THE PRINCIPLE OF HOPE

Page 919
sense, but also in Shaftesbury's sense as ‘the calm working from within itself, the existence according to its own laws, the inner necessity, the eternal unity with itself’.
The miracle approaches that even contrasts like that between Newton's and Goethe's nature appear reconciled here, but of course: the equation does not combine
mechanical calculation and qualitative feeling for nature, but it occurs on the basis of a ‘conformity with laws’ in both cases. But this conformity with laws only forms an
apparent bridge, in factual terms it has itself a double, mutually divided sense. In calculation it is that of merely external necessity, which proceeds on the chain of
causality. In Schiller's image of nature it is that of the formative­inner necessity, which proceeds in the organism of naivety, in the qualifications of substantiality. Thus
there is of course no synthesis between mechanical and landscape nature; a nature without qualities is far more alien to that of forests, mountains, and luminous stars
than the Christian negated one was. And precisely Schiller's non­synthesis between the mechanical and the qualitative particularly indicates the problem, the truth, not
worked up as it were, of the pastoral view on bourgeois soil. It concerns a different sector of nature than that appertaining to mathematical natural science, but it relates
to it in a pre­capitalist, in a not yet post­capitalist way. The pastoral view, the view into forests, mountains, and oceans, has — like the public festivals — kept alive a
great, wonderful element of non­mechanical response which one day can and will enter into concrete leisure; however, the access to it is, as a pre­capitalist one in a
capitalist age, still largely archaic­romantic. There is in it just as much conjuration of a submerged objectivity as astonishment and meeting of one coming up
undischarged, i.e. of a truth of the pastoral on which precisely leisure has to prove itself and can prove itself. But only a no longer abstract economic system will bring,
even in matters of nature­experience, that elimination of the differences between city and country which among its other consequences also contains the elimination of
the dualism between urban and landscape physics. The pastoral itself, with the whole inheritance of a not exploited but loved nature, here keeps in view, in its archaicromantic
cloak, a utopian kind of restful land — without the battlefield of Austerlitz. A restful land in which something is missing of course, because man is not yet at
rest in it himself and the humanization of nature still in fact lies mostly in mere — pastoral. Only active leisure in all areas will bring us closer to a receptive nature, one
not just depicted sub specie of business; human freedom and nature as its concrete surroundings (homeland) are mutually dependent.