With regard to the modes of prayer, all are good, provided that they are sincere. Turn your book upside down and be in the infinite.
There is, as we know, a philosophy which denies the infinite. There is also a philosophy, pathologically classified, which denies the sun; this philosophy is called blindness.
To erect a sense which we lack into a source of truth, is a fine blind man's self-sufficiency.
The curious thing is the haughty, superior, and compassionate airs which this groping philosophy assumes towards the philosophy which beholds God. One fancies he hears a mole crying, "I pity them with their sun!"
There are, as we know, powerful and illustrious atheists. At bottom, led back to the truth by their very force, they are not absolutely sure that they are atheists; it is with them only a question of definition, and in any case, if they do not believe in God, being great minds, they prove God.
We salute them as philosophers, while inexorably denouncing their philosophy.
Let us go on.
The remarkable thing about it is, also, their facility in paying themselves off with words. A metaphysical school of the North, impregnated to some extent with fog, has fancied that it has worked a revolution in human understanding by replacing the word Force with the word Will.
To say: "the plant wills," instead of: "the plant grows": this would be fecund in results, indeed, if we were to add: "the universe wills." Why? Because it would come to this: the plant wills, therefore it has an _I_; the universe wills, therefore it has a God.
As for us, who, however, in contradistinction to this school, reject nothing a priori, a will in the plant, accepted by this school, appears to us more difficult to admit than a will in the universe denied by it.
To deny the will of the infinite, that is to say, God, is impossible on any other conditions than a denial of the infinite. We have demonstrated this.
The negation of the infinite leads straight to nihilism. Everything becomes "a mental conception."
With nihilism, no discussion is possible; for the nihilist logic doubts the existence of its interlocutor, and is not quite sure that it exists itself.
From its point of view, it is possible that it may be for itself, only "a mental conception."
Only, it does not perceive that all which it has denied it admits in the lump, simply by the utterance of the word, mind.
In short, no way is open to the thought by a philosophy which makes all end in the monosyllable, No.
To No there is only one reply, Yes.
Nihilism has no point.
There is no such thing as nothingness. Zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.
Man lives by affirmation even more than by bread.
Even to see and to show does not suffice. Philosophy should be an energy; it should have for effort and effect to ameliorate the condition of man. Socrates should enter into Adam and produce Marcus Aurelius; in other words, the man of wisdom should be made to emerge from the man of felicity. Eden should be changed into a Lyceum. Science should be a cordial. To enjoy,--what a sad aim, and what a paltry ambition! The brute enjoys. To offer thought to the thirst of men, to give them all as an elixir the notion of God, to make conscience and science fraternize in them, to render them just by this mysterious confrontation; such is the function of real philosophy. Morality is a blossoming out of truths. Contemplation leads to action. The absolute should be practicable. It is necessary that the ideal should be breathable, drinkable, and eatable to the human mind. It is the ideal which has the right to say: Take, this is my body, this is my blood. Wisdom is a holy communion. It is on this condition that it ceases to be a sterile love of science and becomes the one and sovereign mode of human rallying, and that philosophy herself is promoted to religion.
Philosophy should not be a corbel erected on mystery to gaze upon it at its ease, without any other result than that of being convenient to curiosity.
For our part, adjourning the development of our thought to another occasion, we will confine ourselves to saying that we neither understand man as a point of departure nor progress as an end, without those two forces which are their two motors: faith and love.
Progress is the goal, the ideal is the type.
What is this ideal? It is God.
Ideal, absolute, perfection, infinity: identical words.
至于祈祷的方式，只要诚挚，任何方式都是好的。翻转你的书本，到无极里去。
我们知道有一种否认无极的哲学。按病理分类，也还有一种否认太阳的哲学，那种哲学叫做瞎眼论。
把人们所没有的一种感觉定为真理的本原，那真是盲人的一种大胆的杰作。
奇怪的是那种瞎摸哲学在寻求上帝的哲学面前所采取的那种自负而又悯人的傲慢态度。人们好象听到一只田鼠在叫嚷：“他们真可怜，老说有太阳！”
我们知道有些人是鼎鼎大名的强有力的无神论者。事实上，那些以自身的力量重返真理的人，究竟是不是无神论者也还不能十分肯定，对他们来说这只是个下定义的问题，况且，无论如何，即使他们不信上帝，他们的高度才智便已证实上帝的存在。
我们尽管不留情地驳斥他们的哲学，但却仍把他们当作哲学家来尊敬。
让我们继续谈下去。
可佩服的，还有那种玩弄字眼的熟练技巧。北方有个形而上学的学派，多少被雾气搞迷糊了，以为只要用愿望两字代替力量便可改变人们的认识。
不说“草木长”，而说“草木要”，的确，如果再加上“宇宙要”意义就更丰富了。为什么呢？因为可以得出这样的结论：草木既能“要”，草木便有一个我；宇宙“要”，宇宙便有一个上帝。
我们和那个学派不一样，我们不会凭空反对别人的任何意见，可是那个学派所接受的所谓草木有愿望的说法，据我们看，和他们所否认的宇宙有愿望的说法比起来更难成立。
否认无极的愿望就是否认上帝，这只在否认无极的前提下才有可能。那是我们已经阐述过的。
对无极的否认会直接导向虚无主义。一切都成了“精神的概念”。
和虚无主义没有论争的可能。因为讲逻辑的虚无主义者怀疑和他进行争辩的对方是否存在，因而也就不能肯定他自己是否存在。
从他的观点看，他自己，对他自己来说，也只能是“他精神的一个概念”。
不过，他丝毫没有发现，他所否认的一切在他一提到“精神”一词时，又都被他一总接受了。
总之，把一切都归纳为虚无的哲学思想是没有出路的。
承认虚无的人也必然有个虚无要承认。
虚无主义是不能自圆其说的。
无所谓虚空。零是不存在的。任何东西都是些东西。没有什么东西没有东西。
人靠肯定来生活比靠面包更甚。
眼看和手指，这都是不够的。哲学应是一种能量，它的努力方向应是有效地改善人类。苏格拉底应和亚当合为一体，并且产生马可·奥里略，换句话说，就是要使享乐的人转为明理的人，把乐园转为学园。科学应是一种强心剂。享乐，那是一种多么可怜的目的，一种多么低微的愿望！糊涂虫才享乐。思想，那才是心灵的真正的胜利。以思想来为人类解渴，象以醇酒相劝来教导他们认识上帝，使良知和科学水乳似的在他们心中交融，让那种神秘的对晤把他们变成正直的人，那才真正是哲学的作用。道德是真理之花，静观导致行动。绝对应能起作用，理想应是人类精神能呼能吸能吃能喝的。理想有权利说：“请用吧，这是我的肉，这是我的血。”智慧是一种神圣的相互感应。在这种情况下智慧不再是对科学的枯燥的爱好，而是唯一和至高无上的团结人类的方式，并且从哲学升为宗教。
宗教不应只是一座为了观赏神秘而建造在它之上的除了满足好奇心外别无他用的花楼。
等到以后再有机会时我们再来进一步发表我们的意见，目前我们只想说：“如果没有信和爱这两种力量的推动，我们便无从了解怎样以人为出发点，又以进步为目的。”
进步是目的而理想是标准。
什么是理想呢？上帝是理想。
理想，绝对，完善，无极，都是一些同义词。