” Unfortunately, the opposite has, on its side, equally valid ad necessary grounds for assertion” (4) .Between both limits takes place the science. As the physicists will say, from the point of view of the measurement, in an extension of the powers of ten, where the powers are positive or negative quite low numbers.   Further than the possible experience we will find ourselves in the area of the transcendent. And in this area we will meet the antinomies. Kant in his ’Critique of the Pure Reason’ made it clear with the following well known example. According the antinomy proposed for Kant the will have its own causality out of the causality of the nature and because of this there is freedom to decide, but at the same time being part of the nature, should follow the laws of the nature, so there is not freedom to decide.  ’.

‘This idea nowadays is reflected in the opposition between conscious and unconscious. If the actions are initiated in the unconscious mind, as some experiments of the neurologists seem to show, following so nature’s law, will be no room for the freedom of decision.  But to be in the unconscious area does not mean that it is odd to the individual, as the unconscious has been formed with the ‘bricks’ of his personal history and those of his evolution as species. Our now is woven with the unconscious and conscious decisions that occur. In deciding these two kind of areas have their weight. As Sartre put it, each person see both, the conscious and the unconscious, but under a different kind of light, because the light over the unconscious “is deprived of the means which permit analysis and conceptualization”(5).  At the end, the conscious and unconscious of each one is not something odd for him/her; on the contrary, is built over each one’s life’.

‘Leaving aside his history a second antinomy could be stated, that is, about the philosophy. Science, from the standpoint of the positivism is only based on the observable, that is, in the phenomena over which we can do an experiment and can be measured and counted. It is clear that philosophy does not fall into that category, and because of this it would not be a science. But the positivism cannot deny to itself the title of science, being at the same time a philosophical current. For that reason, insofar as positivism is in the area of the science, philosophy should be in the same area. Indeed, without forgetting that philosophy never will be ’on the secure path of science’ if it do not will to become ‘a boring academic specialty’, as Rorty put it’ (6).

He began to spin in his head the statement of Husserl telling that Hegel and Epicurus had denied the Law of no contradiction (7). He was not sure that this was true in the case of Epicurus but he thought that was very necessary to know what remained standing in philosophy after suffering such a denial by Hegel.  

‘The knowledge process that begin in ‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’ with the writing in a piece of paper ‘Now is day’ that become false at night or the ‘Here’ that is ‘There’ for another person.  And starting from that dynamic, continuing to the idea that the subject can reach the absolute knowledge, what would remain of value in philosophy once it had suffered the shipwreck of ‘the absolute knowledge’? There it arises that the history of the human being was a progressive process forward, where the knowledge had that same rhythm forward, being the greatest exponents of that idea Hegel and Marx. To complicate the process it is supposed that the knowledge have a similar development as the one that have the person in his personal development, being Freud the exponent of this idea. So, taking into account the necessity of using parallelisms what could remain as authentic? We will have to be careful not to mix the tools we use with the knowledge in itself. ’

He continued like this to end his reflection: 

‘The only thing that remaining standing close the circle in the ability mentioned at the beginning: the reflection. In that ability it is based the whole thinking. Though we would feel the mind empty, from there, from that corner we would look at ourselves. At the beginning is the pure reflection over our self, self-reflection. Then, in a cyclical way, the reflection takes height, analyzing its reality in an increasingly complex way. From the observation post of the reflection the thinking being puts everything in doubt. The reflection, as Habermas put it, is “ the emancipatory power of reflection, which the subject experiences in itself, to the extent that it becomes transparent to itself in its own genetic history” (8) Although for that he/she should avoid the entrenched trend of searching for convenience instead of truth ’ (9).

‘But, where from come the impulse to keep us in the reflection, if we were forced to use for it one unique word? It will be the care (Sorge) according Heidegger. And given the pandemic/endemic situation we are living now, seems not to be a bad choice. But Habermas choose a word of great tradition in German philosophy: the interest. “The emancipatory cognitive interest” has as goal the realization of ‘the reflection as such ‘as Habermas put it. (10). It will be the one directed to action and possible knowledge. All this so that the way of life that we know, that is, in the organic way, is maintained and multiplied. That kind of life is ‘placed’ in certain given circumstances and supported by premises that are debatable. And for that debate one of the most important participants is science, as in Freud ‘s word “the task of science is fully circumscribed if we limit it to showing how the world must appear to us in consequence of the peculiarity of our organization “. (11)

He remembered with a smile that Hegel and Sartre had tobacco in the table where they wrote (12), returning to his mind the long-forgotten habit of smoking. What would he do if, on an imaginary trip, they had offered him tobacco, accept it or decline the invitation to smoke? A strange thought came to his mind:  ’I would not go in a car that were driven by me’. What was that ‘lightning’? Always running from the traps of the language and suddenly he felt trapped by them. To finish came to his mind the following thought:

’ Kant directed his gaze astonished towards the firmament, but today also would direct his puzzled look towards the dynamics of water particles ’.

----

Suddenly he felt naked and unprotected and his thought turned towards the Nature. 

Between the ins and outs of the thinking appeared the Nature with its relentless rigor. The brevity of life left little room for change.

‘To the extent that we are an organism the behavior of the whole society it is somehow predictable.  Each one’s life elapses in a specific place and circumstances and the life cannot be stopped for a short time and neither cannot we live another person’s life. It is heard the echoes of Sartre and Heidegger in this situation. In our limited time we can only comply with the role of a failed god (13) and as we are limited in our own body, we live a situation where we are continually thrown to it (14).’

‘As an organism if something breaks its equilibrium, it will come to a new equilibrium again. As Heraclitus said: ‘it is an arrangement of opposite tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre (15). Since for getting a new equilibrium time is needed, in the new equilibrium will be other individuals, or the individuals will have changed and will find themselves facing a new situation. But as a totality it recovers the equilibrium. Everything would change due to a revolution, but it is compulsory to end in an equilibrium. Although that stability could carry the loss of many people’s life and the disappearance of the public life of many other ones’.

‘Our society having like the sea a uniform appearance, really has in many parts different currents. In some parts it go backwards, in other parts it go forwards, in other it parts go downwards, and, at last,  in some other parts it go upwards.  All that seen from afar appears to be a moving homogeneous surface. If we would go beyond what is achievable by sight these movements would multiply exponentially, that is, if we would reach the elementary particles of matter. In our society, in a similar way, some people to keep their privileged social position look backwards, other ones in search of a new position look forwards , other ones live anonymously, in a hidden way, and a few running away from the miseries of life look upwards’.  

‘In that social magma live each individual. In that frame is drawn what is for each one his/her social totality, what is he/she interested in and as the society is not, the idea that the group he/she feels part of is better than the other groups. Bergson said that a big part of social life is based on the idea that we thought that all the others are better than us. (16). In my opinion the idea does not expand so much, from the large ’all the others’ should to be reduced to ‘our group’. Thus a great part of our social life is grounded in the idea that our group is better than any other group. Because of this it could carry the following consequences ’.

‘As long as we have that so internalized we will be only interested in advances that take place in our group, in our immediate environment. Going against that idea could carry as consequence the expelling from the group and only a few people will be willing to take this risk (17). During youth because we are searching for our place in the group, during old age because we are searching for resting, then we will not dare to discuss the positions of the group. And this attitude can explain many behaviors ’. 

‘This deep social bond condemn us to repeat the history, in an increasingly complicated way. The sea is immense, but the contribution of each one from the point of temporal life is very limited and conditioned from the point of view of the perspective we have. The current that drags our group carries us’.

‘If we look at a limited piece of the nature it will have a certain shape for us. But if we look at it from a more general point of view the perspective will completely change. What seemed to be a mound, viewed in a larger frame can be the bottom of a ravine’. (18)

 ‘The nature observed at each point in a fixed way has another form of change. The organisms are born, develop and disappear to make way for other similar organisms. All that in a limited temporary term. Also we, being part of the nature, in addition to the local perspective we have a second one: the temporal perspective. Where are we and where we were in the flowing current, which kind of environment and organization we had and we have, this way we write our ‘temporal’ position as history (As Toynbee make it clear the history of one people, as a living organism, has a peculiarity: even being dead it can subsist)’.(19)). 

‘As members of nature we organize ourselves by groups, and as a nation they make us believe that a one-sided ‘narration’ is our history. ‘Nation’ seen from two different points of view, that is, as a state that includes the people who are within its border, or as a previous voluntaristic concept including the people who see themselves within a group of their own characteristics, mainly the language. In a troubled situation this ‘narration ‘can lead to a war with other countries. Then the fear that are so important to the maintenance of life can be used to start a process of ‘demonization ’against the others’ (At this point he remembered what his father related to him concerning a group of prisoners loyal to the Republic who were taken through the city of Zaragoza, in the Spanish Civil War. A Little boy who were looking at them said shocked to his mother: “Mommy, but they have not any tail at all!”).

‘In the same way as if  we hear a great roar we felt in danger and we put all our attention in the provenance of that noise, forgotten of where we have put the feet in, in our society profit is taken from the limitation of our attention span. Taking advantage of that limited attention span, the same way as magicians do, our rulers direct our attention to one part, while in another part, away from our gazes, carry out their operations with total comfort. Besides that, they are granted a certain right to lie when it is for ‘the good of community’, as wrote Plato in a well-known paragraph of the ‘Republic’ ’ (20).

‘The rulers try, besides, that facts which have nothing to do with our social environment we treat them as they were part of our environment. The public media has been always used this way, and mainly, when the leaders of an empire impose their way of thinking. In the same way that the main stream of a river carries everything in its own direction. Media are more and more widespread and the risk of falling under their influence is growing, as if we were unable to get out of the strongest currents. Although if the imposed ‘narration ‘were totally foreign its duration will be short. But even so the life of an individual can be shorter than that ’. 

‘Upwind or downwind, in this situation may arise the master/slave (lordship/servitude) dialectic of Hegel that was so liked by Sartre. Between both kinds of individuals there will be a confrontation. The servitude, being the consciousness of other ones, modifies the nature through the work and fears death (the absolute Lord) (21). The lord, being consciousness for himself, has no direct relationship with the things, which are for him objects of delight. The lord relates to things through the slave. But both being the negative essence of what they desire to be, the lord becomes a dependent consciousness, and the servitude, instead, will get the real independence.  The servant overcomes dependency of the natural life and cancel that dependency through the work ’.

‘The nature can also give an answer to an important question. Why we fight over little problems while leaving the big questions unsolved? We are nature and we try to solve the problems that we find in our environment. The big questions refer to a large totality and that totality is for us only a mental image that we will not meet in our daily environment with. And the rulers take profit from that trend, though someone think that are the rulers who create that trend. The rulers have it clear that in the administration of those little problems lies their power. All the conspiracy theories are based in the false idea that the powerful ones are very intelligent and they are of the same opinion’.

‘In that immediate environment the previous quoted ‘care ‘and ‘interest ‘perhaps are part of a positive point of view. In that current that drags us there are also opposing forces, like ‘inattention’ and ‘disinterest’, but in our looking ahead mindset only positive concepts are required. At the end, we are not more that force, energy and the current goes forward, being not possible the turning  back, except for a short and fleeting period’.

‘Something remains fixed, unaltered, like the ground of the Paran Plains, that from a corner of our brain look us inside and look at the world that surrounds us: the reflection. Beginning and end. That watches ourselves and the world around us. What Habermas called emancipatory and critical power it is in our hands to keep it alive and in no way lose it. All of it with the need to overcome two basic tendencies we have: the need to impose our group’s culture, and second, as our own person is the center of our perception and of our development, the idea that everybody 'else has to have our mentality and must be tailored according to our environment's standards. Culture is a dialog and our little world should not be the model of the whole world’.

NOTES

(1)‘Everyone in his own house’. Michel de Montaigne (Essais, Liv. I, chap XXXV) and Rabelais (Pantagruel Liv. II, chap XV-:‘Ainsi chascun s’en va a sa chascuniere’)

(2)’ cum virtus infinita, per terminatam capit non possit’ Pag.253 De Cusa, N. (1565). Opera.  Basilea: Henric Petrina. It can be seen in the following internet address :

https://books.google.es/books/about/D_Nicolai_de_Cusa_Opera.html 

3)’ It seems to be an inherent tendency in human thought to strive for systematization and completeness.(One root for this tendency probably lies in man’s quest for certainty –a quest that is understable enough in view of the precarious nature of human existence.) When we know some fragments of reality we want to complete them in such a way that they ‘make sense ‘in a systematic way. Yet by the very nature of the limitation of man we always have only ‘fragmentary ‘knowledge, and never complete knowledge .What we tend to do then is to manufacture some additional pieces which we add to the fragments to make of them a whole, a system.’ page 19.Fromm. E. (1986). You shall be as Gods. New York: Fawcett Premier.

 

(4)’ unglücklicherweise der Gegensatz ebenso gültige und notwendige Gründe der Behauptung auf seiner Seite hat‘.pag.  449 Kant, I. (1967). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

(5)’ It is not an unsolved riddle as the Freudian believe: all is there luminous; reflection is in full possession of it, apprehends all. But this ‘mystery in broad daylight’ is due ,above all, to the fact that this possession is deprived of the means which would ordinarily permit analysis and conceptualization ’ ( Il ne s‘agit point d‘une énigme indevinée , comme le croient les freudiens : tout est là, lumineux, la réflexion jouit de tout, saisit tout. Mais ce « mystère en pleine lumière » vient plutôt de ce que cette jouissance est privée des moyens qui permettent ordinairement l’analyse et la conceptualisation.) Page. 616 . Sartre, J.P. (1943). L’être et le néant. Paris: Gallimard.

(6)’ So as soon as a program to put philosophy on the secure path of science succeeds, it simply converts philosophy into a boring academic specialty’pag.385. Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

(7) ‘since great philosophers like Epicurus and Hegel have denied the law of contradiction’ (nachdem große Philosophen wie EPIKUR und HEGEL den Satz des Widerspruchs geleugnet haben) Page. 141 Husserl, E. (1968). Logische Untersuchungen . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

(8)          ‘der emanzipativen  Kraft der Reflexion, die das Subjekt in dem Maße, als es sich in seiner Entstehungsgeschichte transparent wird, an sich erfährt ’ pages 243-244  Habermas,J. (2002). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt Main : Suhrkamp.

(9)          The work of Castillon quoted in the following is mentioned in Hegel’s ‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’: ‘Dissertation on the question: Is it useful for people to be deceived, whether we induce them into new mistakes, or maintain them in those where they are? (Dissertation sur la question :Est-il utile au peuple d´être trompé  ,soi qu’on l’induise dans des nouvelles erreurs , ou qu’on l’entretienne dans celles oú il est?).Castillon won the half of the prize of the Prussian Academy of Science in 1780answering ‘yes’ to the question. The other half of the prize was won by R.Z.Becker who answered ‘no’ to the question. In the Age of Enlightenment, in the age of reason, from the 9 works which got the accessit ,6 were answering ‘yes’ and only 3 answering ‘no’. The work can be seen in the following address: https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/6257

(10) ‘einem emanzipatorischen Erkenntnisinteresse folgt, das auf den Vollzug der Reflexion als solchen zielt.´Pag.244 In the above-mentioned work of Habermas.

(11)        http://freud-online.de/Texte/PDF/freud_werke_bd14.pdf

(daß die ‚Aufgabe der Wissenschaft voll umschrieben ist, wenn wir sie darauf einschränken zu zeigen, wie uns die Welt infolge der Eigenart unserer Organisation erscheinen muß) pag 380. Freud, S. (1955). Die Zukunft einer Ilusion. London: Imago Publishing Co.Ltd.

Mentioned also in the above-mentioned work of Habermas, page 352.

(12)’ that this penknife lies alongside this snuff-box’ (daß dies Federmesser neben dieser Tabaksdose liegt), page 184 Hegel, G.W.F. (1832). Phänomenologie des Geistes. Berlin: Dunder und Humblot. 

‘It is the being of this table, of this package of tobacco, of the lamp, more generally the being of the world which is implied by consciousness ’(C’est l’être de cette table, de ce paquet de tabac, de la lampe, plus généralement l’être du monde ) Sartre,inthe above-mentioned work,pag. 29 .

(13)’ Everything happens as if the world, man, and man-in-the-world succeeded in realizing only a missing god’ (‘Tout se passe comme si le monde, l’homme et l’homme-dans-le-monde n’arrivaient à réaliser qu’un Dieu manqué.’) Sartre in the above-mentioned work, pag. 671.

(14) ‘The disclosed character of Being of the Being-there which is veiled in its wherefrom and whereto but in itself even more unveiled, this ‘That is ‘we call the thrownness of this Being into its There but so that it, as a Being-in-the world, is the There’ .( Diesen in seinem Woher und Wohin verhüllten, aber an ihm selbst um so unverhüllter erschlossenen Seinscharakter des Daseins, dieses »Daß es ist« nennen wir die Geworfenheit dieses Seienden in sein Da, so zwar, daß es als In-der-Welt-sein das Da ist) page 135 Heidegger,M. (1967). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

(15) παλίντροπος ἁρμονίη ὅκωςπερ τόξου καὶ λύρης

(DK B51) Heraclitus.Fragments.On the Universe.Fragment 45. Can be seen in the following address: http://heraclitusfragments.com/files/ge.html

(16)’ however severely we pretend to judge other person, at bottom we think them better than ourselves. On this happy illusion much of our social life is based’. ( si severement que nous affections de juger les autres hommes, nous les croyons, au fond, meilleurs que nous. Sur cette heureuse illusion repose une bonne partie de la vie sociale) pag.6 Bergson,H. (2013). Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion. Trois-rivieres(Quebec): Les echos du maquis .

(17)’but you preferred ,as you said , dead to exile ’(Socrates to Crito) (ἀλλὰ  ᾑροῦ,   ὡς ἔφησθα, πρὸ τῆς φυγῆς θάνατον) Crito of Plato 52c.Can be seen in the following link:http:// www.perseus.tufts.edu /hopper/text?doc=Critosection52a

(18)’These persons think that their lamp shines only for that little table; but from 80 kilometres away, someone has felt the summon of that light; as if they will swing it desperate from some lonely island in front of the sea’.(Ces hommes croient que leur lampe luit pour l’humble table, mais à quatre-vingts kilomètres d’eux, on est déjà touché par l’appel de cette lumière, comme s’ils la balançaient désespérés, d’une île déserte, devant la mer). Pag.8.De Saint-Exupéry, A. (1931). Vol de nuit. Paris: Librairie Gallimard.

(19) ‘In meeting this criticism, we may admit at once that the conception of a society cumbering the ground as a carcass , long after the life has gone out of the body, is by no means absurd a priori. Indeed we can assist our critics by pointing out an instance in which this conception is indisputably apt. Page 136 Toynbee, A.J. (1948). A study of History. London: Oxford University Press.

(20) ‘The rulers then of the city may, if anybody, fitly lie on account of enemies or citizens for the benefit of the state; no one else must do so.’(τοῖς ἄρχουσιν δὴ τῆς πόλεως, εἴπερ τισὶν ἄλλοις, προσήκει ψεύδεσθαι ἢ πολεμίων ἢ πολιτῶν ἕνεκα ἐπ᾽ ὠφελίᾳ τῆς πόλεως, τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις πᾶσιν οὐχ ἁπτέον τοῦ τοιούτου)Plato, ‘Republic’ 389b. Can be seen in the following address:

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0167

(21)’for it has experienced the fear of the death (the absolute Lord)’ (‘denn es  hat die Furcht des Todes, des absoluten Herrn, empfunden‘) Hegel in the above-mentioned