Preface
Original German
*Vorrede*.
1 Eine Erklärung, wie ſie einer Schrifft in einer Vorrede nach der Gewohnheit vorausgeſchickt wird, — über den Zweck, den der Verfaſſer ſich in ihr vorgeſetzt, ſo wie über die Veranlaſſungen und das Verhältniſs, worin er ſie zu andern frühern oder gleichzeitigen Behandlungen deſſelben Gegenſtandes zu ſtehen glaubt, — ſcheint bey einer philoſophiſchen Schrifft nicht nur überflüſsig, ſondern um der Natur der Sache willen, ſogar unpaſſend und zweckwidrig zu ſeyn. Denn wie und was von Philoſophie in einer Vorrede zu ſagen ſchicklich wäre, — etwa eine hiſtoriſche Angabe der Tendenz und des Standpunkts des allgemeinen Inhalts und der Reſultate, eine Verbindung von hin und her ſprechenden Behauptungen und 1807 II Verſicherungen über das Wahre — kann nicht für die Art und Weiſe gelten, in der die philoſophiſche Wahrheit darzuſtellen ſey. — Auch weil die Philoſophie weſentlich im Elemente der Allgemeinheit iſt, die das Beſondere in ſich ſchlieſst, ſo findet bey ihr mehr als bey andern Wiſſenſchafften der Schein ſtatt, als ob in dem Zwecke oder den letzten Reſultaten, die Sache ſelbſt und ſogar in ihrem vollkommenen Weſen ausgedrückt wäre, gegen welches die Ausführung eigentlich das unweſentliche ſey. In der allgemeinen Vorſtellung hingegen, zum Beyſpiel was Anatomie ſey, etwa die Kenntniſs der Theile des Körpers nach ihrem unlebendigen Daſeyn betrachtet, iſt man überzeugt, die Sache ſelbſt, den Inhalt dieſer Wiſſenſchafft, noch nicht zu beſitzen, ſondern auſserdem um das Beſondere ſich bemühen zu müſſen. — Ferner iſt bey einem ſolchen Aggregate von Kenntniſſen, das den Nahmen Wiſſenſchafft nicht mit Recht führt, eine Converſation über Zweck und dergleichen Allgemeinheiten nicht von der hiſtoriſchen und begriffloſen Weiſe verſchieden, worin von dem Inhalte ſelbſt, dieſen Nerven, Muskeln und ſo fort, geſprochen wird. Bey der Philoſophie hingegen würde die Ungleichheit entſtehen, daſs von einer ſolchen Weiſe Gebrauch gemacht, 1807 III und dieſe doch von ihr ſelbſt als unfähig, die Wahrheit zu faſſen, aufgezeigt würde.
2 So wird auch durch die Beſtimmung des Verhältniſſes, das ein philoſophiſches Werk zu andern Beſtrebungen über denſelben Gegenſtand zu haben glaubt, ein fremdartiges Intereſſe hereingezogen, und das, worauf es bey der Erkenntniſs der Wahrheit ankommt, verdunkelt. So feſt der Meynung der Gegenſatz des Wahren und des Falſchen wird, ſo pflegt ſie auch entweder Beyſtimmung oder Widerſpruch gegen ein vorhandenes philoſophiſches Syſtem zu erwarten, und in einer Erklärung über ein ſolches nur entweder das eine oder das andre zu ſehen. Sie begreifft die Verſchiedenheit philoſophiſcher Syſteme nicht ſo ſehr als die fortſchreitende Entwiklung der Wahrheit, als ſie in der Verſchiedenheit nur den Widerſpruch ſieht. Die Knoſpe verſchwindet in dem Hervorbrechen der Blüthe, und man könnte ſagen, daſs jene von dieſer widerlegt wird, eben ſo wird durch die Frucht die Blüthe für ein falſches Daſeyn der Pflanze erklärt, und als ihre Wahrheit tritt jene an die Stelle von dieſer. Dieſe Formen unterſcheiden ſich nicht nur, ſondern verdrängen ſich auch als unverträglich mit einander. Aber ihre flüſsige Natur macht ſie zugleich zu Momenten 1807 IV der organiſchen Einheit, worin ſie ſich nicht nur nicht widerſtreiten, ſondern eins ſo nothwendig als das andere iſt, und dieſe gleiche Nothwendigkeit macht erſt das Leben des Ganzen aus. Aber der Widerſpruch gegen ein philoſophiſches Syſtem pflegt theils ſich ſelbſt nicht auf dieſe Weiſe zu begreiffen, theils auch weiſs das auffaſſende Bewuſstſeyn gemeinhin nicht, ihn von ſeiner Einſeitigkeit zu befreyen oder frey zu erhalten, und in der Geſtalt des ſtreitend und ſich zuwider ſcheinenden gegenſeitig nothwendige Momente zu erkennen.
3 Die Foderung von dergleichen Erklärungen ſo wie die Befriedigungen derſelben ſcheinen vielleicht das Weſentliche zu betreiben. Worin könnte mehr das Innere einer philoſophiſchen Schrift ausgeſprochen ſeyn, als in den Zwecken und Reſultaten derſelben, und wodurch dieſe beſtimmter erkannt werden, als durch ihre Verſchiedenheit von dem, was das Zeitalter ſonſt in derſelben Sphäre hervorbringt? Wenn aber ein ſolches Thun für mehr als für den Anfang des Erkennens, wenn es für das wirkliche Erkennen gelten ſoll, iſt es in der That zu den Erfindungen zu rechnen, die Sache ſelbſt zu umgehen, und dieſes beydes zu verbinden, den Anſchein des Ernſtes und Bemühens um ſie, 1807 V und die wirkliche Erſparung deſſelben. — Denn die Sache iſt nicht in ihrem Zwecke erſchöpft, ſondern in ihrer Ausführung, noch iſt das Reſultat das wirkliche Ganze, ſondern es zuſammen mit ſeinem Werden; der Zweck für ſich iſt das unlebendige Allgemeine, wie die Tendenz das bloſse Treiben, das ſeiner Wirklichkeit noch entbehrt, und das nakte Reſultat iſt der Leichnam, der ſie hinter ſich gelaſſen. — Ebenſo iſt die Verſchiedenheit vielmehr die Gränze der Sache; ſie iſt da, wo die Sache aufhört, oder ſie iſt das, was dieſe nicht iſt. Solche Bemühungen mit dem Zwecke oder den Reſultaten, ſo wie mit den Verſchiedenheiten und Beurtheilungen des einen und des andern, ſind daher eine leichtere Arbeit, als ſie vielleicht ſcheinen. Denn ſtatt mit der Sache ſich zu befaſſen, iſt ſolches Thun immer über ſie hinaus, ſtatt in ihr zu verweilen und ſich in ihr zu vergeſſen greifft ſolches Wiſſen immer nach einem Andern, und bleibt vielmehr bey ſich ſelbſt, als daſs es bey der Sache iſt und ſich ihr hingibt. — Das leichteſte iſt, was Gehalt und Gediegenheit hat, zu beurtheilen, ſchwerer, es zu faſſen, das ſchwerſte, was beydes vereinigt, ſeine Darſtellung hervorzubringen.
1807 VI
4 Der Anfang der Bildung und des Herausarbeitens aus der Unmittelbarkeit des ſubſtantiellen Lebens wird immer damit gemacht werden müſſen, Kenntniſſe allgemeiner Grundſätze und Geſichtspunkte zu erwerben, ſich nur erſt zu dem Gedanken der Sache überhaupt herauf zu arbeiten, nicht weniger ſie mit Gründen zu unterſtützen oder zu widerlegen, die concrete und reiche Fülle nach Beſtimmtheiten aufzufaſſen, und ordentlichen Beſcheid und ernſthaftes Urtheil über ſie zu ertheilen zu wiſſen. Dieſer Anfang der Bildung wird aber zunächſt dem Ernſte des erfüllten Lebens Platz machen, der in die Erfahrung der Sache ſelbſt hineinführt, und wenn auch diſs noch hinzukommt, daſs der Ernſt des Begriffs in ihre Tiefe ſteigt, ſo wird eine ſolche Kenntniſs und Beurtheilung in der Converſation ihre ſchickliche Stelle behalten.
5 Die wahre Geſtalt, in welcher die Wahrheit exiſtirt, kann allein das wiſſenſchafftliche Syſtem derſelben ſeyn. Daran mitzuarbeiten, daſs die Philoſophie der Form der Wiſſenſchaft näher komme, — dem Ziele, ihren Nahmen der Liebe zum Wiſſen ablegen zu können und wirkliches Wiſſen zu ſeyn, — iſt es, was ich mir vorgeſetzt. Die innere Nothwendigkeit, daſs das Wiſſen Wiſſenſchaft ſey, liegt in ſeiner Natur, 1807 VII und die befriedigende Erklärung hierüber iſt allein die Darſtellung der Philoſophie ſelbſt. Die äuſſere Nothwendigkeit aber, in ſo fern ſie, abgeſehen von der Zufälligkeit der Perſon und der individuellen Veranlaſſungen, auf eine allgemeine Weiſe gefaſst wird, iſt daſſelbe, was die innere, in der Geſtalt wie die Zeit das Daſeyn ihrer Momente vorſtellt. Daſs die Erhebung der Philoſophie zur Wiſſenſchaft an der Zeit iſt, diſs aufzuzeigen würde daher die einzig wahre Rechtfertigung der Verſuche ſeyn, die dieſen Zweck haben, weil ſie die Nothwendigkeit deſſelben darthun, ja weil ſie ihn zugleich ausführen würde.
6 Indem die wahre Geſtalt der Wahrheit in die Wiſſenſchaftlichkeit geſetzt wird, — oder was daſſelbe iſt, indem die Wahrheit behauptet wird, an dem Begriffe allein das Element ihrer Exiſtenz zu haben, — ſo weiſs ich, daſs diſs im Widerſpruch mit einer Vorſtellung und deren Folgen zu ſtehen ſcheint, welche eine ſo groſse Anmaſsung als Ausbreitung in der Ueberzeugung des Zeitalters hat. Eine Erklärung über dieſen Widerſpruch ſcheint darum nicht überflüſsig; wenn ſie auch hier weiter nichts, als gleichfalls eine Verſicherung, wie das, gegen was ſie geht, ſeyn kann. Wenn nemlich das Wahre nur in 1807 VIII demjenigen oder vielmehr nur als dasjenige exiſtirt, was bald Anſchauung, bald unmittelbares Wiſſen des Abſoluten, Religion, das Seyn — nicht im Centrum der göttlichen Liebe, ſondern das Seyn deſſelben ſelbſt — genannt wird, ſo wird von da aus zugleich für die Darſtellung der Philoſophie vielmehr das Gegentheil der Form des Begriffs gefodert. Das Abſolute ſoll nicht begriffen, ſondern gefühlt und angeſchaut, nicht ſein Begriff, ſondern ſein Gefühl und Anſchauung ſollen das Wort führen und ausgeſprochen werden.
7 Wird die Erſcheinung einer ſolchen Foderung nach ihrem allgemeinern Zuſammenhange aufgefaſst, und auf die Stuffe geſehen, worauf der ſelbſtbewuſste Geiſt gegenwärtig ſteht, ſo iſt er über das ſubſtantielle Leben, das er ſonſt im Elemente des Gedankens führte, hinaus, — über dieſe Unmittelbarkeit ſeines Glaubens, über die Befriedigung und Sicherheit der Gewiſsheit, welche das Bewuſstſeyn von ſeiner Verſöhnung mit dem Weſen und deſſen allgemeiner, der innern und äuſſern, Gegenwart beſaſs. Er iſt nicht nur darüber hinausgegangen, in das andere Extrem der ſubſtanzloſen Reflexion ſeiner in ſich ſelbſt, ſondern auch über dieſe. Sein weſentliches Leben iſt ihm nicht nur verloren, 1807 IX er iſt auch dieſes Verluſtes, und der Endlichkeit, die ſein Inhalt iſt, bewuſst. Von den Trebern ſich wegwendend, daſs er im Argen liegt, bekennend und darauf ſchmähend, verlangt er nun von der Philoſophie nicht ſowohl das Wiſſen deſſen, was er iſt, als zur Herſtellung jener Subſtantialität und der Gediegenheit des Seyns erſt wieder durch ſie zu gelangen. Dieſem Bedürfniſſe ſoll ſie alſo nicht ſo ſehr die Verſchloſſenheit der Subſtanz aufſchlieſſen, und dieſe zum Selbſtbewuſstſeyn erheben, — nicht ſo ſehr ihr chaotiſches Bewuſstſeyn zur gedachten Ordnung und zur Einfachheit des Begriffes zurückbringen, als vielmehr die Sonderungen des Gedankens zuſammenſchütten, den unterſcheidenden Begriff unterdrücken und das Gefühl des Weſens herſtellen, nicht ſowohl Einſicht als Erbauung gewähren. Das Schöne, Heilige, Ewige, die Religion und Liebe ſind der Köder, der gefodert wird, um die Luſt zum Anbeiſſen zu erwecken, nicht der Begriff, ſondern die Ekſtaſe, nicht die kalt fortſchreitende Nothwendigkeit der Sache, ſondern die gährende Begeiſterung ſoll die Haltung und fortleitende Ausbreitung des Reichthums der Subſtanz ſeyn.
1807 X
8 Dieſer Foderung entſpricht die angeſtrengte und faſt eifernd und gereizt ſich zeigende Bemühung, die Menſchen aus der Verſunkenheit ins Sinnliche Gemeine und Einzelne herauszureiſſen und ihren Blick zu den Sternen aufzurichten; als ob ſie des Göttlichen ganz vergeſſend, mit Staub und Waſſer, wie der Wurm, auf dem Punkte ſich zu befriedigen ſtünden. Sonſt hatten ſie einen Himmel mit weitläuffigem Reichthume von Gedanken und Bildern ausgeſtattet. Von allem, was iſt, lag die Bedeutung in dem Lichtfaden, durch den es an den Himmel geknüpft war; an ihm, ſtatt in dieſer Gegenwart zu verweilen, glitt der Blick über ſie hinaus, zum göttlichen Weſen, zu einer, wenn man ſo ſagen kann, jenſeitigen Gegenwart hinauf. Das Auge des Geiſtes muſste mit Zwang auf das Irdiſche gerichtet und bey ihm feſtgehalten werden; und es hat einer langen Zeit bedurft, jene Klarheit, die nur das Ueberirdiſche hatte, in die Dumpfheit und Verworrenheit, worin der Sinn des Diſſeitigen lag, hineinzuarbeiten, und die Aufmerkſamkeit auf das Gegenwärtige als ſolches, welche Erfahrung genannt wurde, intereſſant und geltend zu machen. — Jetzt ſcheint die Noth des Gegentheils vorhanden, der Sinn ſo ſehr in das Irdiſche 1807 XI feſtgewurzelt, daſs es gleicher Gewalt bedarf, ihn darüber zu erheben. Der Geiſt zeigt ſich ſo arm, daſs er ſich, wie in der Sandwüſte der Wanderer nach einem einfachen Trunk Waſſers, nur nach dem dürftigen Gefühle des Göttlichen überhaupt für ſeine Erquickung zu ſehnen ſcheint. An dieſem, woran dem Geiſte genügt, iſt die Gröſse ſeines Verluſtes zu ermeſſen.
9 Dieſe Genügſamkeit des Empfangens oder Sparſamkeit des Gebens ziemt jedoch der Wiſſenſchaft nicht. Wer nur Erbauung ſucht, wer ſeine irdiſche Mannichfaltigkeit des Daſeyns und des Gedankens in Nebel einzuhüllen und nach dem unbeſtimmten Genuſſe dieſer unbeſtimmten Göttlichkeit verlangt, mag zuſehen, wo er diſs findet; er wird leicht ſelbſt ſich etwas vorzuſchwärmen und damit ſich aufzuſpreitzen die Mittel finden. Die Philoſophie aber muſs ſich hüten, erbaulich ſeyn zu wollen.
10 Noch weniger muſs dieſe Genügſamkeit, die auf die Wiſſenſchaft Verzicht thut, darauf Anſpruch machen, daſs ſolche Begeiſterung und Trübheit etwas höheres ſey als die Wiſſenſchaft. Dieſes prophetiſche Reden meynt gerade ſo recht im Mittelpunkte und der Tiefe zu bleiben, blickt verächtlich auf die 1807 XII Bestimmtheit (den Horos) und hält ſich abſichtlich von dem Begriffe und der Nothwendigkeit entfernt, als von der Reflexion, die nur in der Endlichkeit hauſse. Wie es aber eine leere Breite gibt, ſo auch eine leere Tiefe, wie eine Extenſion der Subſtanz, die ſich in endliche Mannichfaltigkeit ergieſst, ohne Kraft ſie zuſammenzuhalten, — ſo iſt diſs eine gehaltloſe Intenſität, welche als lautere Kraft ohne Ausbreitung ſich haltend, daſſelbe iſt, was die Oberflächlichkeit. Die Kraft des Geiſtes iſt nur ſo groſs als ihre Aeuſſerung, ſeine Tiefe nur ſo tief als er in ſeiner Auslegung ſich auszubreiten und ſich zu verlieren getraut. — Zugleich wenn diſs begriffloſe ſubſtantielle Wiſſen die Eigenheit des Selbſts in dem Weſen verſenkt zu haben und wahr und heilig zu philoſophiren vorgibt, ſo verbirgt es ſich, daſs es ſtatt dem Gotte ergeben zu ſeyn, durch die Verſchmähung des Maſses und der Beſtimmung vielmehr nur bald in ſich ſelbſt die Zufälligkeit des Inhalts, bald in ihm die eigne Willkühr gewähren läſst. — Indem ſie ſich dem ungebändigten Gähren der Subſtanz überlaſſen, meynen ſie, durch die Einhüllung des Selbſtbewuſstſeyns und Aufgeben des Verſtands, die Seinen zu ſeyn, denen Gott die Weisheit im Schlafe 1807 XIII gibt; was ſie ſo in der That im Schlafe empfangen und gebähren, ſind darum auch Träume.
11 Es iſt übrigens nicht ſchwer, zu ſehen, daſs unſre Zeit eine Zeit der Geburt und des Uebergangs zu einer neuen Periode iſt. Der Geiſt hat mit der bisherigen Welt ſeines Daſeyns und Vorſtellens gebrochen, und ſteht im Begriffe, es in die Vergangenheit hinab zuverſenken, und in der Arbeit ſeiner Umgeſtaltung. Zwar iſt er nie in Ruhe, ſondern in immer fortſchreitender Bewegung begriffen. Aber wie beym Kinde nach langer ſtiller Ernährung der erſte Athemzug jene Allmähligkeit des nur vermehrenden Fortgangs abbricht, — ein qualitativer Sprung — und itzt das Kind gebohren iſt, ſo reifft der ſich bildende Geiſt langſam und ſtille der neuen Geſtalt entgegen, löſst ein Theilgen des Baues ſeiner vorgehenden Welt nach dem andern auf, ihr Wanken wird nur durch einzelne Symptome angedeutet; der Leichtſinn wie die Langeweile, die im Beſtehenden einreiſſen, die unbeſtimmte Ahnung eines Unbekannten ſind Vorboten, daſs etwas Anderes im Anzuge iſt. Diſs allmählige Zerbrökeln, das die Phyſiognomie des Ganzen nicht veränderte, wird durch den Aufgang unterbrochen, der ein 1807 XIV Blitz in einemmahle das Gebilde der neuen Welt hinſtellt.
12 Allein eine vollkommne Wirklichkeit hat diſs Neue ſo wenig als das eben gebohrne Kind; und diſs iſt weſentlich nicht auſſer Acht zu laſſen. Das erſte Auftreten iſt erſt ſeine Unmittelbarkeit oder ſein Begriff. So wenig ein Gebäude fertig iſt, wenn ſein Grund gelegt worden, ſo wenig iſt der erreichte Begriff des Ganzen das Ganze ſelbſt. Wo wir eine Eiche in der Krafft ihres Stammes und in der Ausbreitung ihrer Aeſte und den Maſſen ihrer Belaubung zu ſehen wünſchen, ſind wir nicht zufrieden, wenn uns an dieſer Stelle eine Eichel gezeigt wird. So iſt die Wiſſenſchaft, die Krone einer Welt des Geiſtes, nicht in ihrem Anfange vollendet. Der Anfang des neuen Geiſtes iſt das Product einer weitläuffigen Umwälzung von mannichfaltigen Bildungsformen, der Preis eines vielfach verſchlungnen Weges und eben ſo vielfacher Anſtrengung und Bemühung. Er iſt das aus der Succeſsion wie aus ſeiner Ausdehnung in ſich zurückgegangene Ganze, der gewordne einfache Begriff deſſelben. Die Wirklichkeit dieſes einfachen Ganzen aber beſteht darin, daſs jene zu Momenten gewordne Geſtaltungen ſich wieder von neuem, aber in ihrem 1807 XV neuen Elemente, in dem gewordenen Sinne entwickeln und Geſtaltung geben.
13 Indem einerſeits die erſte Erſcheinung der neuen Welt nur erſt das in ſeine Einfachheit verhüllte Ganze oder ſein allgemeiner Grund iſt, ſo iſt dem Bewuſstſeyn dagegen der Reichthum des vorhergehenden Daſeyns noch in der Erinnerung gegenwärtig. Es vermiſst an der neu erſcheinenden Geſtalt die Ausbreitung und Beſonderung des Inhalts; noch mehr aber vermiſst es die Ausbildung der Form, wodurch die Unterſchiede mit Sicherheit beſtimmt und in ihre feſten Verhältniſſe geordnet ſind. Ohne dieſe Ausbildung entbehrt die Wiſſenſchaft der allgemeinen Verſtändlichkeit, und hat den Schein, ein eſoteriſches Beſitzthum einiger Einzelnen zu ſeyn; — ein eſoteriſches Beſitzthum: denn ſie iſt nur erſt in ihrem Begriffe oder ihr Innres vorhanden; einiger Einzelnen: denn ihre unausgebreitete Erſcheinung macht ihr Daſeyn zum Einzelnen. Erſt was vollkommen beſtimmt iſt, iſt zugleich exoteriſch, begreifflich, und fähig, gelernt und das Eigenthum Aller zu ſeyn. Die verſtändige Form der Wiſſenſchaft iſt der Allen dargebotene und für Alle gleichgemachte Weg zu ihr, und durch den Verſtand zum vernünftigen Wiſſen zu gelangen iſt die 1807 XVI gerechte Foderung des Bewuſstſeyns, das zur Wiſſenſchaft hinzutritt; denn der Verſtand iſt das Denken, das reine Ich überhaupt; und das Verſtändige iſt das ſchon bekannte und das gemeinſchaftliche der Wiſſenſchaft und des unwiſſenſchaftlichen Bewuſstſeyns, wodurch dieſes unmittelbar in jene einzutreten vermag.
14 Die Wiſſenſchaft, die erſt beginnt, und es alſo noch weder zur Vollſtändigkeit des Details noch zur Vollkommenheit der Form gebracht hat, iſt dem Tadel darüber ausgeſetzt. Aber wenn dieſer ihr Weſen treffen ſoll, ſo würde er ebenſo ungerecht ſeyn, als es unſtatthaft iſt, die Foderung jener Ausbildung nicht anerkennen zu wollen. Dieſer Gegenſatz ſcheint der hauptſächlichſte Knoten zu ſeyn, an dem die wiſſenſchaftliche Bildung ſich gegenwärtig zerarbeitet und worüber ſie ſich noch nicht gehörig verſteht. Der eine Theil pocht auf den Reichthum des Materials und die Verſtändlichkeit, der andre verſchmäht wenigſtens dieſe und pocht auf die unmittelbare Vernünftigkeit und Göttlichkeit. Wenn auch jener Theil, es ſey durch die Kraft der Wahrheit allein oder auch durch das Ungeſtüm des andern zum Stillſchweigen gebracht iſt, und wenn er in Anſehung des Grunds der Sache ſich überwältigt 1807 XVII fühlte, ſo iſt er darum in Anſehung jener Foderungen nicht befriedigt, denn ſie ſind gerecht, aber nicht erfüllt. Sein Stillſchweigen gehört nur halb dem Siege, halb aber der Langeweile und Gleichgültigkeit, welche die Folge einer beſtändig erregten Erwartung und nicht erfolgten Erfüllung der Verſprechungen zu ſeyn pflegt.
15 In Anſehung des Inhalts machen die Andern ſich es wohl zuweilen leicht genug, eine groſse Ausdehnung zu haben. Sie ziehen auf ihren Boden eine Menge Material, nemlich das ſchon Bekannte und Geordnete, herein, und indem ſie ſich vornemlich mit den Sonderbarkeiten und Curioſitäten zu thun machen, ſcheinen ſie um ſo mehr das übrige, womit das Wiſſen in ſeiner Art ſchon fertig war, zu beſitzen, zugleich auch das noch ungeregelte zu beherrſchen, und ſomit alles der abſoluten Idee zu unterwerfen, welche hiemit in Allem erkannt, und zur ausgebreiteten Wiſſenſchaft gediehen zu ſeyn ſcheint. Näher aber dieſe Ausbreitung betrachtet, ſo zeigt ſie ſich nicht dadurch zu Stande gekommen, daſs ein und daſſelbe ſich ſelbſt verſchieden geſtaltet hätte, ſondern ſie iſt die geſtaltloſe Wiederhohlung des Einen und Deſſelben, das nur an das verſchiedene Material äuſſerlich 1807 XVIII angewendet iſt, und einen langweiligen Schein der Verſchiedenheit erhält. Die für ſich wohl wahre Idee bleibt in der That nur immer in ihrem Anfange ſtehen, wenn die Entwicklung in nichts als in einer ſolchen Wiederholung derſelben Formel beſteht. Die Eine unbewegte Form vom wiſſenden Subjecte an dem Vorhandenen herumgeführt, das Material in diſs ruhende Element von auſſenher eingetaucht, diſs iſt ſo wenig, als willkührliche Einfälle über den Inhalt, die Erfüllung deſſen, was gefodert wird, nemlich der aus ſich entſpringende Reichthum und ſich ſelbſt beſtimmende Unterſchied der Geſtalten. Es iſt vielmehr ein einfärbiger Formalismus, der nur zum Unterſchiede des Stoffes und zwar dadurch kommt, weil dieſer ſchon bereitet und bekannt iſt.
16 Dabey behauptet er dieſe Eintönigkeit und die abſtracte Allgemeinheit für das Abſolute; er verſichert, daſs die Ungenügſamkeit mit ihr eine Unfähigkeit ſey, ſich des abſoluten Standpunktes zu bemächtigen und auf ihm feſt zu halten. Wenn ſonſt die leere Möglichkeit ſich etwas auf eine andere Weiſe vorzuſtellen hinreichte, um eine Vorſtellung zu widerlegen, und dieſelbe bloſſe Möglichkeit, der allgemeine Gedanke, auch den ganzen poſitiven 1807 XIX Werth des wirklichen Erkennens hatte, ſo ſehen wir hier ebenſo der allgemeinen Idee in dieſer Form der Unwirklichkeit allen Werth zugeſchrieben, und die Auflöſung des Unterſchiedenen und Beſtimmten, oder vielmehr das weiter nicht entwickelte noch an ihm ſelbſt ſich rechtfertigende Hinunterwerfen deſſelben in den Abgrund des Leeren für ſpeculative Betrachtungsart gelten. Irgend ein Daſeyn, wie es im Abſoluten iſt, betrachten, beſteht hier in nichts anderem, als daſs davon geſagt wird, es ſey zwar jetzt von ihm geſprochen worden, als von einem Etwas, im Abſoluten, dem A = A, jedoch gebe es dergleichen gar nicht, ſondern darin ſey alles Eins. Diſs Eine Wiſſen, daſs im Abſoluten Alles gleich iſt, der unterſcheidenden und erfüllten oder Erfüllung ſuchenden und fodernden Erkenntniſs entgegenzuſetzen, — oder ſein Abſolutes für die Nacht auszugeben, worin, wie man zu ſagen pflegt, alle Kühe ſchwarz ſind; iſt die Naivität der Leere an Erkenntniſs. — Der Formalismus, den die Philoſophie neuerer Zeit verklagt und geſchmäht, und der ſich in ihr ſelbſt wieder erzeugte, wird, wenn auch ſeine Ungenügſamkeit bekannt und gefühlt iſt, aus der Wiſſenſchaft nicht verſchwinden, bis das Erkennen der abſoluten Wirklichkeit 1807 XX ſich über ſeine Natur vollkommen klar geworden iſt. — In der Rückſicht, daſs die allgemeine Vorſtellung, wenn ſie dem, was ein Verſuch ihrer Ausführung iſt, vorangeht, das Auffaſſen der letztern erleichtert, iſt es dienlich das Ungefähre derſelben hier anzudeuten, in der Abſicht zugleich, bey dieſer Gelegenheit einige Formen zu entfernen, deren Gewohnheit ein Hinderniſs für das philoſophiſche Erkennen iſt.
17 Es kömmt nach meiner Einſicht, welche ſich durch die Darſtellung des Syſtems ſelbſt rechtfertigen muſs, alles darauf an, das Wahre nicht als Subſtanz, ſondern eben ſo ſehr als Subject aufzufaſſen und auszudrücken. Zugleich iſt zu bemerken, daſs die Subſtantialität ſo ſehr das Allgemeine, oder die Unmittelbarkeit des Wiſſens, als diejenige, welche Seyn oder Unmittelbarkeit für das Wiſſen iſt, in ſich ſchlieſst. — Wenn, Gott als die Eine Subſtanz zu faſſen, das Zeitalter empörte, worin dieſe Beſtimmung ausgeſprochen wurde, ſo lag theils der Grund hievon in dem Inſtincte, daſs darin das Selbſtbewuſstſeyn nur untergegangen, nicht erhalten iſt, theils aber iſt das Gegentheil, welches das Denken als Denken feſthält, die Allgemeinheit, dieſelbe Einfachheit oder 1807 XXI ununterſchiedne, unbewegte Subſtantialität, und wenn drittens das Denken das Seyn der Subſtanz als ſolche mit ſich vereint und die Unmittelbarkeit oder das Anſchauen als Denken erfaſst, ſo kömmt es noch darauf an, ob dieſes intellectuelle Anſchauen nicht wieder in die träge Einfachheit zurückfällt, und die Wirklichkeit ſelbſt auf eine unwirkliche Weiſe darſtellt.
18 Die lebendige Subſtanz iſt ferner das Seyn, welches in Wahrheit Subject, oder was daſſelbe heiſst, welches in Wahrheit wirklich iſt, nur inſofern ſie die Bewegung des ſich ſelbſt Setzens, oder die Vermittlung des ſich anders Werdens mit ſich ſelbſt iſt. Sie iſt als Subject die reine einfache Negativität, ebendadurch die Entzweyung des Einfachen, oder die entgegenſetzende Verdopplung, welche wieder die Negation dieſer gleichgültigen Verſchiedenheit und ihres Gegenſatzes iſt; nur dieſe ſich wiederherſtellende Gleichheit oder die Reflexion im Andersſeyn in ſich ſelbſt — nicht eine urſprüngliche Einheit als ſolche, oder unmittelbare als ſolche, iſt das Wahre. Es iſt das Werden ſeiner ſelbſt, der Kreis, der ſein Ende als ſeinen Zweck vorausſetzt und zum Anfange hat, und nur durch die Ausführung und ſein Ende wirklich iſt.
1807 XXII
19 Das Leben Gottes und das göttliche Erkennen mag alſo wohl als ein Spielen der Liebe mit ſich ſelbſt ausgeſprochen werden; dieſe Idee ſinkt zur Erbaulichkeit und ſelbſt zur Fadheit herab, wenn der Ernſt, der Schmerz, die Geduld und Arbeit des Negativen darin fehlt. An ſich iſt jenes Leben wohl die ungetrübte Gleichheit und Einheit mit ſich ſelbſt, der es kein Ernſt mit dem Andersſeyn und der Entfremdung, ſo wie mit dem Ueberwinden dieſer Entfremdung iſt. Aber diſs An ſich iſt die abſtracte Allgemeinheit, in welcher von ſeiner Natur, für ſich zu ſeyn, und damit überhaupt von der Selbſtbewegung der Form abgeſehen wird. Wenn die Form als dem Weſen gleich ausgeſagt wird, ſo iſt es ebendarum ein Miſsverſtand, zu meynen, daſs das Erkennen ſich mit dem Anſich oder dem Weſen begnügen, die Form aber erſparen könne; — daſs der abſolute Grundſatz oder die abſolute Anſchauung, die Ausführung des erſtern oder die Entwicklung der andern entbehrlich mache. Gerade weil die Form dem Weſen ſo weſentlich iſt, als es ſich ſelbſt, iſt es nicht bloſs als Weſen, d. h. als unmittelbare Subſtanz, oder als reine Selbſtanſchauung des Göttlichen zu faſſen und auszudrücken, ſondern ebenſoſehr als Form und 1807 XXIII im ganzen Reichthum der entwickelten Form; dadurch wird es erſt als Wirkliches gefaſst und ausgedrückt.
20 Das Wahre iſt das Ganze. Das Ganze aber iſt nur das durch ſeine Entwicklung ſich vollendende Weſen. Es iſt von dem Abſoluten zu ſagen, daſs es weſentlich Reſultat, daſs es erſt am Ende das iſt, was es in Wahrheit iſt; und hierin eben beſteht ſeine Natur, Wirkliches, Subject, oder ſich ſelbſt Werden, zu ſeyn. So widerſprechend es ſcheinen mag, daſs das Abſolute weſentlich als Reſultat zu begreiffen ſey, ſo ſtellt doch eine geringe Ueberlegung dieſen Schein von Widerſpruch zurecht. Der Anfang, das Princip, oder das Abſolute, wie es zuerſt und unmittelbar ausgeſprochen wird, iſt nur das Allgemeine. So wenig, wenn ich ſage: alle Thiere, diſs Wort für eine Zoologie gelten kann, ebenſo fällt es auf, daſs die Worte des Göttlichen, Abſoluten, Ewigen u. ſ. w. das nicht ausſprechen, was darin enthalten iſt; — und nur ſolche Worte drücken in der That die Anſchauung als das Unmittelbare aus. Was mehr iſt, als ein ſolches Wort, der Uebergang auch nur zu einem Satze, iſt ein Anderswerden, das zurückgenommen werden muſs, iſt eine Vermittlung. Dieſe aber iſt das, was perhorreſcirt 1807 XXIV wird, als ob dadurch, daſs mehr aus ihr gemacht wird denn nur diſs, daſs ſie nichts abſolutes und im Abſoluten gar nicht ſey, die abſolute Erkenntniſs aufgegeben wäre.
21 Diſs Perhorreſciren ſtammt aber in der That aus der Unbekanntſchaft mit der Natur der Vermittlung und des abſoluten Erkennens ſelbſt. Denn die Vermittlung iſt nichts anders als die ſich bewegende Sichſelbſtgleichheit, oder ſie iſt die Reflexion in ſich ſelbſt, das Moment des fürſichſeyenden Ich, die reine Negativität oder das einfache Werden. Das Ich, oder das Werden überhaupt, dieſes Vermitteln iſt um ſeiner Einfachheit willen eben die werdende Unmittelbarkeit und das Unmittelbare ſelbſt. — Es iſt daher ein Verkennen der Vernunft, wenn die Reflexion aus dem Wahren ausgeſchloſſen und nicht als poſitives Moment des Abſoluten erfaſst wird. Sie iſt es, die das Wahre zum Reſultate macht, aber dieſen Gegenſatz gegen ſein Werden ebenſo aufhebt, denn diſs Werden iſt ebenſo einfach und daher von der Form des Wahren, im Reſultate ſich als einfach zu zeigen, nicht verſchieden; es iſt vielmehr eben diſs Zurückgegangenſeyn in die Einfachheit. — Wenn der Embryo wohl an ſich Menſch iſt, ſo iſt er es aber nicht für ſich; für ſich iſt er es nur, 1807 XXV als gebildete Vernunft, die ſich zu dem gemacht hat, was ſie an ſich iſt. Diſs erſt iſt ihre Wirklichkeit. Aber diſs Reſultat iſt ſelbſt einfache Unmittelbarkeit, denn es iſt die ſelbſtbewuſste Freyheit, die in ſich ſelbſt ruht, und den Gegenſatz nicht auf die Seite gebracht hat und ihn da liegen läſst, ſondern mit ihm verſöhnt iſt.
22 Das Geſagte kann auch ſo ausgedrückt werden, daſs die Vernunft das zweckmäſsige Thun iſt. Die Erhebung der vermeinten Natur über das miskannte Denken, und zunächſt die Verbannung der äuſſern Zweckmäſsigkeit hat die Form des Zwecks überhaupt in Miſskredit gebracht. Allein, wie auch Ariſtoteles die Natur als das zweckmäſsige Thun beſtimmt, der Zweck iſt das Unmittelbare, das Ruhende, welches ſelbſt bewegend, oder Subject iſt. Seine abſtracte Krafft zu bewegen iſt das Fürſichſeyn oder die reine Negativität. Das Reſultat iſt nur darum daſſelbe, was der Anfang, weil der Anfang Zweck iſt; — oder das Wirkliche iſt nur darum daſſelbe, was ſein Begriff, weil das Unmittelbare als Zweck das Selbſt oder die reine Wirklichkeit in ihm ſelbſt hat. Der ausgeführte Zweck oder das daſeyende Wirkliche iſt die Bewegung und das entfaltete 1807 XXVI Werden; eben dieſe Unruhe aber iſt das Selbſt; und jener Unmittelbarkeit und Einfachheit des Anfangs iſt es darum gleich, weil es das Reſultat, das in ſich Zurückgekehrte, — das in ſich Zurückgekehrte aber eben das Selbſt, und das Selbſt die ſich auf ſich beziehende Gleichheit und Einfachheit iſt.
23 Das Bedürfniſs, das Abſolute als Subject vorzuſtellen, bediente ſich der Sätze: Gott iſt das Ewige, oder die moraliſche Weltordnung oder die Liebe u. ſ. f. In ſolchen Sätzen iſt das Wahre nur geradezu als Subject geſetzt, nicht aber als die Bewegung des ſich in ſich ſelbſt Reflectirens dargeſtellt. Es wird in einem Satze der Art mit dem Worte: Gott, angefangen. Diſs für ſich iſt ein ſinnloſer Laut, ein bloſſer Nahme; erſt das Prädicat ſagt, was er iſt, iſt ſeine Erfüllung und Bedeutung; der leere Anfang wird nur in dieſem Ende ein wirkliches Wiſſen. Inſofern iſt nicht abzuſehen, warum nicht vom Ewigen, der moraliſchen Weltordnung u. ſ. f. oder wie die Alten thaten, von reinen Begriffen, dem Seyn, dem Einen u. ſ. f. von dem, was die Bedeutung iſt, allein geſprochen wird, ohne den ſinnloſen Laut noch hinzuzufügen. Aber durch daſs Wort wird eben bezeichnet, daſs nicht ein Seyn oder Weſen 1807 XXVII oder Allgemeines überhaupt, ſondern ein in ſich reflectirtes, ein Subject geſetzt iſt. Allein zugleich iſt diſs nur anticipirt. Das Subject iſt als feſter Punkt angenommen, an den als ihren Halt die Prädicate geheftet find, durch eine Bewegung, die dem von ihm Wiſſenden angehört, und die auch nicht dafür angeſehen wird, dem Punkte ſelbſt anzugehören; durch ſie aber wäre allein der Inhalt als Subject dargeſtellt. In der Art, wie dieſe Bewegung beſchaffen iſt, kann ſie ihm nicht angehören; aber nach Vorausſetzung jenes Punkts kann ſie auch nicht anders beſchaffen, kann ſie nur äuſſerlich ſeyn. Jene Anticipation, daſs das Abſolute Subject iſt, iſt daher nicht nur nicht die Wirklichkeit dieſes Begriffs, ſondern macht ſie ſogar unmöglich, denn jene ſetzt ihn als ruhenden Punkt, dieſe aber iſt die Selbſtbewegung.
24 Unter mancherley Folgerungen, die aus dem Geſagten flieſsen, kann dieſe herausgehoben werden, daſs das Wiſſen nur als Wiſſenſchafft oder als Syſtem wirklich iſt, und dargeſtellt werden kann. Daſs ferner ein ſogenannter Grundſatz oder Princip der Philoſophie, wenn es wahr iſt, ſchon darum auch falſch iſt, weil er Grundſatz oder Princip iſt. — Es iſt deſswegen leicht ihn zu widerlegen. Die 1807 XXVIII Widerlegung beſteht darin, daſs ſein Mangel aufgezeigt wird; mangelhaft aber iſt er, weil er nur das Allgemeine oder Princip, der Anfang, iſt. Iſt die Widerlegung gründlich, ſo iſt ſie aus ihm ſelbſt genommen und entwickelt, — nicht durch entgegengeſetzte Verſicherungen und Einfälle von auſſenher bewerkſtelligt. Sie würde alſo eigentlich ſeine Entwicklung und ſomit die Ergänzung ſeiner Mangelhaftigkeit ſeyn, wenn ſie ſich nicht darin verkännte, daſs ſie ihre negative Seite allein beachtet, und ihres Fortgangs und Reſultates nicht auch nach ſeiner poſitiven Seite bewuſst wird. — Die eigentliche poſitive Ausführung des Anfangs iſt zugleich umgekehrt ebenſoſehr ein negatives Verhalten gegen ihn, nemlich gegen ſeine einſeitige Form, erſt unmittelbar oder Zweck zu ſeyn. Sie kann ſomit eben ſo ſehr als die Widerlegung desjenigen genommen werden, was den Grund des Syſtems ausmacht, beſſer aber, als ein Aufzeigen, daſs der Grund oder das Princip des Syſtems in der That nur ſein Anfang iſt.
25 Daſs das Wahre nur als Syſtem wirklich, oder daſs die Subſtanz weſentlich Subject iſt, iſt in der Vorſtellung ausgedrückt, welche das Abſolute als Geiſt ausſpricht, — der erhabenſte Begriff, und der der neuern Zeit und ihrer 1807 XXIX Religion angehört. Das Geiſtige allein iſt das Wirkliche; es iſt das Weſen oder an ſich ſeyende, — das ſich Verhaltende oder beſtimmte, das Andersſeyn und Fürſichſeyn — und in dieſer Beſtimmtheit oder ſeinem Auſſerſichſeyn in ſich ſelbſt bleibende; — oder es iſt an und für ſich. — Diſs an und für ſich ſeyn aber iſt es erſt für uns oder an ſich, oder es iſt die geiſtige Subſtanz. Es muſs diſs auch für ſich ſelbſt, — muſs das Wiſſen von dem Geiſtigen und das Wiſſen von ſich als dem Geiſte ſeyn; das heiſst, es muſs ſich als Gegenſtand ſeyn, aber eben ſo unmittelbar als vermittelter das heiſst aufgehobener, in ſich reflectirter Gegenſtand. Er iſt für ſich nur für uns, in ſo fern ſein geiſtiger Inhalt durch ihn ſelbſt erzeugt iſt; in ſo fern er aber auch für ſich ſelbſt für ſich iſt, ſo iſt dieſes Selbſterzeugen, der reine Begriff, ihm zugleich das gegenſtändliche Element, worin er ſein Daſeyn hat; und er iſt auf dieſe Weiſe in ſeinem Daſeyn für ſich ſelbſt in ſich reflectirter Gegenſtand. — Der Geiſt, der ſich ſo als Geiſt weiſs, iſt die Wiſſenſchaft. Sie iſt ſeine Wirklichkeit und das Reich, das er ſich in ſeinem eigenen Elemente erbaut.
26 Das reine Selbſterkennen im abſoluten Andersſeyn, dieſer Aether als ſolcher, iſt der Grund 1807 XXX und Boden der Wiſſenſchaft oder das Wiſſen im Allgemeinen. Der Anfang der Philoſophie macht die Vorausſetzung oder Foderung, daſs das Bewuſstſeyn ſich in dieſem Elemente befinde. Aber dieſes Element hat ſeine Vollendung und Durchſichtigkeit ſelbſt nur durch die Bewegung ſeines Werdens. Es iſt die reine Geiſtigkeit, oder das Allgemeine, das die Weiſe der einfachen Unmittelbarkeit hat. Weil es die Unmittelbarkeit des Geiſtes, weil die Subſtanz überhaupt der Geiſt iſt, iſt ſie die verklärte Weſenheit, die Reflexion, die ſelbſt einfach oder die Unmittelbarkeit iſt, das Seyn, das die Reflexion in ſich ſelbſt iſt. Die Wiſſenſchaft von ihrer Seite verlangt vom Selbſtbewuſstſeyn, daſs es in dieſen Aether ſich erhoben habe, um mit ihr und in ihr leben zu können und zu leben. Umgekehrt hat das Individuum das Recht zu fodern, daſs die Wiſſenſchaft ihm die Leiter wenigſtens zu dieſem Standpunkte reiche. Sein Recht gründet ſich auf ſeine abſolute Selbſtſtändigkeit, die es in jeder Geſtalt ſeines Wiſſens zu beſitzen weiſs, denn in jeder, ſey ſie von der Wiſſenſchaft anerkannt oder nicht, und der Inhalt ſey welcher er wolle, iſt es die abſolute Form zugleich oder hat die unmittelbare Gewiſsheit ſeiner ſelbſt; und, wenn dieſer Ausdruck 1807 XXXI vorgezogen würde, damit unbedingtes Seyn. Wenn der Standpunkt des Bewuſstſeyns, von gegenſtändlichen Dingen im Gegenſatze gegen ſich ſelbſt, und von ſich ſelbſt im Gegenſatze gegen ſie zu wiſsen, der Wiſſenſchafft als das Andre gilt, — das, worin es bey ſich ſelbſt iſt, vielmehr, als der Verluſt des Geiſtes, — ſo iſt ihm dagegen das Element der Wiſſenſchaft eine jenſeitige Ferne, worin es nicht mehr ſich ſelbſt beſitzt. Jeder von dieſen beyden Theilen ſcheint für den andern das Verkehrte der Wahrheit zu ſeyn. Daſs das natürliche Bewuſstſeyn ſich der Wiſſenſchaft unmittelbar anvertraut, iſt ein Verſuch, den es, es weiſs nicht von was angezogen, macht, auch einmal auf dem Kopfe zu gehen; der Zwang dieſe ungewohnte Stellung anzunehmen und ſich in ihr zu bewegen iſt eine ſo unvorbereitete als unnöthig ſcheinende Gewalt, die ihm angemuthet wird, ſich anzuthun. — Die Wiſſenſchaft ſey an ihr ſelbſt, was ſie will, im Verhältniſſe zum unmittelbaren Selbſtbewuſstſeyn ſtellt ſie ſich als ein Verkehrtes gegen es dar, oder weil das unmittelbare Selbſtbewuſstſeyn das Princip der Wirklichkeit iſt, trägt ſie, indem es für ſich auſſer ihr iſt, die Form der Unwirklichkeit. Sie hat darum jenes Element mit ihr zu vereinigen, 1807 XXXII oder vielmehr zu zeigen, daſs und wie es ihr ſelbſt angehört. Der Wirklichkeit entbehrend, iſt ſie nur das An ſich, der Zweck, der erſt noch ein Innres, nicht als Geiſt, nur erſt geiſtige Subſtanz iſt. Sie hat ſich zu äuſſern und für ſich ſelbſt zu werden, diſs heiſst nichts anders, als ſie hat das Selbſtbewuſstſeyn als eins mit ſich zu ſetzen.
27 Diſs Werden der Wiſſenſchaft überhaupt, oder des Wiſſens, iſt es, was dieſe Phänomenologie des Geiſtes, als der erſte Theil des Systems derſelben, darſtellt. Das Wiſſen, wie es zuerſt iſt, oder der unmittelbare Geiſt iſt das geiſtloſe, oder iſt das ſinnliche Bewuſstſeyn. Um zum eigentlichen Wiſſen zu werden, oder das Element der Wiſſenſchaft, was ihr reiner Begriff iſt, zu erzeugen, hat er durch einen langen Weg ſich hindurch zu arbeiten. — Dieſes Werden, wie es in ſeinem Inhalte und den Geſtalten, die ſich in ihm zeigen, aufgeſtellt iſt, erſcheint als etwas anderes, denn als die Anleitung des unwiſſenſchaftlichen Bewuſstſeyns zur Wiſſenſchaft; auch etwas anderes, als die Begründung der Wiſſenſchaft; — ſo ohnehin, als die Begeiſterung, die wie aus der Piſtole mit dem abſoluten Wiſſen unmittelbar anfängt, und mit andern Standpunkten dadurch ſchon fertig 1807 XXXIII ist, daſs ſie keine Notiz davon zu nehmen erklärt.
28 Die Aufgabe aber, das Individuum von seinem ungebildeten Standpunkte aus zum Wiſſen zu führen, war in ihrem allgemeinen Sinn zu faſſen, und das allgemeine Individuum, der Weltgeiſt, in seiner Bildung zu betrachten. — Was das Verhältniſs beyder betrifft, so zeigt ſich in dem allgemeinen Individuum jedes Moment, wie es die concrete Form und eigne Geſtaltung gewinnt. Das besondre Individuum aber iſt der unvollſtändige Geiſt, eine concrete Geſtalt, deren ganzes Daseyn Einer Bestimmtheit zufällt, und worin die andern nur in verwischten Zügen vorhanden sind. In dem Geiſte, der höher ſteht als ein anderer, iſt das niedrigere eoncrete Daseyn zu einem unscheinbaren Momente herabgesunken; was vorher die Sache selbſt war, iſt nur noch eine Spur; ihre Geſtalt iſt eingehüllt und eine einfache Schattirung geworden. Diese Vergangenheit durchläufft das Individuum, deſſen Subſtanz der höher ſtohende Geiſt ist, auf die Art, wie der eine höhere Wiſſenschaft vornimmt, die Vorbereitungskenntniſſe, die er längſt inne hat, um ſich ihren Inhalte gegenwärtig zu machen, durchgeht; er rufſt die Erinnerung deſſelben zurück, ohne 1807 XXXIV darin sein Intereſſe und Verweilen zu haben. So durchlaufft jeder einzelne auch die Bildungsſtuffen des allgemeinen Geiſtes, aber als vom Geiſte schon abgelegte Geſtalten, als Stuffen eines Wegs, der ausgearbeitet und geebnet iſt; wie wir in Ansehung der Kenntniſſe das, was in frühern Zeitaltern den reifen Geiſt der Männer beschäfftigte, zu Kenntniſſen, Uebungen und selbſt Spielen des Knabensalters herabgesunken sehen, und in dem pädagogischen Fortschreiten die wie im Schattenriſſe nachgezeichnete Geschichte der Bildung der Welt erkennen werden. Diſs vergangne Daseyn iſt schon erworbnes Eigenthum des allgemeinen Geiſtes, der die Subſtanz des Individuums oder seine unorganische Natur ausmacht. — Die Bildung des Individuums in dieser Rückſicht beſteht, von seiner Seite aus betrachtet, darin, daſs es diſs Vorhandne erwerbe, seine unorganische Natur in ſich zehre und für ſich in Beſitz nehme. Diſs iſt aber ebensosehr nichts anders, als daſs der allgemeine Geiſt oder die Subſtanz ſich ihr Selbſtbewuſstseyn gibt, oder ihr Werden und Reflexion in ſich.
29 Die Wiſſenſchaft ſtellt diese bildende Bewegung sowohl in ihrer Ausführlichkeit und Nothwendigkeit, als das, was schon zum 1807 XXXV Momente und Eigenthum des Geists herabgesunken ist, in seiner Gestaltung dar. Das Ziel ist die Einsicht des Geistes in das, was das Wissen ist. Die Ungeduld verlangt das Unmögliche, nemlich die Erreichung des Ziels ohne die Mittel. Einestheils ist die Länge dieses Wegs zu ertragen, denn jedes Moment ist nothwendig, — anderntheils bey jedem ſich zu verweilen, denn jedes ist selbst eine individuelle ganze Gestalt, und wird nur absolut betrachtet, insofern seine Beſtimmtheit als Ganzes oder Concretes, oder das Ganze in der Eigenthümlichkeit dieser Bestimmung betrachtet wird. — Weil die Substanz des Individuums, weil der Weltgeist die Geduld gehabt, diese Formen in der langen Ausdehnung der Zeit zu durchgehen und die ungeheure Arbeit der Weltgeschichte zu übernehmen, und weil er dusch keine geringere das Bewuſstseyn über sich erreichen konnte, so kann zwar das Individuum nicht mit weniger séine Substanz begreiffen. Inzwischen hat es zugleich geringere Mühe, weil an ſich diſs vollbracht, — der Inhalt schon die zur Möglichkeit getilgte Wirklichkeit und die bezwungne Unmittelbarkeit ist. Schon ein gedachtes, ist er Eigenthum der Individualität; es ist nicht mehr das Daseyn in das Anſichseyn, 1807 XXXVI sondern nur das Anſich in die Form des Fürſichseyns umzukehren, deſſen Art näher zu bestimmen ist.
30 Was dem Individuum an dieser Bewegung erspart ist, ist das Aufheben des Daseyns; was aber noch übrig ist, ist die Vorſtellung und die Bekanntschaft mit den Formen. Das in die Substanz zurückgenommne Daseyn ist durch jene erste Negation nur erst unmittelbar in das Element des Selbsts versetzt; es hat also noch denselben Charakter dér unbegriffnen Unmittelbarkeit oder unbewegten Gleichgültigkeit als das Daseyn selbst, oder es ist nur in die Vorſtellung übergegangen. — Zugleich ist es dadurch ein Bekanntes, ein solches, mit dem der Geist fertig geworden, worin daher seine Thätigkeit und somit sein Intereſſe nicht mehr ist. Wenn die Thätigkeit, die mit dem Daseyn fertig wird, die unmittelbare oder daseyende Vermittlung, und hiemit die Bewegung nur des besondern ſich nicht begreiffenden Geistes ist, so ist dagegen das Wiſſen gegen die hiedurch zu Stande gekommne Vorstellung, gegen diſs Bekanntseyn gerichtet, ist das Thun des allgemeinen Selbsts und das Intereſſe des Denkens.
31 Das Bekannte überhaupt ist darum, weil es bekannt ist, nicht erkannt. Es ist die 1807 XXXVII gewöhnlichste Selbsttäuschung wie Täuschung anderer, beym Erkennen etwas als bekannt voraus zu setzen, und es sich ebenso gefallen zu laſſen; mit allem Hin- und Herreden kommt solches Wiſſen, ohne zu wiſſen wie ihm geschieht, nicht von der Stelle. Das Subject und Object, u. s. f. Gott, Natur, der Verstand, die Sinnlichkeit u. s. f. werden unbesehen als bekannt und als etwas gültiges zu Grunde gelegt, und machen feste Punkte sowohl des Ausgangs als der Rückkehr aus. Die Bewegung geht zwischen ihnen, die unbewegt bleiben, hin und her, und somit nur auf ihrer Oberfläche vor. So besteht auch das Auffaſſen und Prüſſen darin, zu sehen, ob jeder das von ihnen gesagte auch in seiner Vorstellung findet, ob es ihm so scheint und bekannt ist oder nicht.
32 Das Analyſiren einer Vorstellung, wie es sonst getrieben worden, war schon nichts anderes, als das Aufheben der Form ihres Bekanntseyns. Eine Vorstellung in ihre ursprünglichen Elemente auseinanderlegen, ist das Zurückgehen zu ihren Momenten, die wenigstens nicht die Form der vorgefundenen Vorstellung haben, sondern das unmittelbare Eigenthum des Selbsts ausmachen. Diese Analyse kömmt zwar nur zu Gedanken, welche selbst bekannte, feste und 1807 XXXVIII ruhende Bestimmungen sind. Aber ein wesentliches Moment ist diſs Geschiedne, Unwirkliche selbst; denn nur darum, daſs das Concrete sich scheidet, und zum Unwirklichen macht, ist es das sich bewegende. Die Thätigkeit des Scheidens ist die Krafft und Arbeit des Verstandes, der verwunderſamsten und gröſsten, oder vielmehr der absoluten Macht. Der Kreis, der in sich geschloſſen ruht, und als Substanz seine Momente hält, ist das unmittelbare und darum nicht verwundersame Verhältniſs. Aber daſs das von seinem Umfange getrennte Accidentelle als solches, das gebundne und nur in seinem Zusammenhange mit anderm Wirkliche ein eigenes Daseyn und abgesonderte Freyheit gewinnt, ist die ungeheure Macht des Negativen; es ist die Energie des Denkens, des reinen Ichs. Der Tod, wenn wir jene Unwirklichkeit so nennen wollen, ist das furchtbarste, und das Todte fest zu halten, das, was die gröſste Krafft erfodert. Die kraftlose Schönheit haſst den Verstand, weil er ihr diſs zumuthet was sie nicht vermag. Aber nicht das Leben, das sich vor dem Tode scheut und von der Verwüstung rein bewahrt, sondern das ihn erträgt, und in ihm sich erhält, ist das Leben des Geistes. Er gewinnt seine Wahrheit nur, indem er in der absoluten Zerriſſenheit 1807 XXXIX sich selbst findet. Diese Macht ist er nicht, als das Positive, welches von dem Negativen wegſieht, wie wenn wir von etwas sagen, diſs ist nichts oder ſalsch, und nun, damit fertig, davon weg zu irgend etwas anderem übergehen; sondern er ist diese Macht nur, indem er dem Negativen ins Angesicht schaut, bey ihm verweilt. Dieses Verweilen ist die Zauberkraft, die es in das Seyn umkehrt. — Sie ist daſſelbe, was oben das Subject genannt worden, welches darin, daſs es der Bestimmtheit in seinem Elemente Daseyn gibt, die abstracte d. h. nur überhaupt seyende Unmittelbarkeit aufhebt, und dadurch die wahrhafte Substanz ist, das Seyn oder die Unmittelbarkeit, welche nicht die Vermittlung auſſer ihr hat, sondern diese selbst ist.
33 Daſs das vorgestellte Eigenthum des reinen Selbstbewuſstseyns wird, diese Erhebung zur Allgemeinheit überhaupt ist nur die Eine Seite, noch nicht die vollendete Bildung. — Die Art des Studiums der alten Zeit hat diese Verschiedenheit von dem der neuern, daſs jenes die eigentliche Durchbildung des natürlichen Bewuſstseyns war. An jedem Theile seines Daseyns sich besonders versuchend und über alles vorkommende philosophirend, erzeugte es sich zu einer durch und durch bethätigten Allgemeinheit. In 1807 XL der neuern Zeit hingegen findet das Individuum die abstracte Form vorbereitet; die Anstrengung sie zu ergreiffen und sich zu eigen zu machen, ist mehr das unvermittelte Hervortreiben des Innern und abgeschnittne Erzeugen des Allgemeinen, als ein Hervorgehen deſſelben aus dem Concreten und der Mannichfaltigkeit des Daseyns. Itzt besteht darum die Arbeit nicht sosehr darin, das Individuum aus der unmittelbaren sinnlichen Weise zu reinigen und es zur gedachten und denkenden Substanz zu machen, als vielmehr in dem entgegengesetzten, durch das Aufheben der festen bestimmten Gedanken das Allgemeine zu verwirklichen und zu begeisten. Es ist aber weit schwerer, die festen Gedanken in Flüſſigkeit zu bringen, als das sinnliche Daseyn. Der Grund ist das vorhin angegebene; jene Bestimmungen haben das Ich, die Macht des Negativen oder die reine Wirklichkeit zur Substanz und zum Element ihres Daseyns; die sinnlichen Bestimmungen dagegen nur die unmächtige abstracte Unmittelbarkeit oder das Seyn als solches. Die Gedanken werden flüſſig, indem das reine Denken, diese innere Unmittelbarkeit, sich als Moment erkennt oder indem die reine Gewiſsheit seiner selbst von sich abstrahirt; — nicht sich wegläſst, auf die Seite setzt, sondern das Fixe 1807 XLI ihres Sichselbſtsetzens aufgibt, sowohl das Fixe des reinen Concreten, welches Ich selbst im Gegensatze gegen unterschiedenen Inhalt ist, — als das Fixe von Unterschiedenen, die im Elemente des reinen Denkens gesetzt an jener Unbedingtheit des Ich Antheil haben. Durch diese Bewegung werden die reinen Gedanken Begriffe, und sind erst, was sie in Wahrheit sind, Selbſtbewegungen, Kreise, das was ihre Substanz ist, geistige Wesenheiten.
34 Diese Bewegung der reinen Wesenheiten macht die Natur der Wiſſenschaftlichkeit überhaupt aus. Als der Zusammenhang ihres Inhalts betrachtet, ist sie die Nothwendigkeit und Ausbreitung deſſelben zum organischen Ganzen. Der Weg, wodurch der Begriff des Wiſſens erreicht wird, wird durch sie gleichfalls ein nothwendiges und vollständiges Werden, so daſs diese Vorbereitung aufhört, ein zufälliges Philosophiren zu seyn, das sich an diese und jene Gegenstände, Verhältniſſe und Gedanken des unvollkommenen Bewuſstseyns, wie die Zufälligkeit es mit sich bringt, anknüpft, oder durch ein hin und hergehendes Räsonnement, Schlieſſen und Folgern aus bestimmten Gedanken das Wahre zu begründen sucht; sondern dieser Weg wird durch die Bewegung des Begriffs die vollständige 1807 XLII Weltlichkeit des Bewuſstseyns in ihrer Nothwendigkeit umfaſſen.
35 Eine solche Darstellung macht ferner den ersten Theil der Wiſſenschaft darum aus, weil das Daseyn des Geistes als Erstes nichts anderes als das Unmittelbare oder der Anfang, der Anfang aber noch nicht seine Rückkehr in sich ist. Das Element des unmittelbaren Daseyns ist daher die Bestimmtheit, wodurch sich dieser Theil der Wiſſenschaft von den andern unterscheidet. — Die Angabe dieses Unterschiedes führt zur Erörterung einiger festen Gedanken, die hiebey vorzukommen pflegen.
36 Das unmittelbare Daseyn des Geistes, das Bewuſstseyn, hat die zwey Momente, des Wiſſens und der dem Wiſſen negativen Gegenständlichkeit. Indem in diesem Elemente sich der Geist entwickelt und seine Momente auslegt, so kommt ihnen dieser Gegensatz zu, und sie treten alle als Gestalten des Bewutstseyns auf. Die Wiſſenschaft dieses Wegs ist Wiſſenschaft der Erfahrung, die das Bewuſstseyn macht; die Substanz wird betrachtet, wie sie und ihre Bewegung sein Gegenstand ist. Das Bewuſstseyn weiſs und degreift nichts, als was in seiner Erfahrung ist; denn was in dieser ist, ist nur die geistige Substanz, und zwar als Gegenstand ihres Selbsts. 1807 XLIII Der Geist wird aber Gegenstand, denn er ist diese Bewegung, sich ein anderes, d. h. Gegenstand seines Selbsts zu werden, und dieses Andersſeyn aufzuheben. Und die Erfahrung wird eben dieſe Bewegung genannt, worin das Unmittelbare, das Unerfahrne, d. h. das abſtracte, es ſey des ſinnlichen Seyns oder des nur gedachten Einfachen, ſich entfremdet, und dann aus dieſer Entfremdung zu ſich zurückgeht, und hiemit itzt erſt in ſeiner Wirklichkeit und Wahrheit dargeſtellt, wie auch Eigenthum des Bewuſstſeyns iſt.
37 Die Ungleichheit, die im Bewuſstſeyn zwiſchen dem Ich und der Subſtanz, die ſein Gegenſtand iſt, ſtatt findet, iſt ihr Unterſchied, das Negative überhaupt. Es kann als der Mangel beyder angeſehen werden, iſt aber ihre Seele oder das Bewegende derſelben; weſswegen einige Alte das Leere als das Bewegende begriffen, indem ſie das Bewegende zwar als das Negative, aber dieſes noch nicht als das Selbſt erfaſsten. — Wenn nun diſs Negative zunächſt als Ungleichheit des Ichs zum Gegenſtande erſcheint, ſo iſt es ebenſoſehr die Ungleichheit der Subſtanz zu ſich ſelbſt. Was auſſer ihr vorzugehen, eine Thätigkeit gegen ſie zu ſeyn ſcheint, iſt ihr eigenes Thun und ſie zeigt ſich 1807 XLIV weſentlich Subject zu ſeyn. Indem ſie diſs vollkommen gezeigt, hat der Geiſt ſein Daſeyn ſeinem Weſen gleich gemacht; er iſt ſich Gegenſtand, wie er iſt, und das abſtracte Element der Unmittelbarkeit und der Trennung des Wiſſens und der Wahrheit iſt überwunden. Das Seyn iſt abſolut vermittelt; — es iſt ſubſtantieller Inhalt, der ebenſo unmittelbar Eigenthum des Ich, ſelbſtiſch oder der Begriff iſt. Hiemit beſchlieſst ſich die Phänomenologie des Geiſtes. Was er in ihr ſich bereitet, iſt das Element des Wiſſens. In dieſem breiten ſich nun die Momente des Geiſtes in der Form der Einfachheit aus, die ihren Gegenſtand als ſich ſelbſt weiſs. Sie fallen nicht mehr in den Gegenſatz des Seyns und Wiſſens auseinander, ſondern bleiben in der Einfachheit des Wiſſens, ſind das Wahre in der Form des Wahren, und ihre Verſchiedenheit iſt nur Verſchiedenheit des Inhalts. Ihre Bewegung, die ſich in dieſem Elemente zum Ganzen organiſirt, iſt die Logik oder ſpeculative Philoſophie.
38 Weil nun jenes Syſtem der Erfahrung des Geiſtes nur die Erſcheinung deſſelben befaſst, ſo ſcheint der Fortgang von ihm zur Wiſſenſchaft des Wahren, das in der Geſtalt des Wahren iſt, bloſs negativ zu ſeyn, und man könnte 1807 XLV mit dem Negativen als dem Falſchen verſchont bleiben wollen, und verlangen ohne weiteres zur Wahrheit geführt zu werden; wozu ſich mit dem Falſchen abgeben? — Wovon ſchon oben die Rede war, daſs ſogleich mit der Wiſſenſchaft ſollte angefangen werden, darauf iſt hier nach der Seite zu antworten, welche Beſchaffenheit es mit dem Negativen als Falſchem überhaupt hat. Die Vorſtellungen hierüber hindern vornemlich den Eingang zur Wahrheit. Diſs wird Veranlaſſung geben, vom mathematiſchen Erkennen zu ſprechen, welches das unphiloſophiſche Wiſſen als das Ideal anſieht, das zu erreichen die Philoſophie ſtreben müſste, bisher aber vergeblich geſtrebt habe.
39 Das Wahre und Falſche gehört zu den beſtimmten Gedanken, die bewegungslos für eigne Weſen gelten, deren eines drüben, das andre hüben ohne Gemeinſchaft mit dem andern iſolirt und feſt ſteht. Dagegen muſs behauptet werden, daſs die Wahrheit nicht eine ausgeprägte Münze iſt, die fertig gegeben, und ſo eingeſtrichen werden kann. Noch gibt es ein Falſches ſo wenig es ein Böſes gibt. So ſchlimm zwar als der Teufel iſt das Böſe und Falſche nicht, denn als dieſer ſind ſie ſogar zum beſondern Subjecte gemacht; als Falſches und 1807 XLVI Böſes ſind ſie nur allgemeine, haben aber doch eigne Weſenheit gegeneinander. — Das Falſche, denn nur von ihm iſt hier die Rede, wäre das Andre, das Negative der Subſtanz, die als Inhalt des Wiſſens das Wahre iſt. Aber die Subſtanz iſt ſelbſt weſentlich das Negative, theils als Unterſcheidung und Beſtimmung des Inhalts, theils als ein einfaches Unterſcheiden, d. h. als Selbſt und Wiſſen überhaupt. Man kann wohl falſch wiſſen. Es wird etwas falſch gewuſst, heiſst, das Wiſſen iſt in Ungleichheit mit ſeiner Subſtanz. Allein eben dieſe Ungleichheit iſt das Unterſcheiden überhaupt, das weſentliches Moment iſt. Es wird aus dieſer Unterſcheidung wohl ihre Gleichheit, und dieſe gewordene Gleichheit iſt die Wahrheit. Aber ſie iſt nicht ſo Wahrheit, als ob die Ungleichheit weggeworfen worden wäre, wie die Schlacke vom reinen Metall, auch nicht einmal ſo, wie das Werkzeug von dem fertigen Gefäſſe wegbleibt, ſondern die Ungleichheit iſt als das Negative, als das Selbſt im Wahren als ſolchem ſelbſt noch unmittelbar vorhanden. Es kann jedoch darum nicht geſagt werden, daſs das Falſche ein Moment oder gar einen Beſtandtheil des Wahren ausmache. Daſs an jedem Falſchen etwas Wahres ſey, — in dieſem Ausdrucke gelten beyde, 1807 XLVII wie Oel und Waſſer, die unmiſchbar nur äuſſerlich verbunden ſind. Gerade um der Bedeutung willen, das Moment des vollkommenen Andersſeyns zu bezeichnen, müſſen ihre Ausdrücke da, wo ihr Andersſeyn aufgehoben iſt, nicht mehr gebraucht werden. So wie der Ausdruck der Einheit des Subjects und Objects, des Endlichen und Unendlichen, des Seyns und Denkens u. ſ. f. das ungeſchickte hat, daſs Object und Subject u. ſ. f. das bedeuten, was ſie auſſer ihrer Einheit ſind, in der Einheit alſo nicht als das gemeynt ſind, was ihr Ausdruck ſagt, eben ſo iſt das Falſche nicht mehr als Falſches ein Moment der Wahrheit.
40 Der Dogmatiſmus der Denkungsart im Wiſſen und im Studium der Philoſophie iſt nichts anderes, als die Meynung, daſs das Wahre in einem Satze, der ein feſtes Reſultat oder auch der unmittelbar gewuſst wird, beſtehe. Auf ſolche Fragen: wann Cäſar geboren worden, wie viele Toiſen ein Stadium und welches betrug u. ſ. f. ſoll eine nette Antwort gegeben werden, ebenſo wie es beſtimmt wahr iſt, daſs das Quadrat der Hypotenuſe gleich der Summe der Quadrate der beyden übrigen Seiten des rechtwinklichten Dreyecks iſt. Aber die Natur einer ſolchen ſogenannten Wahrheit iſt 1807 XLVIII verſchieden von der Natur philoſophiſcher Wahrheiten.
41 In Anſehung der hiſtoriſchen Wahrheiten, um ihrer kurz zu erwähnen, inſofern nemlich das rein hiſtoriſche derſelben betrachtet wird, wird leicht zugegeben, daſs ſie das einzelne Daſeyn, einen Inhalt nach der Seite ſeiner Zufälligkeit und Willkühr, Beſtimmungen deſſelben, die nicht nothwendig ſind, betreffen. — Selbſt aber ſolche nakte Wahrheiten wie die als Beyſpiel angeführte, ſind nicht ohne die Bewegung des Selbſtbewuſstſeyns. Um eine derſelben zu kennen, muſs viel verglichen, auch in Büchern nachgeſchlagen oder auf welche Weiſe es ſey unterſucht werden; auch bey einer unmittelbaren Anſchauung wird erſt die Kenntniſs derſelben mit ihren Gründen für etwas gehalten, das wahren Werth habe, obgleich eigentlich nur das nakte Reſultat das ſeyn ſoll, um das es zu thun ſey.
42 Was die mathematiſchen Wahrheiten betrift, ſo würde noch weniger der für einen Geometer gehalten werden, der die Theoreme Euklids auswendig wüſste, ohne ihre Beweiſe, ohne ſie, wie man im Gegenſatze ſich ausdrücken könne, inwendig zu wiſſen. Ebenſo würde die Kenntniſs, die einer durch Meſſung vieler 1807 XLIX rechtwinklichten Dreyecke ſich erwürbe, daſs ihre Seiten das bekannte Verhältniſs zu einander haben, für unbefriedigend gehalten werden. Die Weſentlichkeit des Beweiſes hat jedoch auch beym mathematiſchen Erkennen noch nicht die Bedeutung und Natur, Moment des Reſultates ſelbſt zu ſeyn, ſondern in dieſem iſt er vielmehr vorbey und verſchwunden. Als Reſultat iſt zwar das Theorem ein als wahr eingeſehenes. Aber dieſer hinzugekommene Umſtand betrifft nicht ſeinen Inhalt, ſondern nur das Verhältniſs zum Subject; die Bewegung des mathematiſchen Beweiſes gehört nicht dem an, was Gegenſtand iſt, ſondern iſt ein der Sache äuſſerliches Thun. So zerlegt ſich die Natur des rechtwinklichten Dreyecks nicht ſelbſt ſo, wie es in der Conſtruction dargeſtellt wird, die für den Beweis des Satzes, der ſein Verhältniſs ausdrückt, nöthig iſt; das ganze Hervorbringen des Reſultats iſt ein Gang und Mittel des Erkennens. — Auch im philoſophiſchen Erkennen iſt das Werden des Daſeyns als Daſeyns verſchieden von dem Werden des Weſens oder der innern Natur der Sache. Aber das philoſophiſche Erkennen enthält erſtens beydes, da hingegen das mathematiſche nur das Werden des Daſeyns, d. h. des Seyns der Natur der Sache im Erkennen als 1807 L ſolchem darſtellt. Fürs andre vereinigt jenes auch dieſe beyden beſondern Bewegungen. Das innre Entſtehen oder das Werden der Subſtanz iſt ungetrennt Uebergehen in das Aeuſſere oder in das Daſeyn, Seyn für anderes; und umgekehrt iſt das Werden des Daſeyns das ſich Zurücknehmen ins Weſen. Die Bewegung iſt ſo der gedoppelte Proceſs und Werden des Ganzen, daſs zugleich ein jedes das andre ſetzt und jedes darum auch beyde als zwey Anſichten an ihm hat; ſie zuſammen machen dadurch das Ganze, daſs ſie ſich ſelbſt auflöſen und zu ſeinen Momenten machen.
43 Im mathematiſchen Erkennen iſt die Einſicht ein für die Sache äuſſerliches Thun; es folgt daraus, daſs die wahre Sache dadurch verändert wird. Das Mittel, Conſtruction und Beweis, enthält daher wohl wahre Sätze; aber ebenſoſehr muſs geſagt werden, daſs der Inhalt falſch iſt. Das Dreyeck wird in dem obigen Beyſpiele zerriſſen, und ſeine Theile zu andern Figuren, die die Conſtruction an ihm entſtehen läſst, geſchlagen. Erſt am Ende wird das Dreyeck wieder hergeſtellt, um das es eigentlich zu thun iſt, das im Fortgange aus den Augen verloren wurde, und nur in Stücken, die andern Ganzen angehörten, vorkam. — Hier ſehen wir alſo 1807 LI auch die Negativität des Inhalts eintreten, welche eine Falſchheit deſſelben eben ſo gut genannt werden müſste, als in der Bewegung des Begriffs das Verſchwinden der feſtgemeynten Gedanken.
44 Die eigentliche Mangelhaftigkeit dieſes Erkennens aber betrifft ſowohl das Erkennen ſelbſt, als ſeinen Stoff überhaupt. — Was das Erkennen betrifft, ſo wird vors erſte die Nothwendigkeit der Conſtruction nicht eingeſehen. Sie geht nicht aus dem Begriffe des Theorems hervor, ſondern wird geboten, und man hat dieſer Vorſchrift, gerade dieſe Linien, deren unendliche andere gezogen werden könnten, zu ziehen, blindlings zu gehorchen, ohne etwas weiter zu wiſſen, als den guten Glauben zu haben, daſs diſs zu Führung des Beweiſes zweckmäſsig ſeyn werde. Hintennach zeigt ſich denn auch dieſe Zweckmäſsigkeit, die deſswegen nur eine äuſſerliche iſt, weil ſie ſich erſt hintennach, beym Beweiſe, zeigt. — Ebenſo geht dieſer einen Weg, der irgendwo anfängt, man weiſs noch nicht in welcher Beziehung auf das Reſultat, das herauskommen ſoll. Sein Fortgang nimmt dieſe Beſtimmungen und Beziehungen auf, und läſst andre liegen, ohne daſs man unmittelbar einſehe, nach welcher Nothwendigkeit; ein äuſſerer Zweck regiert dieſe Bewegung.
1807 LII
45 Die Evidenz dieſes mangelhafften Erkennens, auf welche die Mathematik ſtolz iſt, und womit ſie ſich auch gegen die Philoſophie brüſtet, beruht allein auf der Armuth ihres Zwecks und der Mangelhaftigkeit ihres Stoffs, und iſt darum von einer Art, die die Philoſophie verſcmähen muſs. — Ihr Zweck oder Begriff iſt die Gröſse. Diſs iſt gerade das unweſentliche, begriffloſe Verhältnics. Die Bewegung des Wiſſens geht darum auf der Oberfläche vor, berührt nicht die Sache ſelbſt, nicht das Weſen oder den Begriff, und iſt deſswegen kein Begreiffen. — Der Stoff, über den die Mathematik den erfreulichen Schatz von Wahrheiten gewährt, iſt der Raum und das Eins. Der Raum iſt das Daſeyn, worin der Begriff ſeine Unterſcheide einſchreibt, als in ein leeres, todtes Element, worin ſie ebenſo unbewegt und leblos ſind. Das Wirkliche iſt nicht ein Räumliches, wie es in der Mathematik betrachtet wird; mit ſolcher Unwirklichkeit, als die Dinge der Mathematik ſind, gibt ſich weder das concrete ſinnliche Anſchauen, noch die Philoſophie ab. In ſolchem unwirklichen Elemente gibt es denn auch nur unwirkliches Wahres, d. h. fixirte, todte Sätze; bey jedem derſelben kann aufgehört werden; der folgende fängt für ſich von 1807 LIII neuem an, ohne daſs der erſte ſich ſelbſt zum andern fortbewegte und ohne daſs auf dieſe Weiſe ein nothwendiger Zuſammenhang durch die Natur der Sache ſelbſt entſtünde. — Auch läufft um jenes Princips und Elements willen — und hierin beſteht das formelle der mathematiſchen Evidenz — das Wiſſen an der Linie der Gleichheit fort. Denn das todte, weil es ſich nicht ſelbſt bewegt, kommt nicht zu Unterſchieden des Weſens, nicht zur weſentlichen Entgegenſetzung oder Ungleichheit, daher nicht zum Uebergange des Entgegengeſetzten in das Entgegengeſetzte, nicht zur qualitativen, immanenten, nicht zur Selbſtbewegung. Denn es iſt die Gröſſe, der unweſentliche Unterſchied, den die Mathematik allein betrachtet. Daſs es der Begriff iſt, der den Raum in ſeine Dimenſionen entzweyt, und die Verbindungen derſelben und in denſelben beſtimmt, davon abſtrahirt ſie; ſie betrachtet z. B. nicht das Verhältniſs der Linie zur Fläche; und wo ſie den Durchmeſſer des Kreiſes mit der Peripherie vergleicht, ſtöſst ſie auf die Incommenſurabilität derſelben, d. h. ein Verhältniſs des Begriffs, ein Unendliches, das ihrer Beſtimmung entflieht.
46 Die immanente, ſogenannte reine Mathematik ſtellt auch nicht die Zeit als Zeit dem 1807 LIV Raume gegenüber, als den zweyten Stoff ihrer Betrachtung. Die angewandte handelt wohl von ihr, wie von der Bewegung, auch ſonſt andern wirklichen Dingen, ſie nimmt aber die ſynthetiſchen, d. h. Sätze ihrer Verhältniſſe, die durch ihren Begriff beſtimmt ſind, aus der Erfahrung auf, und wendet nur auf dieſe Vorausſetzungen ihre Formeln an. Daſs die ſogenannten Beweiſe ſolcher Sätze, als der vom Gleichgewichte des Hebels, dem Verhältniſſe des Raums und der Zeit in der Bewegung des Fallens u. ſ. f. welche ſie häuffig gibt, für Beweiſe gegeben und angenommen werden, iſt ſelbſt nur ein Beweis, wie groſs das Bedürfniſs des Beweiſens für das Erkennen iſt, weil es, wo es nicht mehr hat, auch den leeren Schein deſſelben achtet und eine Zufriedenheit dadurch gewinnt. Eine Kritik jener Beweife würde eben ſo merkwürdig als belehrend ſeyn, um die Mathematik theils von dieſem falſchen Putze zu reinigen, theils ihre Gräntze zu zeigen, und daraus die Nothwendigkeit eines andern Wiſſens. — Was die Zeit betrifft, von der man meynen ſollte, daſs ſie, zum Gegenſtücke gegen den Raum, den Stoff des andern Theils der reinen Mathematik ausmachen würde, ſo iſt ſie der daſeyende Begriff ſelbſt. Das Princip der 1807 LV Gröſe, des begreiffloſen Unterſchiedes, und das Princip der Gleichheit, der abſtracten unlebendigen Einheit, vermag es nicht, ſich mit jener reinen Unruhe des Lebens und abſoluten Unterſcheidung zu befaſſen. Dieſe Negativität wird daher, nur als paralyſirt, nemlich als das Eins zum zweyten Stoffe dieſes Erkennens, das, ein äuſſerliches Thun, das ſich ſelbſtbewegende zum Stoffe herabſetzt, um nun an ihm einen gleichgültigen, äuſſerlichen unlebendigen Inhalt zu haben.
47 Die Philoſophie dagegen betrachtet nicht unweſentliche Beſtimmung, ſondern ſie in ſofern ſie weſentliche iſt; nicht das Abſtracte oder Unwirkliche iſt ihr Element und Inhalt, ſondern das Wirkliche, ſich ſelbſt ſetzende und in ſich lebende, das Daſeyn in ſeinem Begriffe. Es iſt der Proceſs, der ſich ſeine Momente erzeugt und durchläufft, und dieſe ganze Bewegung macht das Poſitive und ſeine Wahrheit aus. Dieſe ſchlieſst alſo ebenſoſehr das Negative in ſich, dasjenige, was das Falſche genannt werden würde, wenn es als ein ſolches betrachtet werden könnte, von dem zu abſtrahiren ſey. Das Verſchwindende iſt vielmehr ſelbſt als weſentlich zu betrachten, nicht in der Beſtimmung eines Feſten, das vom Wahren abgeſchnitten, 1807 LVI auſſer ihm, man weiſs nicht wo, liegen zu laſſen ſey, ſo wie auch das Wahre nicht als das auf der andern Seite ruhende, todte Poſitive. Die Erſcheinung iſt das Entſtehen und Vergehen, das ſelbſt nicht entſteht und vergeht, ſondern an ſich iſt, und die Wirklichkeit und Bewegung des Lebens der Wahrheit ausmacht. Das Wahre iſt ſo der bachantiſche Taumel, an dem kein Glied nicht trunken iſt, und weil jedes, indem es ſich abſondert, ebenſo unmittelbar auflöſst, — iſt er ebenſo die durchſichtige und einfache Ruhe. In dem Gerichte jener Bewegung beſtehen zwar die einzemen Geſtalten des Geiſtes, wie die beſtimmten Gedanken nicht, aber ſie ſind ſoſehr auch poſitive nothwendige Momente, als ſie negativ und verſchwindend ſind. — In dem Ganzen der Bewegung, es als Ruhe aufgefaſst, iſt dasjenige, was ſich in ihr unterſcheidot und beſonderes Daſeyn gibt, als ein ſolches, das ſich erinnert, aufbewahrt, deſſen Daſeyn das Wiſſen von ſich ſelbſt iſt, wie dieſes ebenſo unmittelbar Daſeyn iſt.
48 Von der Methode dieſer Bewegung oder der Wiſſenſchaft könnte es nöthig ſcheinen, voraus das Mehrere anzugeben. Ihr Begriff liegt aber ſchon in dem Geſagten, und ihre eigentliche 1807 LVII Darſtellung gehört der Logik an oder iſt vielmehr dieſe ſelbſt. Denn die Methode iſt nichts anderes als der Bau des Ganzen in ſeiner reinen Weſenheit aufgeſtellt. Von dem hierüber bisher gangbaren aber müſſen wir das Bewuſstſeyn haben, daſs auch das Syſtem der ſich auf das, was philoſophiſche Methode iſt, beziehenden Vorſtellungen, einer verſchollenen Bildung angehören. — Wenn diſs etwa renommiſtiſch oder revolutionär lauten ſollte, von welchem Tone ich mich entfernt weiſs, ſo iſt zu bedenken, daſs der wiſſenſchaftliche Staat, den die Mathematik herlieh, — von Erklärungen, Eintheilungen, Axiomen, Reihen von Theoremen, ihren Beweiſen, Grundſätzen und dem Folgern und Schlieſſen aus ihnen, — ſchon in der Meynung ſelbſt wenigſtens veraltet iſt. Wenn auch ſeine Untauglichkeit nicht deutlich eingeſehen wird, ſo wird doch kein oder wenig Gebrauch mehr davon gemacht, und wenn er nicht an ſich gemisbilligt wird, doch nicht geliebt. Und wir müſſen das Vorurtheil für das Vortreffliche haben, daſs es ſich in den Gebrauch ſetze, und beliebt mache. Es iſt aber nicht ſchwer einzuſehen, daſs die Manier, einen Satz aufzuſtellen, Gründe für ihn anzuführen, und den entgegengeſetzten durch Gründe ebenſo zu 1807 LVIII widerlegen, nicht die Form iſt, in der die Wahrheit auftreten kann. Die Wahrheit iſt die Bewegung ihrer an ihr ſelbſt, jene Methode aber iſt das Erkennen, das dem Stoffe äuſſerlich iſt. Darum iſt ſie der Mathematik, die, wie bemerkt, das begriffsloſe Verhältniſs der Gröſse zu ihrem Princip, und den todten Raum, wie das ebenſo todte Eins, zu ihrem Stoffe hat, eigenthümlich und muſs ihr gelaſſen werden. Auch mag ſie in freyerer Manier, das heiſst, mehr mit Willkühr und Zuſälligkeit gemiſcht, im gemeinem Leben, in einer Converſation oder hiſtoriſchen Belehrung mehr der Neugierde, als der Erkenntniſs, wie ungefähr auch eine Vorrede iſt, bleiben. Im gemeinen Leben hat das Bewuſstſeyn Kenntniſſe, Erfahrungen, ſinnliche Concretionen, auch Gedanken, Grundsätze, überhaupt ſolches zu ſeinem Inhalte, das als ein Vorhandenes oder als ein feſtes ruhendes Seyn oder Weſen gilt. Es läufft theils daran fort, theils unterbricht es den Zuſammenhang durch die freye Willkühr über ſolchen Inhalt, und verhält ſich als ein äuſſerliches Beſtimmen und Handhaben deſſelben. Es führt ihn auf irgend etwas gewiſſes, ſey es auch nur die Empfindung des Augenblicks, zurück, und die Ueberzeugung iſt 1807 LIX befriedigt, wenn ſie auf einem ihr bekannten Ruhepunkte angelangt iſt.
49 Wenn aber die Nothwendigkeit des Begriffs den loſern Gang der räſonnirenden Converſation, wie den ſteifern des wiſſenſchafftlichen Gepränges verbannt, ſo iſt ſchon oben erinnert worden, daſs ſeine Stelle nicht durch die Unmethode des Ahndens und der Begeiſterung und die Willkühr des prophetiſchen Redens erſetzt werden ſoll, welches nicht jene Wiſſenſchafftlichkeit nur, ſondern die Wiſſenſchafftlichkeit überhaupt verachtet.
50 Ehenſowenig iſt, nachdem die kantiſche, noch erſt durch den Inſtinct wiedergeſunden, noch todte, noch unbegriffne Triplicität zu ihrer abſoluten Bedeutung erhoben, damit die wahrhaffte Form in ihrem wahrhafften Inhalte zugleich aufgeſtellt und der Begriff der Wiſſenſchaft hervorgegangen iſt, — derjenige Gebrauch dieſer Form für etwas wiſſenſchafftliches zu halten, durch den wir ſie zum lebloſen Schema, zu einem eigentlichen Schemen, und die wiſſenſchafftliche Organiſation zur Tabelle herabgebracht ſehen. — Dieſer Formalismus, von dem oben ſchon im Allgemeinen geſprochen, und deſſen Manier wir hier näher angeben wollen, meynt die Natur und das Leben einer 1807 LX Geſtalt begriffen und ausgeſprochen zu haben, wenn er von ihr eine Beſtimmung des Schema’s als Prädicat ausgeſagt, — es ſey die Subjectivität, oder Objectivität, oder auch der Magnetismus, die Electricität und ſo fort, die Contraction, oder Expanſion, den Oſten oder Weſten und dergleichen, was ſich ins unendliche vervielfältigen läſst, weil nach dieſer Weiſe jede Beſtimmung oder Geſtalt bey der andern wieder als Form oder Moment des Schema’s gebraucht werden, und jede dankbar der andern denſelben Dienſt leiſten kann; — ein Cirkel von Gegenſeitigkeit, wodurch man nicht erfährt, was die Sache ſelbſt, weder was die eine noch die andre iſt. Es werden dabey theils ſinnliche Beſtimmungen aus der gemeinen Anſchauung aufgenommen, die freylich etwas anderes bedeuten ſollen, als ſie ſagen, theils wird das an ſich bedeutende, die reinen Beſtimmungen des Gedankens, wie Subject, Object, Subſtanz, Urſache, das Allgemeine u. ſ. f. gerade ſo unbeſehen und unkritiſch gebraucht wie im gemeinen Leben und wie Stärken und Schwächen, Expanſion und Contraction; ſo daſs jene Metaphyſik ſo unwiſſenſchaftlich iſt, als dieſe ſinnlichen Vorſtellungen.
1807 LXI
51 Statt des innern Lebens und der Selbſtbewegung ſeines Daſeyns wird nun eine ſolche einfache Beſtimmtheit von der Anſchauung, das heiſst hier, dem ſinnlichen Wiſſen, nach einer oberflächlichen Analogie ausgeſprochen und dieſe äuſſerliche und leere Anwendung der Formel die Conſtruction genannt. — Es iſt mit ſolchem Formalismus derſelbe Fall, als mit jedem. Wie ſtumpf müſste der Kopf ſeyn, dem nicht in einer Viertelſtunde die Theorie, daſs es aſtheniſche, ſtheniſche und indirectaſtheniſche Krankheiten, und ebenſo viele Heilplane gebe, beygebracht, und der nicht, da ein ſolcher Unterricht noch vor kurzem dazu hinreichte, aus einem Routinier in dieſer kleinen Zeit in einen theoretiſchen Arzt verwandelt werden zu können? Wenn der naturphiloſophiſche Formalismus etwa lehrt, der Verſtand ſey die Electricität oder das Thier ſey der Stikſtoff, oder auch gleich dem Süd oder Nord und ſo fort, oder repreſentire ihn, ſo nakt wie es hier ausgedrückt iſt oder auch mit mehr Terminologie zuſammengebraut, ſo mag über ſolche Krafft, die das weit entlegen ſcheinende zuſammengreifft, und über die Gewalt, die das ruhende Sinnliche durch dieſe Verbindung erleidet, und die ihm dadurch den Schein eines Begriffes ertheilt, die 1807 LXII Hauptſache aber, den Begriff ſelbſt oder die Bedeutung der ſinnlichen Vorſtellung auszuſprechen erſpart, — es mag hierüber die Unerfahrenheit in ein bewunderndes Staunen gerathen, darin eine tiefe Genialität verehren; ſo wie an der Heiterkeit ſolcher Beſtimmungen, da ſie den abſtracten Begriff durch Anſchauliches erſetzen und erfreulicher machen, ſich ergötzen, und ſich ſelbſt zu der geahndeten Seelenverwandſchafft mit ſolchem herrlichem Thun glückwünſchen. Der Pfiff einer ſolchen Weisheit iſt ſobald erlernt, als es leicht iſt, ihn auszuüben; ſeine Wiederhohlung wird, wenn er bekannt iſt, ſo unerträglich als die Wiederhohlung einer eingeſehenen Taſchenſpielerkunſt. Das Inſtrument dieſes gleichtönigen Formalismus iſt nicht ſchwerer zu handhaben, als die Palette eines Mahlers, auf der ſich nur zwey Farben befinden würden, etwa Roth und Grün, um mit jener eine Fläche anzufärben, wenn ein hiſtoriſches Stück, mit dieſer, wenn eine Landſchaft verlangt wäre. — Es würde ſchwer zu entſcheiden ſeyn, was dabey gröſſer iſt, die Behaglichkeit, mit der alles, was im Himmel, auf Erden und unter der Erden iſt, mit ſolcher Farbenbrühe angetüncht wird, oder die Einbildung auf die Vortrefflichkeit dieſes 1807 LXIII Univerſalmittels; die eine unterſtützt die andere. Was dieſe Methode, allem himmliſchen und irrdiſchen, allen natürlichen und geiſtigen Geſtalten die paar Beſtimmungen des allgemeinen Schema’s aufzukleben, und auf dieſe Weiſe Alles einzurangiren, hervorbringt, iſt nichts geringeres, als ein ſonnenklarer Bericht über den Organismus des Univerſums, nemlich eine Tabelle, die einem Skelette mit angeklebten Zettelchen oder den Reihen verſchloſſner Büchſen mit ihren aufgeheſteten Etiketten in einer Gewürzkrämerbude gleicht, die ſo deutlich als das eine und das andre iſt, und wie dort von den Knochen Fleiſch und Blut weggenommen, hier aber die eben auch nicht lebendige Sache in den Büchſen verborgen iſt, auch das lebendige Weſen der Sache weggelaſſen oder verborgen hat. — Daſs ſich dieſe Manier zugleich zur einfärbigen abſoluten Mahlerey vollendet, indem ſie auch, der Unterſchiede des Schema’s ſich ſchämend, ſie als der Reflexion angehörig in der Leerheit des Abſoluten verſenkt, auf daſs die reine Identität, das formloſe Weiſse hergeſtellt werde, iſt oben ſchon bemerkt worden. Jene Gleichfärbigkeit des Schema’s und ſeiner lebloſen Beſtimmungen, und dieſe abſolute Identität, und das Uebergehen von einem zum 1807 LXIV andern, iſt eines gleich todter Verſtand, als das andere, und gleich äuſſerliches Erkennen.
52 Das Vortreffliche kann aber dem Schickſale nicht nur nicht entgehen, ſo entlebt, und entgeiſtet zu werden, und ſo geſchunden ſeine Haut vom lebloſen Wiſſen und deſſen Eitelkeit umgenommen zu ſehen. Vielmehr iſt noch in dieſem Schickſale ſelbſt die Gewalt, welche es auf die Gemüther, wenn nicht auf Geiſter, ausübt, zu erkennen, ſo wie die Herausbildung zur Allgemeinheit und Beſtimmtheit der Form, in der ſeine Vollendung beſteht, und die es allein möglich macht, daſs dieſe Allgemeinheit zur Oberflächlichkeit gebraucht wird.
53 Die Wiſſenſchafft darf ſich nur durch das eigne Leben des Begriffs organiſiren; in ihr iſt die Beſtimmtheit, welche aus dem Schema äuſſerlich dem Daſeyn aufgeklebt wird, die ſich ſelbſt bewegende Seele des erfüllten Inhalts. Die Bewegung des Seyenden iſt, ſich einestheils ein Anders und ſo zu ſeinem immanenten Inhalte zu werden; anderntheils nimmt es dieſe Entfaltung oder diſs ſein Daſeyn in ſich zurück, das heiſst, macht ſich ſelbſt zu einem Momente und vereinfacht ſich zur Beſtimmtheit. In jener Bewegung iſt die Negativität das Unterſcheiden und das Setzen des Daſeyns; in 1807 LXV dieſem Zurückgehen in ſich iſt ſie das Werden der bestimmten Einfachheit. Auf dieſe Weiſe ist es, daſs der Inhalt ſeine Beſtimmtheit nicht von einem andern empfangen und aufgehefftet zeigt, ſondern er gibt ſie ſich ſelbſt, und rangirt ſich aus ſich zum Momente und zu einer Stelle des Ganzen. Der tabellariſche Verſtand behält für ſich die Nothwendigkeit und den Begriff des Inhalts, das, was das Concrete, die Wirklichkeit und lebendige Bewegung der Sache ausmacht, die er rangirt, oder vielmehr behält er diſs nicht für ſich, ſondern kennt es nicht; denn wenn er dieſe Einſicht hätte, würde er ſie wohl zeigen. Er kennt nicht einmal das Bedürfniſs derſelben; ſonſt würde er ſein Schematiſiren unterlaſſen oder wenigſtens ſich nicht mehr damit wiſſen, als mit einer Inhaltsanzeige; er gibt nur die Inhaltsanzeige, den Inhalt ſelbſt aber liefert er nicht. — Wenn die Beſtimmtheit auch eine ſolche, wie zum Beyſpiel Magnetismns, eine an ſich concrete oder wirkliche iſt, ſo iſt ſie doch zu etwas todtem herabgeſunken, da ſie von einem andern Daſeyn nur prädicirt, und nicht als immanentes Leben dieſes Daſeyns, oder wie ſie in dieſem ihre einheimiſche und eigenthümliche Selbſterzeugung und Darſtellung hat, erkannt iſt. Dieſe 1807 LXVI Hauptſache hinzuzufügen überläſst der formelle Verſtand den Andern. — Statt in den immanenten Inhalt der Sache einzugehen, überſieht er immer das Ganze, und ſteht über dem einzelnen Daſeyn, von dem er ſpricht, das heiſst, er ſieht es gar nicht. Das wiſſenſchafftliche Erkennen erfodert aber vielmehr, ſich dem Leben des Gegenſtandes zu übergeben, oder was daſſelbe iſt, die innere Nothwendigkeit deſſelben vor ſich zu haben und auszuſprechen. Sich ſo in ſeinen Gegenſtand vertieffend, vergiſst es jener Ueberſicht, welche nur die Reflexion des Wiſſens aus dem Inhalte in ſich ſelbſt iſt. Aber in die Materie verſenkt und in deren Bewegung fortgehend, kommt es in ſich ſelbſt zurück, aber nicht eher als darin daſs die Erfüllung oder der Inhalt ſich in ſich zurücknimmt, zur Beſtimmtheit vereinfacht, ſich ſelbſt zu Einer Seite eines Daſeyns herabſetzt, und in ſeine höhere Wahrheit übergeht. Dadurch emergirt das einfache ſich überſehende Ganze ſelbſt aus dem Reichthume, worin ſeine Reflexion verloren ſchien.
54 Dadurch überhaupt, daſs wie es oben ausgedrückt wurde, die Subſtanz an ihr ſelbſt Subject iſt, iſt aller Inhalt ſeine eigene Reflexion in ſich. Das Beſtehen oder die Subſtanz eines 1807 LXVII Daſeyns iſt die Sichſelbſtgleichheit; denn ſeine Ungleichheit mit ſich wäre ſeine Auflöſung. Die Sichſelbſtgleichheit aber iſt die reine Abſtraction; dieſe aber iſt das Denken. Wenn ich ſage Qualität, ſage ich die einfache Beſtimmtheit; durch die Qualität iſt ein Daſeyn von einem andern unterſchieden, oder iſt ein Daſeyn; es iſt für ſich ſelbſt, oder es beſteht durch dieſe Einfachheit mit ſich. Aber dadurch iſt es weſentlich der Gedanke. — Hierin iſt es begriffen, daſs das Seyn Denken iſt; hierein fällt die Einſicht, die dem gewöhnlichen begriffloſen Sprechen von der Identität des Denkens und Seyns abzugehen pflegt. — Dadurch nun, daſs das Beſtehen des Daſeyns die Sichſelbſtgleichheit oder die reine Abſtraction iſt, iſt es die Abſtraction ſeiner von sich ſelbſt, oder es ist ſelbſt ſeine Ungleichheit mit sich und ſeine Auflösung, — ſeine eigne Innerlichkeit und Zurücknahme in sich, — ſein Werden. — Durch dieſe Natur des Seyenden und inſofern das Seyende dieſe Natur für das Wiſſen hat, iſt dieſes nicht die Thätigkeit, die den Inhalt als ein Fremdes handhabt, nicht die Reflexion in sich aus dem Inhalte heraus; die Wiſſenſchaft ist nicht jener Idealismus, der an an die Stelle des behauptenden Dogmatismus als ein verſichernder 1807 LXVIII Dogmatismus oder der Dogmatismus der Gewiſsheit ſeiner ſelbſt trat, — ſondern indem das Wiſſen den Inhalt in ſeine eigne Innerlichkeit zurückgehen ſieht, ist ſeine Thätigkeit vielmehr ſowohl verſenkt in ihn, denn sie ist das immanente Selbſt des Inhalts, als zugleich in sich zurückgekehrt, denn sie ist die reine Sichſelbſtgleichheit im Andersſeyn; ſo ist sie die List, die der Thätigkeit sich zu enthalten ſeheinend, zuſieht, wie die Beſtimmtheit und ihr coneretes Leben, darin eben daſs es ſeine Selbſterhaltung und beſonderes Intereſſe zu treiben vermeynt, das Verkehrte, sich ſelbst auflöſendes und zum Momente des Ganzen machendes Thun ist.
55 Wenn oben die Bedeutung des Verſtandes nach der Seite des Selbstbewuſstseyns der Substanz angegeben wurde, ſo erhellt aus dem hier geſagten ſeine Bedeutung nach der Beſtimmung derſelben als Seyender. — Das Daſeyn ist Qualität, sich ſelbſt gleiche Bestimmtheit oder beſtimmte Einfachheit, beſtimmter Gedanke; diſs ist der Verſtand des Daſeyns. Dadurch ist es Nus, als für welchen Anaxagoras zuerſt das Weſen erkannte. Die nach ihm, begriffen beſtimmter die Natur des Daſeyns als Eidos oder Idea; das Leiſst, beſtimmte Allgemeinheit, Art. Der Ausdruck Art ſcheint etwa zu gemein 1807 LXIX und zu wenig für die Ideen, für das Schöne und Heilige und Ewige zu ſeyn, die zu dieſer Zeit graſsiren. Aber in der That drückt die Idee nicht mehr noch weniger aus, als Art. Allein wir ſehen itzt oft einen Ausdruck, der einen Begriff beſtimmt bezeichnet, verſchmäht und einen andern vorgezogen, der, wenn es auch nur darum ist, weil er einer fremden Sprache angehört, den Begriff in Nebel einhüllt, und damit erbaulicher lautet. — Eben darin daſs das Daſeyn, als Art beſtimmt ist, ist es einfacher Gedanke; der Nus, die Einfachheit ist die Subſtanz. Um ihrer Einfachheit oder Sichſelbſtgleichheit willen erſcheint sie als feſt und bleibend. Aber dieſe Sichſelbſtgleichheit ist ebenſo Negativität; dadurch geht jenes feſte Daſeyn in ſeine Auflöſung über. Die Beſtimmtheit ſcheint zuerſt es nur dadurch zu ſeyn, daſs sie sich auf Andres bezieht, und ihre Bewegung ihr durch eine fremde Gewalt angethan zu werden; aber daſs sie ihr Andersſeyn ſelbſt an ihr hat und Selbſtbewegung ist, diſs ist eben in jener Einfachheit des Denkens ſelbſt enthalten; denn dieſe ist der sich ſelbst bewegende und unterſcheidende Gedanke, und die eigene Innerlichkeit, der reine Begriff. So ist also die Verſtändigkeit ein Werden, und als diſs Werden ist sie die Vernünftigkeit.
1807 LXX
56 In dieſer Natur deſſen, was ist, in seinem Seyn ſein Begriff zu ſeyn, ist es, daſs überhaupt die logiſche Nothwendigkeit beſteht; sie allein ist das vernünftige und der Rythmus des organischen Ganzen, sie ist eben so sehr Wiſſen des Inhalts, als der Inhalt Begriff und Wesen ist, — oder sie allein ist das Speculative. — Die concrete Gestalt sich selbst bewegend macht sich zur einfachen Bestimmtheit, damit erhebt sie sich zur logischen Form und ist in ihrer Wesentlichkeit; ihr concretes Daseyn ist nur diese Bewegung und ist unmittelbar logisches Daseyn. Es ist darum unnöthig, dem concreten Inhalt den Formalismus äuſserlich anzuthun; jener ist an ihm selbst das Uebergehen in diesen, der aber aufhört, dieser äuſserliche Formalismus zu seyn, weil die Form das einheimische Werden des concreten Inhalts selbst ist.
57 Diese Natur der wiſſenschafftlichen Methode, theils von dem Inhalte ungetrennt zu seyn, theils sich durch sich selbst ihren Rythmus zu bestimmen, hat, wie schon erinnert, in der ſpeculativen Philosophie ihre eigentliche Darstellung. — Das hier gesagte drückt zwar den Begriff aus, kann aber für nicht mehr als für eine anticipirte Versicherung gelten. Ihre Wahrheit liegt nicht in dieser zum theils erzählenden 1807 LXXI Exposition; und ist darum auch eben so wenig widerlegt, wenn dagegen versichert wird, dem sey nicht so, sondern es verhalte sich damit so und so, wenn gewohnte Vorstellungen, als ausgemachte und bekannte Wahrheiten in Erinnrung gebracht und hererzählt, oder auch aus dem Schreine des innern göttlichen Ansehauens Neues aufgetischt und versichert wird. — Eine solche Aufnahme pflegt die erste Reaction des Wiſſens, dem etwas unbekannt war, dagegen zu seyn, um die Freyheit und eigne Einsicht, die eigne Autorität gegen die fremde, denn unter dieser Gestalt erscheint das itzt zuerst aufgenommene, zu retten, — auch um den Schein und die Art von Schande, die darin liegen soll, daſs etwas gelernt worden sey, wegzuschaffen, so wie bey der Beyfall gebenden Annahme des Unbekannten die Reaction derselben Art in dem besteht, was in einer andren Sphäre das ultrarevolutionäre Reden und Handeln war.
58 Worauf es deswegen bey dem Studium der Wiſſenschaft ankommt, ist die Anstrengung des Begriffs auf sich zu nehmen. Sie erfodert die Aufmersamkeit auf ihn als solchen, auf die einfachen Bestimmungen, zum Beyſpiel, des Anſichseyns, des Fürſichseyns, der Sichselbſtgleichheit, und sofort; denn diese sind solche reine 1807 LXXII Selbstbewegungen, die man Seelen nennen könnte, wenn nicht ihr Begriff etwas höheres bezeichnete als diese. Der Gewohnheit an Vorstellungen fortzulauffen, ist die Unterbrechung derselben durch den Begriff eben so lästig, als dem formalen Denken, das in unwirklichen Gedanken hin und her räſonnirt. Jene Gewohnheit ist ein materielles Denken zu nennen, ein zufälliges Bewuſstseyn, das in den Stoff nur versenkt ist, welchem es daher sauer ankömmt, aus der Materie zugleich sein Selbst rein herauszuheben und bey sich zu seyn. Das andere, das Räsonniren, hingegen ist die Freyheit von dem Inhalt, und die Eitelkeit über ihn; ihr wird die Anstrengung zugemuthet, diese Freyheit aufzugeben, und statt das willkührlich bewegende Princip des Inhalts zu seyn, diese Freyheit in ihn zu versenken, ihn durch seine eigne Natur, das heiſst, durch das Selbst als das seinige, sich bewegen zu laſſen, und diese Bewegung zu betrachten. Sich des eignen Einfallens in den immanenten Rythmus der Begriffe entschlagen, in ihn nicht durch die Willkühr und sonst erworbene Weisheit eingreiffen, diese Enthaltsamkeit ist selbst ein wesentliches Moment der Aufmerksamkeit auf den Begriff.
1807 LXXIII
59 Es sind an dem räsonnirenden Verhalten die beyden Seiten bemerklicher zu machen, nach welchen das begreiffende Denken ihm entgegengesetzt ist. — Theils verhält sich jenes negativ gegen den aufgefaſsten Inhalt, weiſs ihn zu widerlegen und zu nichte zu machen. Daſs dem nicht so sey, diese Einsicht ist das bloſs Negative, es ist das Letzte, das nicht selbst über sich hinaus zu einem neuen Inhalt geht, sondern um wieder einen Inhalt zu haben, muſs etwas Anderes irgendwoher vorgenommen werden. Es ist die Reflexion in das leere Ich, die Eitelkeit seines Wiſſens. — Dieſe Eitelkeit drückt aber nicht nur diſs aus, daſs dieser Inhalt eitel, sondern auch, daſs diese Einsicht selbst es ist; denn sie ist das Negative, das nicht das positive in sich erblickt. Dadurch daſs diese Reflexion ihre Negativität selbst nicht zum Inhalte gewinnt, ist sie überhaupt nicht in der Sache, ſondern immer darüber hinaus; sie bildet sich deſswegen ein, mit der Behauptung der Leere immer weiter zu seyn, als eine inhaltsreiche Einsicht. Dagegen, wie vorhin gezeigt, gehört im begreiffenden Denken das Negative dem Inhalte selbst an, und ist sowohl als seine immanente Bewegung und Bestimmung, wie als Ganzes derselben das 1807 LXXIV Poſitive. Als Resultat aufgefaſst, ist es das aus dieser Bewegung herkommende, das beſtimmte Negative, und hiemit ebenso ein positiver Inhalt.
60 In Ansehung deſſen aber, daſs solches Denken einen Inhalt hat, es sey der Vorstellungen oder Gedanken, oder der Vermischung beyder, hat es eine andre Seite, die ihm das Begreiffen erschwert. Die merkwürdige Natur derselben hängt mit dem oben angegebenen Wesen der Idee selbst enge zusammen, oder drückt sie vielmehr aus, wie sie als die Bewegung erscheint, die denkendes Auffaſſen ist. — Wie nemlich in seinem negativen Verhalten, wovon so eben die Rede war, das räsonnirende Denken selber das Selbst ist, in das der Inhalt zurückgeht, so ist dagegegen in seinem positiven Erkennen das Selbst ein vorgestelltes Subject, worauf sich der Inhalt als Accidens und Prädicat bezieht. Diſs Subject macht die Basis aus, an die er geknüpft wird, und auf der die Bewegung hin und wieder läufft. Anders verhält es sich im begreiffenden Denken. Indem der Begriff das eigene Selbst des Gegenstandes ist, das sich als ſein Werden darstellt, ist es nicht ein ruhendes Subject, das unbewegt die Accidenzen trägt, sondern der sich bewegende und seine Bestimmungen in sich 1807 LXXV zurücknehmende Begriff. In dieser Bewegung geht jenes ruhende Subject selbst zu Grunde; es geht in die Unterschiede und Inhalt ein, und macht vielmehr die Bestimmtheit, das heiſst, den unterschiednen Inhalt wie die Bewegung deſſelben aus, statt ihr gegenüberstehen zu bleiben. Der feste Boden, den das Räsonniren an dem ruhenden Subjecte hat, ſchwankt also, und nur diese Bewegung selbst wird der Gegenstand. Das Subject, das seinen Inhalt erfüllt, hört auf, über dieſen hinaus zu gehen, und kann nicht noch andre Prädicate oder Accidenzen haben. Die Zerstreutheit des Inhalts ist umgekehrt dadurch unter das Selbst gebunden; es ist nicht das allgemeine, das frey vom Subjecte mehrern zukäme. Der Inhalt ist somit in der That nicht mehr Prädicat des Subjects, sondern ist die Substanz, ist das Wesen und der Begriff deſſen, wovon die Rede ist. Das vorstellende Denken, da seine Natur ist, an den Accidenzen oder Prädicaten fortzulauffen, und mit Recht, weil sie nicht mehr als Prädicate und Accidenzen sind, über sie hinauszugehen, wird, indem das, was im Satze die Form eines Prädicats hat, die Substanz selbst ist, in seinem Fortlauffen gehemmt. Es erleidet, es so vorzustellen, einen Gegenstoſs. 1807 LXXVI Vom Subjecte anfangend, als ob dieses zum Grunde liegen bliebe, findet es, indem das Prädicat vielmehr die Substanz ist, das Subject zum Prädicat übergegangen und hiemit aufgehoben; und indem so das, was Prädicat zu seyn scheint, zur ganzen und selbstständigen Maſſe geworden, kann das Denken nicht frey herumirren, sondern ist durch diese Schwere aufgehalten. — Sonst ist zuerst das Subject als das gegenſtändliche fixe Selbst zu Grunde gelegt; von hier aus geht die nothwendige Bewegung zur Mannichfaltigkeit der Bestimmungen oder der Prädicate fort; hier tritt an die Stelle jenes Subjects das wiſſende Ich selbst ein, und ist das Verknüpfen der Prädicate und das sie haltende Subject. Indem aber jenes erste Subject in die Bestimmungen selbst eingeht und ihre Seele ist, findet das zweyte Subject, nemlich das wiſſende, jenes, mit dem es schon fertig seyn und worüber hinaus es in sich zurückgehen will, noch im Prädicate vor, und statt in dem Bewegen des Prädicats das Thuende, als Räsonniren, ob jenem diſs oder jenes Prädicat beyzulegen wäre, seyn zu können, hat es vielmehr mit dem Selbst des Inhalts noch zu thun, soll nicht für sich, sondern mit diesem zusammenseyn.
1807 LXXVII
61 Formell kann das Gesagte so ausgedrückt werden, daſs die Natur des Urtheils oder Satzes überhaupt, die den Unterschied des Subjects und Prädicats in sich schlieſst, durch den speculativen Satz zerstört wird, und der identische Satz, zu dem der erstere wird, den Gegenstoſs zu jenem Verhältniſſe enthält. — Dieser Conflict der Form eines Satzes überhaupt, und der sie zerstörenden Einheit des Begriffs ist dem ähnlich, der im Rythmus zwischen dem Metrum und dem Accente statt findet. Der Rythmus resultirt aus der schwebenden Mitte und Vereinigung beyder. So soll auch im philosophischen Satze die Identität des Subjects und Prädicats den Unterschied derselben, den die Form des Satzes ausdrückt, nicht vernichten, sondern ihre Einheit als eine Harmonie hervorgehen. Die Form des Satzes ist die Erscheinung des bestimmten Sinnes oder der Accent, der seine Erfüllung unterscheidet; daſs aber das Prädicat die Substanz ausdrückt, und das Subject selbst ins Allgemeine fällt, ist die Einheit, worin jener Accent verklingt.
62 Um das gesagte durch Beyspiele zu erläutern, so ist in dem Satz; Gott ist das Seyn, das Prädicat das Seyn; es hat substantielle Bedeutung, in der das Subject zerflieſst. Seyn soll 1807 LXXVIII hier nicht Prädicat, sondern das Wesen seyn; dadurch scheint Gott aufzuhören das zu seyn, was er durch die Stellung des Satzes ist, nemlich das feſte Subject. — Das Denken, statt im Uebergange von Subjecte zum Prädicate weiter zu kommen, fühlt sich, da das Subject verloren geht, vielmehr gehemmt, und zu dem Gedanken des Subjects, weil es daſſelbe vermiſst, zurückgeworfen; oder es findet, da das Prädicat selbst als ein Subject, als das Seyn, als das Weſen ausgesprochen ist, welches die Natur des Subjects erschöpft, das Subject unmittelbar auch im Prädicate; und nun statt daſs es im Prädicate in sich gegangen die freye Stellung des Räsonnirens erhielte, ist es in den Inhalt noch vertieft oder wenigſtens ist die Foderung vorhanden, in ihn vertieſt zu seyn. — So auch wenn gesagt wird, das Wirkliche ist das Allgemeine, so vergeht das Wirkliche als Subject, in seinem Prädicate. Das Allgemeine soll nicht nur die Bedeutung des Prädicats haben, so daſs der Satz diſs ausſagte, das Wirkliche ſey allgemein, ſondern das Allgemeine ſoll das Weſen des Wirklichen ausdrücken. — Das Denken verliert daher ſo ſehr ſeinen festen gegenständlichen Boden, den es am Subjecte hatte, als es in Prädicate darauf zurückgeworfen wird, und 1807 LXXIX in dieſem nicht in sich, ſondern in das Subject des Inhalts zurückgeht.
63 Auf dieſem ungewohnten Hemmen beruhen groſsen Theils die Klagen über die Unverständlichkeit philoſophiſcher Schriften, wenn anders im Individuum die ſonſtigen Bedingungen der Bilgung, sie zu verstehen, vorhanden sind. Wir ſehen in dem Geſagten den Grund des ganz bestimmten Vorwurſs, der ihnen oft gemacht wird, daſs Mehreres erst wiederhohlt geleſen werden müſſe, ehe es verstanden werden könne; — ein Vorwurf, der etwas ungebührliches und letztes enthalten ſoll, ſo daſs er, wenn er gegründet, weiter keine Gegenrede zulaſſe. — Es erhellt aus dem Obigen, welche Bewandniſs es damit hat. Der philoſophiſche Satz, weil er Satz ist, erweckt die Meynung des gewöhnlichen Verhältniſſes des Subjects und Prädicats, und des gewöhnten Verhaltens des Wiſſens. Diſs Verhalten und die Meynung deſſelben zerstört ſein philoſophiſcher Inhalt; die Meynung erfährt, daſs es anders gemeynt ist, als sie meynte, und dieſe Correction ſeiner Meynung nöthigt das Wiſſen auf den Satz zurückzukommen und ihn nun anders zu faſſen.
64 Eine Schwierigkeit, die vermieden werden ſollte, macht die Vermiſchung der ſpeculativen 1807 LXXX und der räſonnirenden Weiſe aus, wenn einmal das vom Subjecte geſagte die Bedeutung ſeines Begriffs hat, das anderemal aber auch nur die Bedeutung ſeines Prädicats oder Accidens. — Die eine Weiſe stört die andere, und erst diejenige philosophische Exposition würde es erreichen, plastiſch zu ſeyn, welche strenge die Art des gewöhnlichen Verhältniſſes der Theile eines Satzes ausſchlöſſe.
65 In der That hat auch das nicht ſpeculative Denken ſein Recht, das gültig aber in der Weiſe des ſpeculativen Satzes nicht beachtet ist. Daſs die Form des Satzes aufgehoben wird, muſs nicht nur auf unmittelbare Weiſe geſchehen, nicht durch den bloſſen Inhalt des Satzes. Sondern dieſe entgegengeſetzte Bewegung muſs ausgeſprochen werden; sie muſs nicht nur jene innerliche Hemmung, ſondern diſs Zurückgehen des Begriffs in sich muſs dargeſtellt ſeyn. Dieſe Bewegung, welche das ausmacht, was ſonſt der Beweis leiſten ſollte, ist die dialektiſche Bewegung des Satzes ſelbst. Sie allein ist das wirkliche Speculative, und nur das Ausſprechen derſelben ist ſpeculative Darſtellung. Als Satz ist das Speculative nur die innerliche Hemmung und die nichtdaſeyende Rückkehr des Weſens in ſich. Wir ſehen uns daher oft von philoſophiſchen 1807 LXXXI Expofitionen an dieſes innre Anſchauen verwieſen, und dadurch die Darſtellung der dialektiſchen Bewegung des Satzes erſpart, die wir verlangten. — Der Satz ſoll ausdrücken, was das Wahre iſt, aber weſentlich iſt es Subject; als dieſes iſt es nur die dialektiſche Bewegung, dieſer ſich ſelbſt erzeugende, fortleitende und in ſich zurückgehende Gang. — Bey dem ſonſtigen Erkennen macht der Beweis dieſe Seite der ausgeſprochnen Innerlichkeit aus. Nachdem aber die Dialektik vom Beweiſe getrennt worden, iſt in der That der Begriff des philoſophiſchen Beweiſens verloren gegangen.
66 Es kann hierüber erinnert werden, daſs die dialektiſche Bewegung gleichfalls Sätze zu ihren Theilen oder Elementen habe; die aufgezeigte Schwierigkeit ſcheint daher immer zurückzukehren, und eine Schwierigkeit der Sache ſelbſt zu ſeyn. — Es iſt diſs dem ähnlich, was beym gewöhnlichen Beweiſe ſo vorkommt, daſs die Gründe, die er gebraucht, ſelbſt wieder einer Begründung bedürfen, und ſo fort ins unendliche. Dieſe Form des Begründens und Bedingens gehört aber jenem Beweiſen, von dem die dialektiſche Bewegung verſchieden iſt, und ſomit dem äuſſerlichen Erkennen an Was dieſe ſelbſt betrifft, ſo iſt ihr Element der 1807 LXXXII reine Begriff, hiemit hat ſie einen Inhalt, der durch und durch Subject an ihm ſelbſt iſt. Es kommt alſo kein ſolcher Inhalt vor, der als zum Grunde liegendes Subject ſich verhielte, und dem ſeine Bedeutung als ein Prädicat zukäme; der Satz iſt unmittelbarbar eine nur leere Form. — Auſſer dem ſinnlich angeſchauten oder vorgeſtellten Selbſt iſt es vornemlich der Nahme als Nahme, der das reine Subject, das leere begriffloſe Eins bezeichnet. Aus dieſem Grunde kann es zum Beyſpiel dienlich ſeyn, den Nahmen: Gott, zu vermeiden, weil diſs Wort nicht unmittelbar zugleich Begriff, ſondern der eigentliche Nahme, die feſte Ruhe des zum Grunde liegenden Subjects iſt. Da hingegen z. B. das Seyn, oder das Eine, die Einzelnheit, das Subject, ſelbſt auch, u. ſ. f. unmittelbar Begriffe andeuten. — Wenn auch von jenem Subjecte ſpeculative Wahrheiten geſagt werden, ſo entbehrt doch ihr Inhalt des immanenten Begriffs, weil er nur als ruhendes Subject vorhanden iſt, und ſie bekommen durch dieſen Umſtand leicht die Form der bloſſen Erbaulichkeit. — Von dieſer Seite wird alſo auch das Hinderniſs, das in der Gewohnheit liegt, das ſpeculative Prädicat nach der Form des Satzes, nicht als Begriff und Weſen zu faſſen durch die Schuld des 1807 LXXXIII philoſophiſchen Vortrags ſelbſt vermehrt, und verringert werden können. Die Darſtellung muſs, der Einſicht in die Natur des Speculativen getreu, die dialektiſche Form behalten und nichts hereinnehmen, als in ſo fern es begriffen wird und der Begriff iſt.
67 So ſehr als das räſonnirende Verhalten, iſt dem Studium der Philoſophie die nicht räſonnirende Einbildung auf ausgemachte Wahrheiten hinderlich, auf welche der Beſitzer es nicht nöthig zu haben meynt zurückzukommen, ſondern ſie zu Grunde legt und ſie ausſprechen zu können glaubt, ſo wie durch ſie richten und abſprechen. Von dieſer Seite thut es beſonders Noth, daſs wieder ein ernſthafftes Geſchäffte aus dem Philoſophiren gemacht werde. Von allen Wiſſenſchaften, Künſten, Geſchicklichkeiten, Handwerken gilt die Ueberzeugung, daſs, um ſie zu beſitzen, eine vielfache Bemühung des Erlernens und Uebens derſelben nöthig iſt. In Anſehung der Philoſophie dagegen ſcheint itzt das Vorurtheil zu herrſchen, daſs, wenn zwar jeder Augen und Finger hat, und wenn er Leder und Werkzeug bekommt, er darum nicht im Stande ſey, Schuhe zu machen, — jeder doch unmittelbar zu philofophiren, und die Philoſophie zu beurtheilen 1807 LXXXIV verſtehe, weil er den Maſsſtab an ſeiner natürlichen Vernunft dazu beſitze, — als ob er den Maſsſtab eines Schuhes nicht an ſeinem Fuſſe ebenfalls beſäſſe. — Es ſcheint gerade in den Mangel von Kenntniſſen und von Studium der Beſitz der Philoſophie geſetzt zu werden, und dieſe da aufzuhören, wo jene anfangen. Sie wird häuffig für ein formelles inhaltsleeres Wiſſen gehalten, und es fehlt ſehr an der Einſicht, daſs was, auch dem Inhalte nach, in irgend einer Kenntniſs und Wiſſenſchafft Wahrheit iſt, dieſen Nahmen allein dann verdienen kann, wenn es von der Philoſophie erzeugt worden; daſs die andern Wiſſenſchafften, ſie mögen es mit Räſonniren, ohne die Philoſophie, verſuchen, ſo viel ſie wollen, ohne ſie nicht Leben, Geiſt, Wahrheit in ihnen zu haben vermögen.
68 In Anſehung der eigentlichen Philoſophie ſehen wir für den langen Weg der Bildung, für die eben ſo reiche als tiefe Bewegung, durch die der Geiſt zum Wiſſen gelangt, die unmittelbare Offenbarung des Göttlichen und den geſunden Menſchenverſtand, der ſich weder mit andrem Wiſſen noch mit dem eigentlichen Philoſophiren bemüht und gebildet hat, ſich unmittelbar als ein vollkommenes Equivalent und ſo gutes Surrogat anſehen, als etwa die Cichorie 1807 LXXXV ein Surrogat des Coſſees zu ſeyn gerühmt wird. Es iſt nicht erfreulich, zu bemerken, daſs die Unwiſſenheit und die form — wie geſchmackloſe Rohheit ſelbſt, die unfähig iſt, ihr Denken auf einen abſtracten Satz, noch weniger auf den Zuſammenhang mehrerer feſtzuhalten, bald die Freyheit und Toleranz des Denkens, bald aber Genialität zu ſeyn verſichert. Die letztere, wie itzt in der Philoſophie, graſsirte bekanntlich einſt ebenſo in der Poëſie; ſtatt Poëſie aber, wenn das Produciren dieſer Genialität einen Sinn hatte, erzeugte es triviale Proſe oder wenn es über dieſe hinausging, verrückte Reden. So itzt ein natürliches Philoſophiren, das ſich zu gut für den Begriff und durch deſſen Mangel für ein anſchauendes und poëtiſches Denken hält, bringt willkührliche Combinationen einer durch den Gedanken nur desorganiſirten Einbildungskrafft zu Markte, — Gebilde, die weder Fiſch noch Fleiſch, weder Poëſie noch Philoſophie ſind.
69 Dagegen im ruhigern Bette des geſunden Menſchenverſtandes fortflieſſend gibt das natürliche Philoſophiren eine Rhetorik trivialer Wahrheiten zum Beſten. Wird ihm die Unbedeutenheit derſelben vorgehalten, ſo verſichert es dagegen, daſs der Sinn und die 1807 LXXXVI Erfüllung in ſeinem Herzen vorhanden ſey, und auch ſo bey Andern vorhanden ſeyn müſſe, indem es überhaupt mit der Unſchuld des Herzens und der Reinheit des Gewiſſens und dergleichen, letzte Dinge geſagt zu haben meynt, wogegen weder Einrede ſtatt finde, noch etwas weiteres gefodert werden könne. Es war aber darum zu thun, daſs das Beſte nicht im Innern zurückbliebe, ſondern aus dieſem Schachte zu Tage gefördert werde. Letzte Wahrheiten jener Art vorzubringen, dieſe Mühe konnte längſt erſparrt werden, denn ſie ſind längſt etwa im Katechismus, in den Sprichwörtern des Volks u. ſ. f. zu finden. — Es iſt nicht ſchwer, ſolche Wahrheiten an ihrer Unbeſtimmtheit oder Schiefheit zu faſſen, oft die gerade entgegengeſetzte ihrem Bewuſstſeyn in ihm ſelbſt aufzuzeigen. Es wird, indem es ſich aus der Verwirrung, die in ihm angerichtet wird, zu ziehen bemüht, in neue verfallen und wohl zu dem Ausbruche kommen, daſs ausgemachtermaſſen dem ſo und ſo, jenes aber Sophiſtereyen ſeyen; — ein Schlagwort des gemeinen Menſchenverſtandes gegen die gebildete Vernunft, wie den Ausdruck: Träumereyen, die Unwiſſenheit der Philoſophie ſich für dieſe ein für allemal gemerkt hat. — Indem jener ſich auf 1807 LXXXVII das Gefühl, ſein inwendiges Orakel, berufft, iſt er gegen den, der nicht übereinſtimmt, fertig; er muſs erklären, daſs er dem weiter nichts zu ſagen habe, der nicht daſſelbe in ſich finde und fühle; — mit andern Worten, er tritt die Wurzel der Humanität mit Füſſen. Denn die Natur dieſer iſt auf die Uebereinkunft mit andern zu dringen, und ihre Existenz nur in der zu Stande gebrachten Gemeinſamkeit der Bewuſstſeyn. Das widermenſchliche, das thieriſche beſteht darin, im Gefühle ſtehen zu bleiben und nur durch dieſes ſich mittheilen zu können.
70 Wenn nach einem königlichen Wege zur Wiſſenſchaft gefragt würde, ſo kann kein bequemerer angegeben werden, als der ſich auf den geſunden Menſchenverſtand zu verlaſſen, und um übrigens auch mit der Zeit und mit der Philoſophie fortzuſchreiten, Recenſionen von philoſophiſchen Schriften, etwa gar die Vorreden und erſten Paragraphen derſelben zu leſen, denn dieſe geben die allgemeine Grundſätze, worauf alles ankommt, und jene neben der hiſtoriſchen Notiz noch die Beurtheilung, die ſogar, weil ſie Beurtheilung iſt, über das Beurtheilte hinaus iſt. Dieſer gemeine Weg macht ſich im Hausrocke, aber im 1807 LXXXVIII hohenprieſterlichen Gewande ſchreitet das Hochgefühl des Ewigen, Heiligen, Unendlichen einher — einen Weg, der vielmehr ſchon ſelbſt das unmittelbare Seyn im Centrum, die Genialität tiefer origineller Ideen und hoher Gedankenblitze iſt. Wie jedoch ſolche Tiefe noch nicht den Quell des Weſens offenbart, ſo ſind dieſe Raketen noch nicht das Empyreum. Wahre Gedanken und wiſſenſchaftliche Einſicht iſt nur in der Arbeit des Begriffes zu gewinnen. Er allein kann die Allgemeinheit des Wiſſens hervorbringen, welche weder die gemeine Unbeſtimmtheit und Dürſtigkeit des gemeinen Menſchenverſtands, ſondern gebildete und vollſtändige Erkenntniſs, — noch die ungemeine Allgemeinheit der durch Trägheit und Eigendünkel von Genie ſich verderbenden Anlage der Vernunft, ſondern die zu ihrer einheimiſchen Form gediehene Wahrheit, welche fähig iſt, das Eigenthum aller ſelbſtbewuſsten Vernunft zu ſeyn.
71 Indem ich das, wodurch die Wiſſenſchaft exiſtirt, in die Selbſtbewegung des Begriffes ſetze, ſo ſcheint die Betrachtung, daſs die angeführten und noch andre äuſſre Seiten der Vorſtellungen unſerer Zeit über die Natur und Geſtalt der Wahrheit hievon abweichen, ja 1807 LXXXIX ganz entgegen ſind, einem Verſuche, das System der Wiſſenſchaft in jener Beſtimmung darzuſtellen, keine günſtige Aufnahme zu verſprechen. Inzwiſchen kann ich bedenken, daſs, wenn z. B. zuweilen das Vortreffliche der Philoſophie Plato’s in ſeine wiſſenſchaftlich werthloſen Mythen geſetzt wird, es auch Zeiten gegeben, welche ſogar Zeiten der Schwärmerey genannt werden, worin die Ariſtoteliſche Philoſophie um ihrer ſpeculativen Tiefe willen geachtet und der Parmenides des Plato, wohl das gröſste Kunſtwerk der alten Dialektik, für die wahre Enthüllung und den poſitiven Ausdruck des göttlichen Lebens gehalten wurde, und ſogar bey vieler Trübheit deſſen, was die Ekſtaſe erzeugte, dieſe misverſtandne Ekſtaſe in der That nichts andres als der reine Begriff ſeyn ſollte, — daſs ferner das Vortreffliche der Philoſophie unſerer Zeit ſeinen Werth ſelbſt in die Wiſſenſchaftlichkeit ſetzt, und wenn auch die Andern es anders nehmen, nur durch ſie in der That ſich geltend macht. Somit kann ich auch hoffen, daſs dieſer Verſuch, die Wiſſenſchaft dem Begriffe zu vindiciren und ſie in dieſem ihrem eigenthümlichen Elemente darzuſtellen, ſich durch die innre Wahrheit der Sache Eingang zu verſchaffen wiſſen werde. Wir 1807 XC müſſen überzeugt ſeyn, daſs das Wahre die Natur hat, durchzudringen, wenn ſeine Zeit gekommen, und daſs es nur erſcheint, wenn dieſe gekommen, und deſswegen nie zu früh erſcheint noch ein unreifes Publicum findet; auch daſs das Individuum dieſes Effects bedarf um das, was noch ſeine einſame Sache iſt, daran ſich zu bewähren und die Ueberzeugung, die nur erſt der Beſonderheit angehört, als etwas allgemeines zu erfahren. Hiebey aber iſt häuffig das Publicum von denen zu unterſcheiden, welche ſich als ſeine Repreſentanten und Sprecher betragen. Jenes verhält sich in manchen Rückſichten anders als dieſe, ja ſelbſt entgegengeſetzt. Wenn es gutmüthigerweiſe die Schuld, daſs ihm eine philoſophiſche Schrift nicht zuſagt, eher auf ſich nimmt, ſo ſchieben hingegen dieſe, ihrer Competenz gewiſs, alle Schuld auf den Schriftſteller. Die Wirkung iſt in jenem ſtiller als das Thun dieſer Todten, wenn ſie ihre Todten begraben. Wenn itzt die allgemeine Einſicht überhaupt gebildeter, ihre Neugierde wachſamer und ihr Urtheil ſchneller beſtimmt iſt, ſo daſs die Füſſe derer, die dich hinaustragen werden, ſchon vor der Thüre ſtehen, ſo iſt hievon oft die langſamere Wirkung zu unterſcheiden, welche die 1807 XCI Aufmerkſamkeit, die durch imponirende Verſicherungen erzwungen wurde, ſo wie den wegwerfenden Tadel, berichtigt, und einem Theile eine Mitwelt erſt in einiger Zeit gibt, während ein anderer nach dieſer keine Nachwelt mehr hat.
72 Weil übrigens in einer Zeit, worin die Allgemeinheit des Geiſtes ſo ſehr erſtarkt und die Einzelnheit, wie ſich gebührt, um ſo viel gleichgültiger geworden iſt, auch jene an ihrem vollen Umfang und gebildeten Reichthum hält und ihn fodert, der Antheil, der an dem geſammten Werke des Geiſtes auf die Thätigkeit des Individuums fällt, nur gering ſeyn kann, ſo muſs dieſes, wie die Natur der Wiſſenſchaft ſchon es mit ſich bringt, ſich um ſo mehr vergeſſen, und zwar werden und thun, was es kann, aber es muſs ebenſo weniger von ihm gefordert werden, wie es ſelbſt weniger von ſich erwarten und für ſich fordern darf.
Musean translation
Mouseia's complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete German of the 1807 first edition, all 808 standard paragraphs in eight chapters plus Preface and Introduction, for fidelity, Hegel's argument, clarity and structure. German witness: Deutsches Textarchiv, CC BY-SA 4.0; page markers keep the 1807 pagination.
*Preface*.
1 An explanation of the kind customarily prefixed to a work in a preface—concerning the author's purpose, the circumstances that prompted the work, and the relation in which the author believes it stands to earlier or contemporary treatments of the same subject—seems, in a philosophical work, not merely superfluous but, by the nature of the matter, inappropriate and contrary to its purpose. For whatever might suitably be said about philosophy in a preface—for example, a historical account of its tendency and standpoint, its general content and results, a combination of miscellaneous assertions and 1807 II assurances about the true—cannot count as the manner in which philosophical truth is to be presented. Moreover, because philosophy essentially inhabits the element of universality, which encompasses the particular, it is more liable than other sciences to the appearance that its purpose or final results express the matter itself, indeed in its complete essence, while its elaboration is, by contrast, inessential. With a general conception of anatomy, however—as, say, knowledge of the parts of the body considered in their lifeless existence—we are convinced that we do not yet possess the matter itself, the content of this science, but must also take the trouble to attend to the particulars. Furthermore, in such an aggregate of items of knowledge, which does not rightly bear the name of science, conversation about its purpose and similar generalities does not differ from the historical, nonconceptual manner in which its content itself—these nerves, muscles, and so forth—is discussed. In philosophy, by contrast, an inconsistency would arise: use would be made of a manner 1807 III that philosophy itself shows to be incapable of grasping the truth.
2 Likewise, defining the relation in which a philosophical work believes it stands to other efforts concerning the same subject introduces an extraneous interest and obscures what matters in the cognition of truth. The more firmly opinion fixes the opposition between the true and the false, the more it tends to expect either agreement with or opposition to a given philosophical system, and to see only one or the other in an explanation concerning it. It understands the diversity of philosophical systems not so much as the progressive development of truth as it sees in that diversity only contradiction. The bud disappears as the blossom breaks forth, and one might say that the latter refutes the former; likewise, the fruit declares the blossom to be a false existence of the plant, and takes its place as the plant's truth. These forms do not merely differ; they also displace one another as mutually incompatible. Yet their fluid nature also makes them moments 1807 IV of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but each is as necessary as the other; only this equal necessity constitutes the life of the whole. But opposition to a philosophical system usually neither understands itself in this way, nor does the consciousness apprehending it generally know how to free it, or keep it free, from its one-sidedness, and to recognize mutually necessary moments in what appears to be at odds and in conflict with itself.
3 The demand for such explanations, and the satisfaction of that demand, may seem to be concerned with what is essential. Where could the inner substance of a philosophical work be expressed more fully than in its purposes and results, and how could these be known more precisely than through their difference from what the age otherwise produces in the same sphere? But if such activity is to count as more than the beginning of cognition, if it is to count as actual cognition, it must in fact be numbered among the devices for evading the matter itself while combining the appearance of seriousness and effort on its behalf 1807 V with actually sparing oneself that effort. For the matter is not exhausted in its purpose, but in its elaboration; nor is the result the actual whole, but rather the result together with its becoming. The purpose by itself is the lifeless universal, just as the tendency is a mere impulse still lacking actuality; and the bare result is the corpse that has left that actuality behind. Likewise, difference is rather the limit of the matter; it is where the matter ceases, or what the matter is not. Such preoccupation with purposes or results, and with the differences and assessments of the one and the other, is therefore easier work than it may seem. For instead of engaging with the matter, such activity is always beyond it; instead of dwelling in it and forgetting itself there, such knowing always reaches for something else, and remains with itself rather than being with the matter and surrendering itself to it. It is easiest to judge what has substance and solidity, harder to grasp it, and hardest of all to produce its presentation, which unites the two.
1807 VI
4 Cultivation, and the labor of emerging from the immediacy of substantial life, must always begin by acquiring knowledge of general principles and viewpoints, by working one's way up, initially, only to the thought of the matter in general, and equally by supporting or refuting it with reasons, grasping its concrete and abundant fullness in its determinations, and knowing how to give an orderly account and a serious judgment of it. But this beginning of cultivation will next give way to the seriousness of a fulfilled life, which leads into the experience of the matter itself; and when, in addition, the seriousness of the concept descends into its depths, such knowledge and judgment will retain their proper place in conversation.
5 The true shape in which truth exists can only be its scientific system. My purpose has been to help bring philosophy closer to the form of science—to the goal of laying aside its name of love of knowing and becoming actual knowing. The inner necessity that knowing should be science lies in its nature, 1807 VII and the only satisfactory explanation of this is the presentation of philosophy itself. But the external necessity, insofar as it is grasped universally, apart from the contingencies of the person and the individual's circumstances, is the same as the inner necessity in the shape in which time presents the existence of its moments. To show that the time has come for philosophy to be raised to science would therefore be the sole true justification of attempts directed to this purpose, since it would demonstrate the necessity of that purpose, indeed would at the same time accomplish it.
6 In locating the true shape of truth in scientific form—or, what is the same, in maintaining that truth has the element of its existence in the concept alone—I know that this seems to contradict a conception, and its consequences, as presumptuous as it is widespread in the convictions of the age. An explanation concerning this contradiction therefore seems not superfluous, although here it can itself be no more than an assurance, like that against which it is directed. If, namely, the true exists only in 1807 VIII what is called now intuition, now immediate knowledge of the absolute, religion, being—not being at the center of divine love, but the being of that center itself—or rather exists only as this, then the presentation of philosophy is required, on this basis, to take the very opposite of the form of the concept. The absolute is not to be comprehended but felt and intuited; not its concept but the feeling and intuition of it are to take the lead and find expression.
7 If the appearance of such a demand is considered in its wider context, and we look at the stage self-conscious spirit has now reached, spirit has gone beyond the substantial life it formerly led in the element of thought—beyond this immediacy of its faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the certainty consciousness possessed of its reconciliation with essence and of that essence's universal presence, inward and outward. It has not merely passed beyond this into the opposite extreme of its insubstantial reflection into itself, but beyond that too. Its essential life is not merely lost to it; 1807 IX it is also conscious of this loss and of the finitude that is its content. Turning away from the husks, confessing that it lies in evil and reviling this condition, it now asks of philosophy not so much knowledge of what it is as, through philosophy, to attain once more the restoration of that substantiality and solidity of being. To meet this need, philosophy is therefore supposed not so much to open up substance's enclosure and raise it to self-consciousness—not so much to bring its chaotic consciousness back to the order of thought and the simplicity of the concept—as to pour together the distinctions of thought, suppress the differentiating concept, and restore the feeling of essence; to provide not so much insight as edification. The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion and love are the bait demanded to awaken the desire to bite; not the concept but ecstasy, not the coldly advancing necessity of the matter but fermenting inspiration, is to sustain and progressively unfold the wealth of substance.
1807 X
8 Corresponding to this demand is the strenuous, almost zealously agitated effort to tear people out of their absorption in the sensuous, the commonplace, and the singular, and direct their gaze to the stars—as though, wholly forgetful of the divine, they were on the point of satisfying themselves, like worms, with dust and water. Once they had furnished a heaven with a vast wealth of thoughts and images. The meaning of everything that is lay in the thread of light by which it was bound to heaven; along this thread, instead of dwelling in this present, the gaze slipped beyond it, up to divine essence, to a presence, so to speak, beyond this world. The eye of spirit had to be forcibly directed toward earthly things and held there; and it took a long time to work the clarity that only the supramundane possessed into the dullness and confusion enveloping the sense of this world, and to make attention to the present as such—what was called experience—engaging and valid. Now the opposite need seems to prevail: sense is so deeply rooted in earthly things 1807 XI that equal force is needed to raise it above them. Spirit shows itself so impoverished that, like a traveler in a sandy desert longing for a simple drink of water, it seems to long for no more than the scant feeling of the divine in general for its refreshment. By what suffices for spirit we may measure the greatness of its loss.
9 Yet this contentment in receiving, or parsimony in giving, is not fitting for science. Anyone seeking only edification, anyone wishing to shroud the earthly diversity of existence and thought in mist and craving the indeterminate enjoyment of this indeterminate divinity, may look for it wherever it is to be found; they will easily find the means to conjure up some enthusiasm and puff themselves up with it. But philosophy must beware of wanting to be edifying.
10 Still less should this contentment, which renounces science, claim that such inspiration and obscurity are something higher than science. This prophetic talk imagines that it remains precisely at the center and in the depths, looks contemptuously upon 1807 XII determinateness (the horos), and deliberately keeps its distance from the concept and necessity, as from reflection, which dwells only in finitude. Yet just as there is an empty breadth, there is also an empty depth; just as there is an extension of substance that pours out into finite multiplicity without the strength to hold it together, so this is an intensity without substance which, holding itself to be sheer force without expansion, is the same as superficiality. The strength of spirit is only as great as its expression, its depth only as deep as it dares to spread out and lose itself in its exposition. At the same time, when this nonconceptual substantial knowing professes to have submerged the self's distinctive character in essence, and to philosophize truly and reverently, it conceals from itself that, instead of being devoted to God, its rejection of measure and determination merely gives free rein now to the contingency of content within itself, now to its own arbitrariness within that content. Abandoning themselves to the unrestrained fermentation of substance, such people imagine that, by veiling self-consciousness and surrendering understanding, they are his own, to whom God gives wisdom in sleep; 1807 XIII what they do indeed receive and bring forth in sleep is therefore also dreams.
11 It is not difficult, moreover, to see that our time is a time of birth and transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the world of its existence and representation as it has been until now, and is on the point of sinking it into the past, engaged in the labor of its own transformation. Admittedly, spirit is never at rest, but always in advancing movement. Yet just as, in a child, after long, quiet nourishment, the first breath breaks off that gradual, merely quantitative progress—a qualitative leap—and now the child is born, so spirit, forming itself, ripens slowly and quietly toward its new shape, dissolving one small portion after another of the structure of its preceding world. Its tottering is indicated only by isolated symptoms; the frivolity and boredom spreading through the established order, the indeterminate intimation of something unknown, are heralds of something else approaching. This gradual crumbling, which did not alter the countenance of the whole, is interrupted by the dawn that, in a 1807 XIV flash, sets before us at once the structure of the new world.
12 But this new world has no more complete actuality than a newborn child, and it is essential not to lose sight of this. Its first appearance is only its immediacy, or its concept. Just as a building is not finished when its foundations have been laid, so the concept of the whole, once attained, is not the whole itself. Where we wish to see an oak in the strength of its trunk, the spread of its branches, and the masses of its foliage, we are not satisfied to be shown an acorn instead. Thus science, the crowning achievement of a world of spirit, is not complete at its beginning. The beginning of the new spirit is the product of a far-reaching revolution in manifold forms of cultivation, the prize of a path with many turns and of equally manifold effort and exertion. It is the whole that has returned into itself from its succession as well as its extension, the whole's simple concept as it has come to be. But the actuality of this simple whole consists in those configurations, now become moments, developing and giving themselves shape anew, but in their 1807 XV new element, in the meaning that has come to be.
13 While, on the one hand, the first appearance of the new world is only the whole veiled in its simplicity, or its universal ground, consciousness, on the other hand, still has the wealth of the preceding existence present in memory. It misses in the newly appearing shape the expansion and particularization of the content; still more, it misses the developed form through which differences are securely determined and ordered into their fixed relations. Without this development, science lacks universal intelligibility and appears to be the esoteric possession of a few individuals—an esoteric possession because it is as yet present only in its concept, or its inwardness; of a few individuals because its unexpanded appearance makes its existence something singular. Only what is completely determined is at the same time exoteric, comprehensible, capable of being learned and becoming everyone's property. The intelligible form of science is the path to it offered to everyone and made alike for all; and to attain rational knowing through understanding is the 1807 XVI just demand of consciousness as it approaches science. For understanding is thinking, the pure I in general; and what is intelligible is what is already familiar and common to science and unscientific consciousness, enabling the latter to enter the former immediately.
14 Science that is only beginning, and thus has not yet achieved either completeness of detail or perfection of form, is open to criticism on this account. But if such criticism is meant to strike at its essence, it would be as unjust as it is inadmissible to refuse to recognize the demand for this development. This opposition seems to be the principal knot at which scientific cultivation is presently wearing itself out, and about which it has not yet reached a proper understanding. One side insists on the wealth of material and intelligibility; the other disdains at least the latter and insists on immediate rationality and divinity. Even if the first side has been silenced, whether by the force of truth alone or also by the other's vehemence, and even if it feels itself overcome 1807 XVII as regards the foundation of the matter, it is not thereby satisfied as regards those demands, for they are justified but unfulfilled. Its silence belongs only half to the victory; the other half belongs to the boredom and indifference that usually follow expectations constantly aroused and promises left unfulfilled.
15 As regards content, those on the other side sometimes make it easy enough for themselves to achieve great breadth. They draw onto their ground a mass of material—namely, what is already known and ordered—and, by occupying themselves chiefly with peculiarities and curiosities, seem all the more to possess the rest, with which knowledge in its own way has already finished, while also mastering what is still unregulated; thus they seem to subject everything to the absolute idea, which thereby appears to be recognized in everything and to have grown into an extensive science. Yet closer examination shows that this expansion has not come about through one and the same thing giving itself different shapes; rather, it is the shapeless repetition of one and the same thing, merely applied externally 1807 XVIII to different material and acquiring a tedious semblance of diversity. The idea, which may well be true in itself, in fact never moves beyond its beginning if its development consists in nothing but such a repetition of the same formula. The knowing subject carrying one unmoving form around among what is given, the material dipped from outside into this resting element—this no more fulfills what is demanded than arbitrary fancies about the content do: what is demanded is a wealth springing from itself and a self-determining difference of shapes. Rather, it is a monochromatic formalism, which arrives at a differentiation of material only because that material is already prepared and familiar.
16 At the same time, this formalism maintains that such monotony and abstract universality are the absolute; it assures us that dissatisfaction with them shows an inability to seize the absolute standpoint and hold fast to it. If formerly the empty possibility of imagining something otherwise sufficed to refute a conception, and that same bare possibility, the universal thought, also possessed the entire positive 1807 XIX value of actual cognition, here likewise we see all value ascribed to the universal idea in this form of nonactuality, and the dissolution of the differentiated and determinate—or rather the casting of it into the abyss of emptiness, without further development or any justification in itself—passing for a speculative manner of contemplation. Here, to consider some existence as it is in the absolute consists in nothing more than saying that, although it has just been spoken of as something, in the absolute, in A = A, there is no such thing at all, but everything in it is one. To oppose this one piece of knowledge, that in the absolute everything is the same, to cognition that distinguishes and is fulfilled, or seeks and demands fulfillment—or to pass off one's absolute as the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black—is the naivety of a void of cognition. The formalism denounced and reviled by recent philosophy, and reproduced within that philosophy itself, will not disappear from science, even if its inadequacy is known and felt, until cognition of absolute actuality 1807 XX has become perfectly clear about its own nature. Since a general conception, when it precedes an attempt at its elaboration, makes that elaboration easier to grasp, it is useful to indicate its broad outline here, with the further intention of using the occasion to remove certain forms whose habitual use obstructs philosophical cognition.
17 In my view—which must justify itself through the presentation of the system itself—everything depends on grasping and expressing the true not as substance, but equally as subject. At the same time, it must be observed that substantiality encompasses the universal, or the immediacy of knowing, no less than that immediacy which is being, or immediacy for knowing. If conceiving God as the one substance outraged the age in which this determination was pronounced, the reason lay partly in the instinct that self-consciousness is submerged in it rather than preserved; but partly, too, the opposite position, which holds fast to thinking as thinking, to universality, is the same simplicity, or 1807 XXI undifferentiated, unmoving substantiality. And if, thirdly, thinking unites the being of substance as such with itself and grasps immediacy or intuition as thinking, the question remains whether this intellectual intuition does not fall back into inert simplicity and present actuality itself in a nonactual manner.
18 Living substance is, furthermore, the being that is in truth subject, or, what amounts to the same thing, that is in truth actual only insofar as it is the movement of positing itself, or the mediation of its becoming other with itself. As subject, it is pure, simple negativity, and thereby the splitting of the simple, or an opposing duplication that is in turn the negation of this indifferent diversity and its opposition. Only this self-restoring equality, or reflection into itself in otherness—not an original unity as such, or an immediate unity as such—is the true. It is the becoming of itself, the circle that presupposes its end as its purpose and has it as its beginning, and is actual only through its elaboration and its end.
1807 XXII
19 Thus the life of God and divine cognition may indeed be expressed as love's play with itself; but this idea sinks into edification and even insipidity if it lacks the seriousness, the pain, the patience, and the labor of the negative. In itself, that life may well be an unclouded equality and unity with itself, which takes neither otherness and alienation nor the overcoming of this alienation seriously. But this in-itself is abstract universality, in which its nature of being for itself, and thus the self-movement of form in general, is disregarded. If form is declared equal to essence, it is for that very reason a misunderstanding to suppose that cognition can be content with the in-itself or essence and dispense with form—that the absolute principle or absolute intuition makes the elaboration of the former or the development of the latter dispensable. Precisely because form is as essential to essence as essence is to itself, essence must be grasped and expressed not merely as essence, that is, as immediate substance or pure self-intuition of the divine, but equally as form, and 1807 XXIII in the entire wealth of developed form. Only thereby is it grasped and expressed as actual.
20 The true is the whole. But the whole is only the essence completing itself through its development. Of the absolute it must be said that it is essentially result, that only at the end is it what it is in truth; and its nature consists precisely in being something actual, subject, or the becoming of itself. However contradictory it may seem that the absolute is to be comprehended essentially as result, a little reflection corrects this appearance of contradiction. The beginning, the principle, or the absolute as first and immediately pronounced, is only the universal. Just as, when I say "all animals," these words cannot count as a zoology, so it is plain that the words "divine," "absolute," "eternal," and so forth do not express what is contained in them; and only such words do in fact express intuition as the immediate. Anything more than such a word, even the transition to a proposition, is a becoming-other that must be taken back, is a mediation. Yet mediation is what is regarded with horror, 1807 XXIV as though absolute cognition were surrendered by making more of it than merely that it is nothing absolute and does not exist at all in the absolute.
21 But this horror in fact stems from unfamiliarity with the nature of mediation and of absolute cognition itself. For mediation is nothing other than self-equality in movement, or reflection into itself, the moment of the I that is for itself, pure negativity, or simple becoming. The I, or becoming in general, this mediating, is, by virtue of its simplicity, precisely immediacy in the process of becoming, and the immediate itself. Thus reason is misunderstood when reflection is excluded from the true and not grasped as a positive moment of the absolute. Reflection makes the true a result, but equally sublates this opposition to its becoming; for this becoming is equally simple and therefore does not differ from the form of the true, which shows itself as simple in the result. Rather, it is precisely this having-returned into simplicity. Although the embryo is in itself a human being, it is not so for itself; it is so for itself only 1807 XXV as cultivated reason that has made itself what it is in itself. Only this is its actuality. But this result is itself simple immediacy, for it is self-conscious freedom, resting within itself, which has not set opposition aside and left it lying there, but is reconciled with it.
22 What has been said can also be expressed by saying that reason is purposive activity. The elevation of supposed nature above misunderstood thinking, and especially the banishment of external purposiveness, has brought the form of purpose in general into disrepute. Yet, as Aristotle too defines nature as purposive activity, purpose is the immediate, the resting element which itself moves, or is subject. Its abstract power to move is being-for-itself, or pure negativity. The result is the same as the beginning only because the beginning is purpose—or the actual is the same as its concept only because the immediate, as purpose, has the self, or pure actuality, within itself. The accomplished purpose, or the existent actual, is movement and unfolded 1807 XXVI becoming; but precisely this unrest is the self. It is therefore equal to the immediacy and simplicity of the beginning because it is the result, that which has returned into itself; but that which has returned into itself is precisely the self, and the self is self-related equality and simplicity.
23 The need to represent the absolute as subject made use of propositions such as "God is the eternal," or "the moral world order," or "love," and so forth. In such propositions the true is merely posited outright as subject, but not presented as the movement of reflecting itself into itself. A proposition of this kind begins with the word "God." By itself, this is a meaningless sound, a mere name; only the predicate says what he is, supplies its fulfillment and meaning. The empty beginning becomes actual knowing only in this end. In this respect, it is not apparent why one does not speak solely of the eternal, the moral world order, and so forth, or, as the ancients did, of pure concepts—being, the one, and so forth—of what constitutes the meaning, without adding the meaningless sound as well. Yet the word marks precisely that what is posited is not a being or essence 1807 XXVII or a universal in general, but something reflected into itself, a subject. At the same time, however, this is merely anticipated. The subject is assumed as a fixed point to which predicates are attached as their support by a movement belonging to the one who knows it, a movement not regarded as belonging to the point itself; yet only through that movement would the content be presented as subject. As this movement is constituted, it cannot belong to the subject; but once that point is presupposed, the movement cannot be constituted otherwise: it can only be external. Thus the anticipation that the absolute is subject is not only not the actuality of this concept, but even makes that actuality impossible; for the anticipation posits the subject as a resting point, whereas its actuality is self-movement.
24 Among the various consequences flowing from what has been said, one may single out this: knowing is actual, and can be presented, only as science or as system. Further, a so-called fundamental proposition or principle of philosophy, if true, is for that very reason also false, because it is a fundamental proposition or principle. It is therefore easy to refute it. 1807 XXVIII The refutation consists in showing its deficiency; but it is deficient because it is only the universal or principle, the beginning. If the refutation is thorough, it is drawn and developed from the principle itself—not effected from outside through opposing assurances and fancies. It would thus properly be the principle's development, and thereby the remedying of its deficiency, if it did not misunderstand itself by attending only to its negative side and failing to become conscious of the positive side of its progress and result as well. Conversely, the genuinely positive elaboration of the beginning is at the same time equally a negative attitude toward it, namely toward its one-sided form of being initially only immediate, or purpose. It may thus equally be taken as the refutation of what constitutes the ground of the system, but better as a demonstration that the ground, or principle, of the system is in fact only its beginning.
25 That the true is actual only as system, or that substance is essentially subject, is expressed in the conception that pronounces the absolute to be spirit—the most sublime concept, and one belonging to the modern age and its 1807 XXIX religion. The spiritual alone is the actual; it is essence, or what is in itself—that which relates itself, or is determinate, otherness and being-for-itself—and which, in this determinateness, or its being-outside-itself, remains within itself; or it is in and for itself. But initially it is this being-in-and-for-itself only for us, or in itself; that is, it is spiritual substance. It must also be this for itself—must be knowledge of the spiritual and knowledge of itself as spirit; that is, it must be an object to itself, but just as immediately an object that is mediated, that is, sublated, reflected into itself. It is for itself only for us insofar as its spiritual content is produced by itself; but insofar as it is for itself also for its own self, this self-production, the pure concept, is at the same time its objective element, in which it has its existence. In this way, in its existence, it is for itself an object reflected into itself. Spirit that knows itself thus as spirit is science. Science is its actuality and the realm it builds for itself in its own element.
26 Pure self-cognition in absolute otherness, this ether as such, is the ground 1807 XXX and soil of science, or knowing in general. The beginning of philosophy presupposes or demands that consciousness inhabit this element. But this element itself attains its completion and transparency only through the movement of its becoming. It is pure spirituality, or the universal, which has the mode of simple immediacy. Because it is the immediacy of spirit, because substance in general is spirit, it is transfigured essentiality, reflection that is itself simple, or immediacy, being that is reflection into itself. Science, for its part, demands that self-consciousness have raised itself into this ether in order to be able to live, and to live, with science and in it. Conversely, the individual has the right to demand that science at least provide the ladder to this standpoint. This right rests on the individual's absolute independence, which it knows it possesses in every shape of its knowing; for in each, whether recognized by science or not, and whatever its content, the individual is at the same time absolute form, or has immediate certainty of itself, and, if this expression 1807 XXXI is preferred, thereby unconditional being. If science regards the standpoint of consciousness—knowing objective things in opposition to itself, and itself in opposition to them—as its other, regarding that in which consciousness is at home as, rather, the loss of spirit, consciousness in turn regards the element of science as a remote beyond in which it no longer possesses itself. Each of these two sides seems to the other the inversion of truth. For natural consciousness to entrust itself immediately to science is an attempt, attracted by it knows not what, to walk on its head for a change; the compulsion to adopt this unfamiliar posture and move about in it is a violence it is expected to inflict upon itself, as unprepared for as it seems unnecessary. Whatever science may be in itself, in relation to immediate self-consciousness it presents itself as something inverted in opposition to it; or, because immediate self-consciousness is the principle of actuality, science bears the form of nonactuality so long as self-consciousness stands for itself outside it. Science must therefore unite that element with itself, 1807 XXXII or rather show that and how it belongs to science itself. Lacking actuality, science is only the in-itself, the purpose that is as yet only something inward, not spirit but initially only spiritual substance. It must express itself and become for itself; this means nothing other than that it must posit self-consciousness as one with itself.
27 It is this becoming of science in general, or of knowing, that this Phenomenology of Spirit presents as the first part of its system. Knowing as it first is, or immediate spirit, is what is devoid of spirit, or sensuous consciousness. To become knowing proper, or to produce the element of science that is its pure concept, it must labor its way along a long path. This becoming, as set forth in its content and the shapes that appear within it, appears as something other than the guidance of unscientific consciousness to science; also as something other than the grounding of science—and certainly as something other than the inspiration which begins immediately with absolute knowing, as though shot from a pistol, and has already finished 1807 XXXIII with other standpoints simply by declaring that it takes no notice of them.
28 But the task of leading the individual from its uncultivated standpoint to knowing had to be grasped in its universal sense, and the universal individual, world spirit, considered in its cultivation. As regards the relation between the two, each moment appears in the universal individual as it acquires concrete form and a shape of its own. The particular individual, however, is incomplete spirit, a concrete shape whose entire existence falls within one determinateness, and in which the others are present only in blurred outlines. In spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has sunk to an inconspicuous moment; what was formerly the matter itself is now only a trace; its shape is veiled and has become a simple shading. The individual whose substance is the higher spirit passes through this past in the way someone taking up a higher science goes through the preparatory knowledge long possessed, in order to bring its content to mind: they recall its memory without 1807 XXXIV dwelling on it or finding their interest there. Thus each individual also passes through the stages of cultivation of universal spirit, but as shapes spirit has already laid aside, as stages of a path already worked out and leveled. In matters of knowledge, we see what occupied the mature minds of men in earlier ages reduced to the knowledge, exercises, and even games of boyhood; and in educational progress we shall recognize the history of the world's cultivation traced, as it were, in silhouette. This past existence is already acquired property of universal spirit, which constitutes the substance of the individual, or its inorganic nature. From the individual's side, its cultivation in this respect consists in acquiring what is thus given, consuming its inorganic nature within itself and taking possession of it for itself. But this is equally nothing other than universal spirit, or substance, giving itself its self-consciousness, or its becoming and reflection into itself.
29 Science presents this formative movement both in its detail and necessity, and also presents in its configuration what has already sunk to a 1807 XXXV moment and possession of spirit. The goal is spirit's insight into what knowing is. Impatience demands the impossible: attaining the goal without the means. On the one hand, the length of this path must be endured, for every moment is necessary; on the other, one must dwell at each, for each is itself an individual, entire shape, and is considered absolutely only insofar as its determinateness is considered as a whole or something concrete, or the whole is considered in the distinctive character of this determination. Because the substance of the individual, because world spirit, has had the patience to pass through these forms over the long extension of time and undertake the immense labor of world history, and because it could attain consciousness of itself through no lesser labor, the individual certainly cannot comprehend its substance with less. Meanwhile, its labor is also lighter, because this has been accomplished in itself—the content is already actuality effaced into possibility, immediacy subdued. Already something thought, it is the property of individuality; it is no longer existence that must be transformed into being-in-itself, 1807 XXXVI but only the in-itself into the form of being-for-itself. The manner of this must be determined more closely.
30 What the individual is spared in this movement is the sublation of existence; what still remains, however, is representation and familiarity with the forms. Existence taken back into substance has, through that first negation, only been transferred immediately into the element of the self; thus it still has the same character of uncomprehended immediacy or unmoving indifference as existence itself, or has merely passed into representation. At the same time it has thereby become something familiar, something spirit has finished with, in which its activity, and hence its interest, no longer resides. If the activity that finishes with existence is immediate or existent mediation, and thus the movement only of particular spirit that does not comprehend itself, knowing, by contrast, is directed against the representation thereby produced, against this familiarity; it is the activity of the universal self and the interest of thinking.
31 What is familiar is not, merely because it is familiar, cognized. The 1807 XXXVII most common way of deceiving oneself and others is to presuppose something as familiar in cognition, and to accept it as such; for all its talk back and forth, such knowing never moves from the spot, without knowing what is happening to it. Subject and object, and so forth, God, nature, understanding, sensibility, and so forth, are uncritically taken as familiar and valid foundations, and constitute fixed points both of departure and return. The movement goes back and forth between these points, which remain unmoved, and thus proceeds only over their surface. Accordingly, apprehension and examination also consist in seeing whether everyone finds what is said of them in their own representation, whether it seems so and is familiar to them or not.
32 The analysis of a representation, as formerly practiced, was already nothing other than the sublation of the form of its familiarity. To separate a representation into its original elements is to return to its moments, which at least do not have the form of the representation as found, but constitute the immediate property of the self. Admittedly, this analysis arrives only at thoughts that are themselves familiar, fixed, and 1807 XXXVIII resting determinations. But this separated, nonactual element is itself an essential moment; for only by separating itself and making itself nonactual is the concrete self-moving. The activity of separation is the power and labor of the understanding, the most astonishing and greatest power—or rather, absolute power. The circle that rests enclosed within itself and, as substance, holds its moments, is the immediate and therefore unastonishing relation. But that the accidental, detached from its surrounding context as such—that what is bound and actual only in its connection with something else—should acquire an existence of its own and a separate freedom: this is the tremendous power of the negative; it is the energy of thinking, of the pure I. Death, if we wish to call that nonactuality by this name, is the most dreadful thing; and to hold fast to what is dead requires the greatest strength. Powerless beauty hates the understanding because it demands of beauty what beauty cannot do. Yet the life of spirit is not the life that shrinks from death and keeps itself untouched by devastation, but the life that endures death and maintains itself in it. Spirit wins its truth only when, in absolute dismemberment, 1807 XXXIX it finds itself. It is not this power as the positive that looks away from the negative, as when we say of something that it is nothing or false, and then, having finished with it, turn away to something else. Rather, spirit is this power only by looking the negative in the face and dwelling with it. This dwelling is the magical power that converts the negative into being. It is the same as what was called subject above: by giving determinateness existence in its element, subject sublates abstract immediacy—that is, immediacy that merely is in general—and is thereby true substance, being or immediacy that does not have mediation outside itself, but is itself mediation.
33 That what is represented should become the property of pure self-consciousness, this elevation to universality in general, is only one side, not yet completed cultivation. The mode of study in antiquity differs from that of modern times in that the former was the actual, thorough cultivation of natural consciousness. Testing itself particularly at every part of its existence and philosophizing about everything it encountered, it produced itself as a universality active through and through. In 1807 XL modern times, by contrast, the individual finds the abstract form ready-made; the effort to grasp and appropriate it is more an unmediated forcing forth of the inward and a truncated production of the universal than the latter's emergence from the concrete and the diversity of existence. The work now therefore consists not so much in purifying the individual of the immediate sensuous mode and making it into substance that thinks and is thought, as rather in the opposite: actualizing and animating the universal through the sublation of fixed, determinate thoughts. But it is far harder to bring fixed thoughts into fluidity than sensuous existence. The reason is the one already given: those determinations have the I, the power of the negative or pure actuality, as the substance and element of their existence; sensuous determinations, by contrast, have only powerless abstract immediacy, or being as such. Thoughts become fluid when pure thinking, this inward immediacy, recognizes itself as a moment, or when pure self-certainty abstracts from itself—not leaving itself out or setting itself aside, but relinquishing the fixity 1807 XLI of its self-positing, both the fixity of the pure concrete that the I itself is in opposition to differentiated content, and the fixity of differentiated elements which, posited in the element of pure thinking, share in that unconditionality of the I. Through this movement pure thoughts become concepts, and only then are what they are in truth: self-movements, circles, what their substance is—spiritual essentialities.
34 This movement of pure essentialities constitutes the nature of scientific form in general. Considered as the interconnection of its content, it is the necessity and expansion of that content into an organic whole. Through it, the path by which the concept of knowing is attained likewise becomes a necessary and complete becoming, so that this preparation ceases to be a contingent philosophizing that attaches itself, as chance dictates, to this or that object, relation, or thought of imperfect consciousness, or seeks to ground the true by reasoning back and forth, drawing conclusions and inferences from determinate thoughts. Instead, through the movement of the concept, this path will encompass the complete 1807 XLII worldliness of consciousness in its necessity.
35 Such a presentation further constitutes the first part of science because the existence of spirit, as what comes first, is nothing other than the immediate or the beginning, while the beginning is not yet spirit's return into itself. The element of immediate existence is therefore the determinateness distinguishing this part of science from the others. Stating this difference leads to a discussion of some fixed thoughts that customarily arise here.
36 The immediate existence of spirit, consciousness, has the two moments of knowing and objectivity negative to knowing. As spirit develops in this element and unfolds its moments, this opposition belongs to them, and they all appear as shapes of consciousness. The science of this path is the science of the experience consciousness undergoes; substance is considered as it and its movement are consciousness's object. Consciousness knows and comprehends nothing but what is in its experience; for what is in experience is only spiritual substance, specifically as the object of its self. 1807 XLIII But spirit becomes an object, for it is this movement of becoming an other to itself, that is, the object of its own self, and sublating this otherness. And experience is precisely the name for this movement in which the immediate, the unexperienced—that is, the abstract, whether of sensuous being or of a simple element merely thought—alienates itself and then returns to itself from this alienation, and only now is thereby presented in its actuality and truth, and is also the property of consciousness.
37 The inequality occurring in consciousness between the I and the substance that is its object is their difference, the negative in general. It may be regarded as the deficiency of both, but it is their soul, or what moves them; for this reason some of the ancients comprehended the void as what moves, grasping what moves as the negative, but not yet grasping the negative as the self. Now, although this negative initially appears as the inequality of the I with the object, it is equally the inequality of substance with itself. What seems to take place outside substance, to be an activity against it, is its own doing, and substance shows itself 1807 XLIV to be essentially subject. When it has shown this completely, spirit has made its existence equal to its essence; it is an object to itself as it is, and the abstract element of immediacy and of the separation of knowing and truth is overcome. Being is absolutely mediated; it is substantial content that is just as immediately the property of the I, self-like, or the concept. With this, the Phenomenology of Spirit concludes. What spirit prepares for itself in it is the element of knowing. In this element the moments of spirit now spread out in the form of simplicity, which knows its object as itself. They no longer fall apart into the opposition of being and knowing, but remain in the simplicity of knowing, are the true in the form of the true, and their diversity is only diversity of content. Their movement, organizing itself in this element into a whole, is logic, or speculative philosophy.
38 Since that system of spirit's experience encompasses only its appearance, the advance from it to the science of the true, which is in the shape of the true, seems merely negative; and one might 1807 XLV wish to be spared the negative as the false, and demand to be led straight to truth: why occupy oneself with the false? The demand already discussed above, that one should begin immediately with science, must here be answered with regard to the nature of the negative as the false in general. Conceptions concerning this chiefly obstruct entry into truth. This will provide an occasion to speak of mathematical cognition, which unphilosophical knowing regards as the ideal that philosophy ought to strive to attain, but has so far striven for in vain.
39 The true and the false belong among the determinate thoughts held motionless to be separate essences, one standing fixed and isolated on this side, the other on that, with no communion between them. Against this it must be maintained that truth is not a minted coin that can be handed over ready-made and pocketed as it is. Nor is there a false, any more than there is an evil. Admittedly, evil and falsity are not as bad as the devil, for in him they are even made into a particular subject; as falsity and 1807 XLVI evil they are only universals, yet still have an essentiality of their own in relation to one another. The false—for it alone is at issue here—would be the other, the negative of substance, which, as the content of knowing, is the true. But substance is itself essentially the negative, partly as differentiation and determination of content, partly as simple differentiating, that is, as self and knowing in general. One can indeed know falsely. That something is known falsely means that knowing is unequal to its substance. Yet this very inequality is differentiating in general, which is an essential moment. Their equality does indeed arise from this differentiation, and this equality that has come to be is truth. But it is not truth as though the inequality had been discarded like dross from pure metal, nor even as the tool is left apart from the finished vessel; rather, inequality, as the negative, as the self, is itself still immediately present in the true as such. Yet it cannot therefore be said that the false constitutes a moment, let alone a component, of the true. In the expression that there is something true in everything false, the two are treated 1807 XLVII like oil and water, which cannot mix and are combined only externally. Precisely because these terms signify the moment of complete otherness, they must no longer be used where that otherness is sublated. Just as the expression "the unity of subject and object," of finite and infinite, of being and thinking, and so forth, has the awkwardness that object and subject and so forth mean what they are outside their unity, and are thus not meant within the unity as what their expression says, so the false is no longer, as false, a moment of truth.
40 Dogmatism in the manner of thinking in knowledge and in the study of philosophy is nothing other than the opinion that the true consists in a proposition that is a fixed result, or is immediately known. Questions such as when Caesar was born, how many toises a stadion contained and which stadion was meant, and so forth, should receive a precise answer; likewise it is determinately true that the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle. But the nature of such a so-called truth is 1807 XLVIII different from the nature of philosophical truths.
41 As regards historical truths, to mention them briefly, insofar as their purely historical aspect is considered, it will readily be conceded that they concern singular existence, a content in its contingency and arbitrariness, determinations of it that are not necessary. Yet even such bare truths as the example cited are not without the movement of self-consciousness. To know one of them, much must be compared, books consulted, or investigation undertaken in some other way; even in the case of immediate intuition, knowledge of it together with its reasons is alone held to have true value, although supposedly it is really only the bare result that matters.
42 As for mathematical truths, still less would someone be regarded as a geometer who knew Euclid's theorems by rote, without their proofs, without knowing them, as one might put it by contrast, from within. Likewise, knowledge acquired by measuring many 1807 XLIX right triangles, that their sides stand in the familiar relation to one another, would be considered unsatisfactory. Yet even in mathematical cognition, the essentiality of proof does not have the meaning and nature of being a moment of the result itself; rather, in the result the proof is over and has vanished. As a result, the theorem is indeed something recognized as true. But this added circumstance does not concern its content, only its relation to the subject; the movement of mathematical proof does not belong to what is the object, but is an activity external to the matter. Thus the nature of the right triangle does not itself divide up in the way presented in the construction necessary to prove the proposition expressing its relation; the entire production of the result is a course and means of cognition. In philosophical cognition too, the becoming of existence as existence differs from the becoming of essence, or the inner nature of the matter. But first, philosophical cognition contains both, whereas mathematical cognition presents only the becoming of existence, that is, of the being of the nature of the matter in cognition as 1807 L such. Second, philosophical cognition also unites these two particular movements. The inward arising, or becoming of substance, is inseparably a passing over into the outward, or into existence, being for another; and conversely, the becoming of existence is a taking itself back into essence. Movement is thus the twofold process and becoming of the whole, so that each at the same time posits the other, and each therefore also has both within it as two aspects. Together they constitute the whole by dissolving themselves and making themselves its moments.
43 In mathematical cognition, insight is an activity external to the matter; it follows that the true matter is altered by it. Thus the means—construction and proof—certainly contains true propositions, but it must equally be said that the content is false. In the above example, the triangle is torn apart, and its parts added to other figures that the construction brings into being upon it. Only at the end is the triangle restored—the triangle that is really at issue, that was lost sight of in the course of the procedure and appeared only in pieces belonging to other wholes. Here, then, we see 1807 LI negativity of content enter as well, which would have to be called a falsity of that content just as much as the disappearance of thoughts held fixed in the movement of the concept.
44 But the actual deficiency of this cognition concerns both cognition itself and its material in general. As regards cognition, first, the necessity of the construction is not discerned. It does not emerge from the concept of the theorem, but is prescribed; and one must blindly obey the instruction to draw precisely these lines, when infinitely many others could be drawn, knowing no more than the good faith that this will serve to carry out the proof. Afterward this fitness for purpose does indeed become apparent, but it is only external precisely because it appears only afterward, in the proof. Likewise, the proof follows a path that begins somewhere, without our yet knowing its relation to the result that is to emerge. Its progress takes up these determinations and relations and leaves others aside, without our immediately seeing according to what necessity; an external purpose governs this movement.
1807 LII
45 The self-evidence of this deficient cognition, in which mathematics takes pride and with which it boasts against philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the deficiency of its material, and is therefore of a kind philosophy must disdain. Its purpose, or concept, is magnitude. This is precisely the inessential, nonconceptual relation. The movement of knowing therefore proceeds on the surface, does not touch the matter itself, the essence or concept, and is for that reason no comprehending. The material about which mathematics provides its gratifying store of truths is space and the one. Space is the existence into which the concept inscribes its differences as into an empty, dead element, in which they are likewise unmoving and lifeless. The actual is not something spatial in the way it is considered in mathematics; neither concrete sensuous intuition nor philosophy concerns itself with the kind of nonactuality mathematical things are. In such a nonactual element there is accordingly only nonactual truth, that is, fixed, dead propositions; one can stop at any of them. The next begins afresh on its own, 1807 LIII without the first moving itself onward into the other, and without a necessary connection thereby arising through the nature of the matter itself. Because of that principle and element—and herein lies the formal character of mathematical self-evidence—knowing also proceeds along the line of equality. For what is dead, because it does not move itself, does not arrive at differences of essence, at essential opposition or inequality, and hence not at the transition of one opposite into the other, not at qualitative, immanent movement, not at self-movement. For magnitude, the inessential difference, is all that mathematics considers. It abstracts from the fact that the concept divides space into its dimensions and determines their connections and the connections within them; it does not consider, for example, the relation of line to plane; and where it compares the diameter of a circle with its circumference, it encounters their incommensurability, that is, a relation of the concept, an infinite that eludes its determination.
46 Immanent, so-called pure mathematics also does not set time as time against 1807 LIV space as the second material of its consideration. Applied mathematics does indeed deal with time, as with movement and other actual things, but it takes synthetic propositions—that is, propositions about their relations as determined by their concept—from experience, and merely applies its formulas to these presuppositions. That the so-called proofs it frequently gives of such propositions—as those concerning the equilibrium of the lever, the relation of space and time in falling motion, and so forth—are offered and accepted as proofs is itself only a proof of how great cognition's need for proof is: where it has nothing more, it esteems even the empty semblance of proof and finds satisfaction in it. A critique of those proofs would be as noteworthy as it would be instructive, partly to cleanse mathematics of this false finery, partly to show its limits and, from them, the necessity of another kind of knowing. As for time, which one might suppose would constitute, as the counterpart of space, the material of the other part of pure mathematics, it is the existent concept itself. The principle of 1807 LV magnitude, of nonconceptual difference, and the principle of equality, of abstract, lifeless unity, cannot occupy themselves with that pure unrest of life and absolute differentiation. Thus this negativity becomes the second material of this cognition only as paralyzed, namely as the one; this cognition, an external activity, degrades what moves itself into mere material, so as now to have in it an indifferent, external, lifeless content.
47 Philosophy, by contrast, considers not inessential determination, but determination insofar as it is essential; its element and content are not the abstract or nonactual, but the actual, what posits itself and lives within itself, existence in its concept. It is the process that produces and passes through its moments, and this entire movement constitutes the positive and its truth. This truth therefore equally encompasses the negative, what would be called the false if it could be considered something from which one should abstract. Rather, the vanishing must itself be regarded as essential, not in the determination of something fixed, cut off from the true 1807 LVI and left lying outside it, no one knows where; nor is the true to be regarded as the resting, dead positive on the other side. Appearance is the arising and passing away that itself does not arise and pass away, but is in itself and constitutes the actuality and movement of the life of truth. The true is thus the Bacchic revel in which no member is sober; and because each, in separating itself, just as immediately dissolves, the revel is equally transparent and simple repose. Before the tribunal of that movement, the individual shapes of spirit, like determinate thoughts, do not endure; but they are positive, necessary moments just as much as they are negative and vanishing. In the whole of the movement, grasped as repose, what differentiates itself within it and gives itself particular existence is preserved as something that recollects itself, whose existence is knowing itself, just as this knowing is equally immediately existence.
48 It might seem necessary to say more in advance about the method of this movement, or of science. But its concept already lies in what has been said, and its actual 1807 LVII presentation belongs to logic, or rather is logic itself. For method is nothing other than the structure of the whole set forth in its pure essentiality. As regards what has hitherto been current on this subject, however, we must be conscious that the system of representations concerning what philosophical method is also belongs to a vanished cultivation. If this should sound boastful or revolutionary—a tone from which I know myself to be far removed—it should be remembered that the scientific display lent by mathematics—definitions, divisions, axioms, sequences of theorems, their proofs, fundamental propositions, and the deductions and inferences drawn from them—is already, at least in opinion itself, outdated. Even if its unsuitability is not clearly understood, little or no use is made of it any longer, and even if it is not disapproved in itself, it is not loved. Yet we must have the prejudice in favor of excellence that it establishes itself in use and makes itself liked. It is not difficult to see, however, that the manner of putting forward a proposition, adducing reasons for it, and likewise 1807 LVIII refuting the opposite proposition with reasons, is not the form in which truth can appear. Truth is its own movement within itself, whereas that method is cognition external to its material. It is therefore peculiar to mathematics and must be left to it, since, as noted, mathematics has the nonconceptual relation of magnitude for its principle and dead space, as well as the equally dead one, for its material. In a freer manner, too—that is, mingled more with arbitrariness and contingency—it may remain in ordinary life, in conversation or historical instruction aimed more at curiosity than cognition, as a preface more or less is. In ordinary life, consciousness has for its content items of knowledge, experiences, sensuous concrete things, also thoughts and principles—in general, whatever counts as something given, or as a fixed, resting being or essence. Consciousness partly runs along this content, partly interrupts its connection by freely exercising its arbitrary will upon it, and behaves as an external determining and handling of it. It traces the content back to something certain, if only to the feeling of the moment, and conviction is 1807 LIX satisfied when it has reached a resting point familiar to it.
49 But if the necessity of the concept banishes the looser course of argumentative conversation as well as the stiffer course of scientific pomp, it has already been recalled above that its place must not be taken by the absence of method in presentiment and inspiration, and the arbitrariness of prophetic speech, which despises not merely that kind of scientific form but scientific form altogether.
50 Equally, now that Kantian triplicity—as yet merely rediscovered by instinct, still dead and uncomprehended—has been raised to its absolute significance, and true form has thereby been established in its true content and the concept of science has emerged, we must not regard as scientific that use of this form through which we see it degraded into a lifeless schema, a veritable phantom, and scientific organization into a table. This formalism, already discussed in general above, whose manner we shall now specify more closely, imagines it has comprehended and expressed the nature and life of a 1807 LX shape when it has predicated of it some determination of the schema—whether subjectivity or objectivity, or magnetism, electricity, and so forth, contraction or expansion, east or west, and the like. These can be multiplied infinitely, since in this manner every determination or shape can in turn be used with another as a form or moment of the schema, and each can gratefully render the other the same service—a circle of reciprocity through which one learns nothing of the matter itself, neither what the one nor what the other is. In this procedure, sensuous determinations are partly taken from ordinary intuition, though they are supposed to mean something other than they say; partly, what has meaning in itself, the pure determinations of thought—subject, object, substance, cause, the universal, and so forth—is used just as unexamined and uncritically as in ordinary life, and like strengths and weaknesses, expansion and contraction. Thus that metaphysics is as unscientific as these sensuous representations.
1807 LXI
51 In place of the inner life and self-movement of an existence, such a simple determinateness drawn from intuition—here meaning sensuous knowing—is now pronounced according to a superficial analogy, and this external, empty application of the formula is called construction. Such formalism stands in the same case as every other. How dull would a mind have to be not to be taught in a quarter of an hour the theory that there are asthenic, sthenic, and indirectly asthenic diseases, with as many plans of treatment, and not to be transformed in this short time from a practitioner of routine into a theoretical physician, since such instruction was sufficient for this only recently? If the formalism of the philosophy of nature teaches, for example, that understanding is electricity, or the animal is nitrogen, or is equal to south or north, and so forth, or represents it—whether as baldly as expressed here or brewed together with more terminology—inexperience may well fall into admiring amazement at such power, which brings together what seems far apart, and at the violence this connection inflicts upon the resting sensuous element, giving it the semblance of a concept while 1807 LXII sparing itself the main thing, the expression of the concept itself or the meaning of the sensuous representation. It may revere profound genius in this, delight in the cheerful character of such determinations, since they replace the abstract concept with something intuitable and make it more pleasing, and congratulate itself on its intimated kinship of soul with such splendid activity. The trick of such wisdom is as quickly learned as it is easy to practice; once known, its repetition becomes as intolerable as the repetition of a conjuring trick one has seen through. The instrument of this monotonous formalism is no harder to handle than a painter's palette containing only two colors, say red and green, with which to color a surface red if a historical scene is wanted, green if a landscape is required. It would be difficult to decide which is greater here: the complacency with which everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth is daubed with this wash, or the conceit concerning the excellence of this 1807 LXIII universal remedy; each supports the other. What this method produces, by sticking the few determinations of the universal schema onto everything heavenly and earthly, every natural and spiritual shape, and arranging everything in this way, is nothing less than a report as clear as sunlight on the organism of the universe: namely, a table resembling a skeleton with little labels pasted on, or the rows of closed jars with their attached labels in a grocer's shop. It is as clear as either of these; and just as in the former flesh and blood have been removed from the bones, while in the latter the thing itself, which is hardly alive either, is hidden in the jars, so this table has omitted or concealed the living essence of the matter. It has already been observed above that this manner also perfects itself into monochromatic absolute painting: ashamed even of the differences of the schema, it submerges them as belonging to reflection in the emptiness of the absolute, so that pure identity, formless whiteness, may be established. The uniform coloring of the schema and its lifeless determinations, this absolute identity, and the transition from one to 1807 LXIV the other are each as much dead understanding and external cognition as the rest.
52 Yet excellence not only cannot escape the fate of being thus drained of life and spirit, and of seeing lifeless knowing and its vanity drape themselves in its flayed skin. Rather, even in this fate we must recognize the power it exercises over hearts, if not over minds, as well as the development into universality and determinateness of form in which its perfection consists, and which alone makes it possible for this universality to be used for superficiality.
53 Science may organize itself only through the concept's own life; in it, the determinateness externally pasted onto existence from the schema is the self-moving soul of the fulfilled content. The movement of what is consists, on the one hand, in becoming an other to itself and thus becoming its own immanent content; on the other, it takes this unfolding, or this existence of its own, back into itself—that is, makes itself into a moment and simplifies itself into determinateness. In the former movement, negativity is differentiating and the positing of existence; in 1807 LXV this return into itself, it is the becoming of determinate simplicity. In this way the content shows that its determinateness is not received from another and attached to it; rather, it gives itself that determinateness and assigns itself, from itself, to a moment and a place in the whole. Tabulating understanding keeps to itself the necessity and concept of the content, what constitutes the concrete, the actuality and living movement of the matter it arranges—or rather, it does not keep this to itself, but does not know it; for if it possessed this insight, it would surely show it. It does not even know the need for such insight; otherwise it would abandon its schematizing, or at least know itself to possess in it no more than a table of contents. It gives only the table of contents, but does not supply the content itself. Even if the determinateness is one such as magnetism, something concrete or actual in itself, it has nevertheless sunk to something dead when it is merely predicated of another existence and not cognized as that existence's immanent life, or in the way it has its native and distinctive self-production and presentation within it. To add this 1807 LXVI main thing, formal understanding leaves to others. Instead of entering into the immanent content of the matter, it always surveys the whole and stands above the singular existence of which it speaks—that is, it does not see it at all. Scientific cognition, however, demands rather that we surrender ourselves to the life of the object, or, what is the same, have its inner necessity before us and express it. Immersing itself thus in its object, scientific cognition forgets that overview which is only knowing's reflection out of the content into itself. Yet, submerged in the material and advancing in its movement, it returns into itself—but not before the fulfillment, or content, takes itself back into itself, simplifies itself into determinateness, reduces itself to one side of an existence, and passes over into its higher truth. Thereby the simple whole that surveys itself emerges of itself from the wealth in which its reflection seemed lost.
54 In general, because, as expressed above, substance is in itself subject, all content is its own reflection into itself. The subsistence, or substance, of an 1807 LXVII existence is self-equality, for its inequality with itself would be its dissolution. But self-equality is pure abstraction, and this is thinking. When I say quality, I say simple determinateness; through quality an existence is distinguished from another, or is an existence; it is for itself, or subsists, through this simplicity with itself. But thereby it is essentially thought. Here it is comprehended that being is thinking; herein lies the insight usually lacking in ordinary nonconceptual talk of the identity of thinking and being. Now because the subsistence of existence is self-equality or pure abstraction, it is the abstraction of itself from itself, or is itself its inequality with itself and its dissolution—its own inwardness and withdrawal into itself—its becoming. Through this nature of what is, and insofar as what is has this nature for knowing, knowing is not an activity handling the content as something alien, not reflection into itself out of the content. Science is not that idealism which replaced assertive dogmatism as an assuring 1807 LXVIII dogmatism, or the dogmatism of self-certainty. Rather, as knowing sees the content return into its own inwardness, its activity is both immersed in the content, for it is the content's immanent self, and at the same time returned into itself, for it is pure self-equality in otherness. Thus it is the cunning that, seeming to refrain from activity, watches how determinateness and its concrete life, precisely in supposing itself to pursue its self-preservation and particular interest, is the reverse: an activity dissolving itself and making itself a moment of the whole.
55 If the significance of understanding was stated above from the side of the self-consciousness of substance, what has been said here illuminates its significance in the determination of substance as being. Existence is quality, self-equal determinateness or determinate simplicity, determinate thought; this is the understanding of existence. Thereby it is nous, as which Anaxagoras first recognized essence. Those after him comprehended the nature of existence more determinately as eidos or idea, that is, determinate universality, kind. The expression kind may seem too commonplace 1807 LXIX and too slight for the ideas, for the beautiful and holy and eternal, rampant in our time. But in fact the idea expresses neither more nor less than kind. Yet we now often see an expression that precisely designates a concept disdained, and another preferred which, if only because it belongs to a foreign language, envelops the concept in mist and thus sounds more edifying. Precisely in being determined as kind, existence is simple thought; nous, simplicity, is substance. Because of its simplicity or self-equality, substance appears fixed and enduring. But this self-equality is equally negativity; through it that fixed existence passes over into its dissolution. Determinateness at first seems to be what it is only through relating itself to another, and its movement seems inflicted upon it by an alien power; but that it has its otherness within itself and is self-movement is contained precisely in that simplicity of thinking itself. For this simplicity is self-moving and self-differentiating thought, its own inwardness, the pure concept. Thus the character of understanding is a becoming, and as this becoming it is rationality.
1807 LXX
56 Logical necessity in general consists in this nature of what is: to be its concept in its being. Logical necessity alone is the rational and the rhythm of the organic whole; it is knowing of the content just as much as the content is concept and essence—or it alone is the speculative. The concrete shape, moving itself, makes itself into simple determinateness; thereby it raises itself to logical form and is in its essentiality. Its concrete existence is only this movement and is immediately logical existence. It is therefore unnecessary to impose formalism externally on concrete content; the latter is in itself the transition into the former, which, however, ceases to be this external formalism because form is the native becoming of the concrete content itself.
57 This nature of scientific method—on the one hand, to be inseparable from the content, and on the other, to determine its rhythm through itself—has, as already recalled, its proper presentation in speculative philosophy. What has been said here does indeed express the concept, but can count for no more than an anticipatory assurance. Its truth does not lie in this partly narrative 1807 LXXI exposition; and it is therefore just as little refuted by assurances to the contrary, that things are not so but are instead thus and so, by recalling and recounting habitual representations as settled and familiar truths, or even by serving up and vouching for novelties from the shrine of inward divine intuition. Such a reception is usually knowing's first reaction to something unfamiliar, in order to save its freedom and its own insight, its own authority against an alien authority—for this is the shape in which what is now first encountered appears—and also to remove the appearance, and the supposed kind of disgrace, of having learned something. Likewise, when the unfamiliar is accepted with applause, the reaction of the same kind consists in what in another sphere was ultrarevolutionary speech and action.
58 What matters, therefore, in the study of science is to take upon oneself the strenuous labor of the concept. This requires attention to the concept as such, to simple determinations such as being-in-itself, being-for-itself, self-equality, and so forth; for these are pure 1807 LXXII self-movements that one might call souls, if their concept did not designate something higher than souls. To the habit of running along representations, their interruption by the concept is as irksome as it is to formal thinking that argues back and forth in nonactual thoughts. The former habit must be called material thinking, a contingent consciousness merely immersed in the material, which therefore finds it difficult at the same time to lift its self purely out of the material and be with itself. The other, argumentation, by contrast, is freedom from the content and vanity toward it; it is required to make the effort to surrender this freedom and, instead of being the arbitrarily moving principle of the content, to submerge this freedom in it, let it move through its own nature—that is, through the self as its own—and contemplate this movement. To refrain from intruding one's own fancies into the immanent rhythm of concepts, not to interfere with it through arbitrariness or wisdom acquired elsewhere: this restraint is itself an essential moment of attention to the concept.
1807 LXXIII
59 We must bring into sharper focus the two aspects of the argumentative attitude to which conceptual thinking is opposed. On the one hand, argumentation takes a negative attitude toward the content apprehended, knows how to refute and nullify it. The insight that things are not so is the merely negative; it is the final point, which does not itself go beyond itself to a new content. Rather, to have a content again, something else must be taken up from somewhere. It is reflection into the empty I, the vanity of its knowing. But this vanity expresses not only that this content is vain, but also that the insight itself is so; for it is the negative that does not behold the positive within itself. Because this reflection does not gain its own negativity as content, it is not in the matter at all, but always beyond it; hence it imagines that asserting emptiness always puts it further ahead than an insight rich in content. In conceptual thinking, by contrast, as shown earlier, the negative belongs to the content itself and is the 1807 LXXIV positive, both as the content's immanent movement and determination and as their whole. Grasped as result, it is what emerges from this movement, the determinate negative, and thereby equally a positive content.
60 But insofar as such thinking has a content, whether of representations or thoughts or a mixture of both, it has another aspect that makes comprehension difficult for it. The remarkable nature of this aspect is closely connected with the essence of the idea stated above, or rather expresses the idea as it appears as the movement that is apprehension in thought. Just as, in the negative attitude just discussed, argumentative thinking is itself the self into which the content returns, so, in its positive cognition, the self is instead a represented subject to which the content relates as accident and predicate. This subject constitutes the basis to which the content is attached, and upon which the movement runs back and forth. In conceptual thinking things are otherwise. Since the concept is the object's own self, presenting itself as its becoming, it is not a resting subject bearing accidents unmoved, but the concept that moves and takes its determinations back into 1807 LXXV itself. In this movement that resting subject itself perishes; it enters into the differences and content, and constitutes rather the determinateness—that is, the differentiated content—and its movement, instead of remaining opposed to it. Thus the firm ground that argumentation has in the resting subject wavers, and only this movement itself becomes the object. The subject that fulfills its content ceases to go beyond it and cannot have still other predicates or accidents. Conversely, the dispersion of the content is thereby bound beneath the self; the content is not the universal that, free from the subject, would belong to several subjects. Thus in fact the content is no longer predicate of the subject, but is the substance, the essence and concept of what is being discussed. Representational thinking, whose nature is to run along accidents or predicates and rightly, because they are no more than predicates and accidents, to go beyond them, is checked in its course when what has the form of a predicate in the proposition is substance itself. It suffers, to put it this way, a counterthrust. 1807 LXXVI Beginning from the subject as though this would remain the foundation, it finds, since the predicate is instead substance, that the subject has passed over into the predicate and is thereby sublated. And since what seems to be predicate has thus become the entire, independent mass, thinking cannot wander freely but is arrested by this weight. Ordinarily the subject is first laid down as the objective, fixed self; from here the necessary movement advances to the multiplicity of determinations or predicates. Here the knowing I itself takes the place of that subject and is the linking of the predicates and the subject that sustains them. But since that first subject enters into the determinations themselves and is their soul, the second subject, namely the knowing subject, still finds in the predicate the first subject, with which it supposes itself already finished and beyond which it wishes to return into itself. Instead of being able to act in the movement of the predicate, as argumentation about whether this or that predicate should be assigned to the subject, it still has to deal with the self of the content; it is to be not for itself, but together with this self.
1807 LXXVII
61 Formally, what has been said can be expressed as follows: the nature of judgment or the proposition in general, which includes the difference between subject and predicate, is destroyed by the speculative proposition, and the proposition of identity into which the former turns contains the counterthrust against that relation. This conflict between the form of a proposition in general and the unity of the concept that destroys it resembles the conflict in rhythm between meter and accent. Rhythm results from the suspended middle and union of the two. Likewise, in the philosophical proposition, the identity of subject and predicate is not to annihilate their difference, which the form of the proposition expresses; rather, their unity is to emerge as a harmony. The form of the proposition is the appearance of the determinate sense, or the accent distinguishing its fulfillment; but that the predicate expresses substance and the subject itself falls into the universal is the unity in which that accent dies away.
62 To illustrate what has been said by examples: in the proposition "God is being," the predicate is being; it has substantial meaning, in which the subject dissolves. Being is 1807 LXXVIII here meant to be not predicate but essence; thereby God seems to cease being what he is through the position of the proposition, namely the fixed subject. Instead of advancing in its transition from subject to predicate, thinking feels itself checked, since the subject is lost, and thrown back to the thought of the subject because it misses it. Or, since the predicate itself is pronounced as a subject, as being, as the essence exhausting the nature of the subject, thinking finds the subject immediately in the predicate as well. Now, instead of having entered into itself in the predicate and gained the free position of argumentation, it is still immersed in the content, or at least is required to be immersed in it. Likewise, when it is said that "the actual is the universal," the actual as subject vanishes in its predicate. The universal is not to have merely the meaning of a predicate, so that the proposition would say that the actual is universal; rather, the universal is to express the essence of the actual. Thus thinking loses the firm objective ground it had in the subject just as much as it is thrown back onto that ground in the predicate, and 1807 LXXIX in the predicate returns not into itself but into the subject of the content.
63 This unfamiliar check largely accounts for complaints about the unintelligibility of philosophical writings, provided the individual otherwise possesses the cultivation required to understand them. In what has been said we see the reason for the quite specific reproach often made against them, that several passages must first be read repeatedly before they can be understood—a reproach supposedly containing something improper and conclusive, so that, if justified, it permits no further reply. The preceding discussion makes clear how matters stand. The philosophical proposition, because it is a proposition, awakens the opinion that the ordinary relation of subject and predicate, and knowing's accustomed attitude, apply. Its philosophical content destroys this attitude and the opinion accompanying it; opinion experiences that something other than what it meant is meant, and this correction of its opinion compels knowing to return to the proposition and now grasp it differently.
64 One difficulty that ought to be avoided is the mixing of the speculative 1807 LXXX and argumentative manners, when what is said of the subject has at one time the meaning of its concept, but at another only the meaning of its predicate or accident. One manner disrupts the other, and only a philosophical exposition strictly excluding the ordinary relation between the parts of a proposition would achieve plastic form.
65 In fact, nonspeculative thinking too has a valid right that is disregarded in the manner of the speculative proposition. The sublation of the form of the proposition must not take place only immediately, through the mere content of the proposition. Rather, this opposite movement must be expressed; it must not be merely that inward check, but this return of the concept into itself must be presented. This movement, which accomplishes what proof was otherwise supposed to accomplish, is the dialectical movement of the proposition itself. It alone is the actual speculative element, and only its expression is speculative presentation. As a proposition, the speculative is only the inward check and the return of essence into itself that has no existence. Thus philosophical 1807 LXXXI expositions often refer us to this inward intuition, thereby sparing themselves the presentation of the proposition's dialectical movement that we demanded. The proposition is to express what the true is; but the true is essentially subject, and as such is only the dialectical movement, this course that produces itself, leads itself onward, and returns into itself. In other kinds of cognition, proof constitutes this aspect of expressed inwardness. But once dialectic was separated from proof, the concept of philosophical demonstration was in fact lost.
66 One may object here that dialectical movement likewise has propositions as its parts or elements; thus the difficulty indicated seems always to recur and to be a difficulty of the matter itself. This resembles what happens in ordinary proof, where the reasons it employs themselves require further grounding, and so on to infinity. But this form of grounding and conditioning belongs to the kind of proof from which dialectical movement differs, and thus to external cognition. As for dialectical movement itself, its element is the 1807 LXXXII pure concept; hence it has a content that is through and through subject in itself. Thus no content occurs that would behave as an underlying subject to which its meaning belonged as a predicate; the proposition is immediately a merely empty form. Apart from the self sensuously intuited or represented, it is chiefly the name as name that designates the pure subject, the empty, nonconceptual one. For this reason it may be useful, for example, to avoid the name "God," because this word is not immediately at the same time concept, but the proper name, the fixed repose of the underlying subject. By contrast, being, or the one, singularity, subject itself, and so forth immediately indicate concepts as well. Even if speculative truths are stated of that subject, their content nevertheless lacks the immanent concept because the subject is present only as a resting subject; and through this circumstance they readily acquire the form of mere edification. From this side, therefore, the obstacle lying in the habit of grasping the speculative predicate according to the form of the proposition, rather than as concept and essence, can be increased through the fault of the 1807 LXXXIII philosophical exposition itself, or diminished. Faithful to insight into the nature of the speculative, the presentation must retain the dialectical form and admit nothing except insofar as it is comprehended and is the concept.
67 Just as obstructive to the study of philosophy as the argumentative attitude is the nonargumentative conceit concerning established truths that their possessor thinks there is no need to return to, but lays down as foundations and believes capable of being pronounced, and used to judge and dismiss. From this side, it is particularly necessary that philosophizing once more be made a serious business. In all sciences, arts, skills, and crafts, the conviction prevails that to possess them requires manifold effort in learning and practice. With regard to philosophy, by contrast, the prejudice now seems to prevail that, although everyone has eyes and fingers and is not thereby able to make shoes if given leather and tools, everyone nevertheless immediately knows how to philosophize and judge philosophy 1807 LXXXIV because they possess the measure for it in their natural reason—as though they did not likewise possess the measure for a shoe in their foot. Possession of philosophy seems to be located precisely in the lack of knowledge and study, and philosophy to cease where these begin. It is frequently regarded as a formal knowing devoid of content, and there is a great lack of insight that what is truth, even in content, in any branch of knowledge or science can deserve this name only when it has been produced by philosophy; that the other sciences, however much they may try to reason without philosophy, cannot without it possess life, spirit, and truth within themselves.
68 As regards philosophy proper, we see immediate revelation of the divine and common sense—which has neither labored at nor cultivated itself through other knowledge or through actual philosophizing—regard themselves straightaway as a complete equivalent and as good a substitute for the long path of cultivation, for the movement as rich as it is deep through which spirit attains knowing, as chicory 1807 LXXXV is praised as a substitute for coffee. It is not pleasing to observe ignorance, and a crudity lacking form as much as taste, incapable of holding its thinking to an abstract proposition, still less to the connection of several, proclaim itself now freedom and tolerance of thought, now genius. The latter, as is well known, once ran rampant in poetry just as it now does in philosophy; but instead of poetry, the productions of this genius, when they had a meaning, produced trivial prose, or, if they went beyond it, deranged talk. So now a natural philosophizing, which considers itself too good for the concept and, because it lacks the concept, takes itself to be intuitive and poetic thinking, brings to market arbitrary combinations of an imagination merely disorganized by thought—creations that are neither fish nor flesh, neither poetry nor philosophy.
69 By contrast, flowing along the calmer bed of common sense, natural philosophizing offers up a rhetoric of trivial truths. If their insignificance is pointed out, it assures us in reply that their meaning and 1807 LXXXVI fulfillment are present in its heart, and must also be present in others, believing that in speaking of innocence of heart, purity of conscience, and the like, it has said ultimate things against which no objection can be made and beyond which nothing further can be demanded. But what mattered was that the best should not remain within, but be brought to daylight from this shaft. The effort of putting forward ultimate truths of that kind could long have been spared, for they have long been found, for example, in the catechism, in popular proverbs, and so forth. It is not difficult to catch such truths in their indeterminacy or distortion, often to show their very opposite within the consciousness that holds them. In trying to extricate itself from the confusion produced within it, this consciousness will fall into fresh confusion and may well burst out that things are definitely thus and thus, but those objections are sophistries—a catchword of ordinary common sense against cultivated reason, just as ignorance of philosophy has committed the expression daydreams to memory once and for all for use against it. By appealing to 1807 LXXXVII feeling, its inward oracle, common sense has finished with anyone who disagrees; it must declare that it has nothing further to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same within themselves. In other words, it tramples the root of humanity underfoot. For humanity's nature is to press toward agreement with others, and its existence lies only in the achieved community of consciousnesses. What is inhuman, what is animal, consists in remaining within feeling and being able to communicate only through it.
70 If one were to ask for a royal road to science, none more comfortable could be indicated than relying on common sense and, to keep up with the times and with philosophy, reading reviews of philosophical works, perhaps even their prefaces and opening paragraphs. These give the general principles on which everything depends; the reviews, besides historical information, also give the assessment which, precisely because it is an assessment, is even beyond what is assessed. This ordinary road is traveled in a dressing gown; but in the 1807 LXXXVIII vestments of a high priest strides the exalted feeling of the eternal, the holy, the infinite—a path that is rather itself already immediate being at the center, the genius of profound original ideas and lofty flashes of thought. Yet just as such depth does not yet reveal the source of essence, so these rockets are not yet the empyrean. True thoughts and scientific insight can be won only in the labor of the concept. It alone can produce the universality of knowing, which is neither the ordinary indeterminacy and poverty of common sense, but cultivated and complete cognition, nor the extraordinary universality of a rational capacity corrupted by indolence and the conceit of genius, but truth that has reached its native form and is capable of being the property of all self-conscious reason.
71 Since I locate that through which science exists in the self-movement of the concept, the consideration that the aspects cited, and other external aspects of our age's representations of the nature and shape of truth, diverge from this—indeed 1807 LXXXIX are wholly opposed to it—seems to promise no favorable reception for an attempt to present the system of science in this determination. Meanwhile, I may reflect that although, for example, the excellence of Plato's philosophy is sometimes located in his scientifically worthless myths, there have also been times, even called times of enthusiasm, in which Aristotelian philosophy was esteemed for its speculative depth, and Plato's Parmenides, perhaps the greatest work of art of ancient dialectic, was regarded as the true unveiling and positive expression of divine life. Even amid much obscurity in what ecstasy produced, this misunderstood ecstasy was in fact supposed to be nothing other than the pure concept. Further, the excellence of philosophy in our time itself places its value in scientific form and, even if others take it differently, in fact establishes itself only through that form. Thus I may also hope that this attempt to vindicate science for the concept and present it in this, its distinctive element, will know how to gain acceptance through the inner truth of the matter. We 1807 XC must be convinced that the true has the nature of making its way when its time has come, and appears only when that time has come, hence never appears too early or finds an unripe public; and also that the individual needs this effect in order to test against it what is still their solitary concern and experience the conviction, which initially belongs only to particularity, as something universal. But here the public must often be distinguished from those who behave as its representatives and spokespeople. In some respects the public behaves differently from these, indeed oppositely. If it good-naturedly takes the blame upon itself when a philosophical work does not appeal to it, these representatives, certain of their competence, lay all the blame on the writer. The effect upon the public is quieter than the activity of these dead when they bury their dead. If general insight is now altogether more cultivated, its curiosity more alert and its judgment more quickly determined, so that the feet of those who will carry you out are already at the door, one must often distinguish from this the slower effect that corrects 1807 XCI both the attention compelled by imposing assurances and the dismissive censure, and only after some time gives one party a contemporary world, while another thereafter has no posterity.
72 Moreover, in an age when the universality of spirit has grown so strong and singularity has, as is fitting, become so much more indifferent, and when that universality also holds to and demands its full scope and cultivated wealth, the share in spirit's total work falling to the activity of the individual can only be small. Thus the individual must, as the nature of science already entails, forget itself all the more, and certainly become and do what it can; but correspondingly less must be demanded of it, just as it may expect less of itself and claim less for itself.
Plain English translation
Mouseia's complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the same complete German, paragraph by paragraph, in shorter sentences and everyday words.
*Preface*.
1 A preface usually opens a book with an explanation of the author's purpose, the circumstances that led to the work, and its relation, in the author's view, to earlier or contemporary treatments of the same subject. In a philosophical work, such an explanation seems not just unnecessary but, given the nature of the subject, inappropriate and counterproductive. Whatever it might be proper to say about philosophy in a preface—a historical account of its direction and standpoint, its general content and results, or a string of assertions and 1807 II assurances about truth, going this way and that—cannot count as the way to present philosophical truth. Philosophy also works essentially in the element of universality, which includes the particular within it. This makes it seem, more than in other sciences, that the purpose or final results express the subject itself, even its complete essence, while working it out is really inessential. By contrast, with a general idea of anatomy, for example—as knowledge of the parts of the body considered in their lifeless existence—we are convinced that we do not yet possess the subject itself, the content of this science. We must also take the trouble to learn the particulars. Moreover, in such a collection of information, which does not rightly deserve the name of science, conversation about purposes and similar general matters is no different from the historical, conceptless way in which the content itself—these nerves, muscles, and so on—is discussed. Philosophy, however, would involve an inconsistency: it would use a method 1807 III that it itself shows to be incapable of grasping truth.
2 Defining a philosophical work's supposed relation to other attempts on the same subject likewise introduces an alien interest and obscures what matters in knowing truth. The more firmly opinion sets up an opposition between true and false, the more it expects either agreement with or opposition to an existing philosophical system. It sees any statement about such a system as only one or the other. It does not understand the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive development of truth. Instead, it sees only contradiction in their diversity. The bud disappears when the flower breaks out, and we might say that the flower refutes it. In the same way, the fruit declares the flower to be a false existence of the plant and replaces it as the plant's truth. These forms do not just differ. They also displace one another as incompatible. Yet their fluid nature also makes them moments 1807 IV of an organic unity. In that unity they not only do not conflict, but each is as necessary as the other. This equal necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole. But opposition to a philosophical system usually does not understand itself in this way. Nor does the consciousness that takes in this opposition usually know how to free it from its one-sidedness, or keep it free, and recognize mutually necessary moments in what seems to conflict and contradict itself.
3 Demanding explanations of this kind, and supplying them, may seem to deal with what is essential. Where could the inner content of a philosophical work be expressed more fully than in its purposes and results? And how could these be known more precisely than by their difference from what else the age produces in the same field? But if this activity is supposed to be more than the beginning of knowledge—if it is supposed to count as actual knowledge—it is in fact one of the devices for avoiding the subject itself. It combines the appearance of taking it seriously and working at it 1807 V with actually sparing oneself that effort. For the subject is not exhausted by its purpose, but by its execution. Nor is the result the actual whole: it is the result together with its becoming. The purpose by itself is a lifeless universal, just as a tendency is merely a drive that still lacks actuality. The bare result is the corpse that has left that actuality behind. Likewise, difference is really the subject's limit. It is where the subject stops, or what the subject is not. So such efforts with purposes and results, and with distinguishing and judging one or the other, are easier work than they may seem. Instead of engaging with the subject, this activity is always beyond it. Instead of staying with it and forgetting itself in it, this kind of knowing always reaches for something else. It stays with itself rather than being with the subject and giving itself over to it. The easiest thing is to judge what has substance and solidity. Grasping it is harder. Hardest of all is producing its presentation, which combines the two.
1807 VI
4 Cultivation, and the work of emerging from the immediacy of substantial life, must always begin by acquiring knowledge of general principles and points of view. We must first work our way up to thinking about the subject in general. We must also learn to support or refute it with reasons, grasp its concrete and rich fullness in its specific features, and give an orderly account and a serious judgment of it. But this beginning of cultivation will first give way to the seriousness of a fulfilled life, which leads into experience of the subject itself. And when the seriousness of the concept also descends into its depths, knowledge and judgment of that preliminary kind will retain their proper place in conversation.
5 The true form in which truth exists can only be its scientific system. My aim has been to help bring philosophy closer to the form of science—to the goal where it can put aside its name, love of knowing, and be actual knowing. The inner necessity that knowing should be science lies in its nature, 1807 VII and only the presentation of philosophy itself can explain this satisfactorily. But the external necessity, understood generally and apart from the accidents of a person's character and individual circumstances, is the same as the inner necessity, in the form in which time presents the existence of its moments. Showing that the time has come to raise philosophy to science would therefore be the only true justification of attempts with this purpose. It would demonstrate the necessity of that purpose and, indeed, carry it out at the same time.
6 In placing the true form of truth in its scientific character—or, what amounts to the same thing, in claiming that truth has the element of its existence only in the concept—I know that I seem to contradict a view, and its consequences, that is as widespread in the convictions of the age as it is presumptuous. An explanation of this contradiction therefore does not seem unnecessary, even if here it can only be an assurance, just like what it opposes. Suppose that truth exists only in 1807 VIII what, or rather only as what, is variously called intuition, immediate knowledge of the absolute, religion, or being—not being at the center of divine love, but the being of that center itself. From this standpoint, the presentation of philosophy is required to take the very opposite of the form of the concept. The absolute is not to be comprehended, but felt and intuited. Its feeling and intuition, not its concept, are to speak and find expression.
7 Consider this demand in its wider context and look at the level self-conscious spirit has now reached. Spirit has gone beyond the substantial life it once led in the element of thought—beyond the immediacy of its faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the certainty consciousness had of its reconciliation with essence and of essence's universal presence, both inward and outward. Spirit has not only passed beyond this into the opposite extreme, its insubstantial reflection into itself. It has gone beyond that too. It has not only lost its essential life; 1807 IX it is also conscious of this loss and of the finitude that constitutes its content. Turning away from the husks, admitting and denouncing its fallen condition, it now asks philosophy not so much for knowledge of what it is as for a way to regain that substantiality and solidity of being. To meet this need, philosophy is therefore asked not so much to unlock substance's closed interior and raise it to self-consciousness, nor to bring its chaotic consciousness back to an order thought through and to the simplicity of the concept. Instead, it is asked to jumble together the distinctions of thought, suppress the distinguishing concept, and restore the feeling of essence: to offer edification rather than insight. The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, and love are the bait required to awaken the urge to bite. Not the concept but ecstasy, not the subject's coolly advancing necessity but fermenting enthusiasm, is supposed to sustain and progressively spread out the riches of substance.
1807 X
8 This demand is met by the strenuous, almost zealously irritated effort to drag people out of their absorption in sensory, commonplace, and individual things and make them look up at the stars. It is as though they had utterly forgotten the divine and were on the point of finding satisfaction, like worms, in dirt and water. People once furnished a heaven with a vast wealth of thoughts and images. The meaning of everything that exists lay in the thread of light that linked it to heaven. Instead of staying in this present, the eye traveled along that thread beyond it, up to divine essence—to a present on the other side, so to speak. The eye of spirit had to be forced to look at earthly things and held there. It took a long time to bring the clarity that only the otherworldly possessed into the dullness and confusion in which the meaning of this world lay. It took a long time to make attention to the present as such—what was called experience—interesting and respected. Now the opposite need seems to have arisen. The mind seems so deeply rooted in earthly things 1807 XI that an equal force is needed to raise it above them. Spirit shows itself to be so poor that, like a traveler in a sandy desert longing for a simple drink of water, it seems to want only the meager feeling of the divine in general to refresh it. What spirit finds enough lets us measure how much it has lost.
9 Yet this readiness to receive so little, or to give so sparingly, does not suit science. Anyone who seeks only edification, who wants to wrap the earthly variety of existence and thought in mist and longs for the vague enjoyment of this vague divinity, may look for it wherever it can be found. Such a person will easily find the means to dream something up and puff himself up with it. But philosophy must guard against wanting to be edifying.
10 Still less should this willingness to do without science claim that such enthusiasm and obscurity are higher than science. This prophetic talk imagines that it stays right at the center and in the depths. It looks down on 1807 XII determinacy—the horos—and deliberately keeps away from the concept and necessity, treating them as reflection, which lives only in the finite. But there is an empty depth as well as an empty breadth. There is an extension of substance that pours into finite variety without the strength to hold it together. Equally, this is an intensity without content: claiming to be sheer force without any spread, it is the same as superficiality. The strength of spirit is only as great as its expression. Its depth is only as deep as it dares to spread out and lose itself in unfolding itself. At the same time, when this substantial knowing without concepts claims to have sunk the self's particularity into essence and to philosophize truly and holily, it hides something from itself. By rejecting measure and definite form, it does not surrender to God. Instead, it gives free rein either to the accidental content within itself or to its own arbitrary will within that content. Those who abandon themselves to the unchecked ferment of substance think that by shrouding self-consciousness and giving up understanding they become God's own, to whom he gives wisdom in sleep. 1807 XIII What they actually receive and bring forth in their sleep are therefore also dreams.
11 In any case, it is not hard to see that our time is a time of birth and transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the world in which it has lived and formed its ideas until now. It is about to sink that world into the past and is working to transform itself. Certainly, spirit is never at rest but always moving forward. Yet after a long period of quiet nourishment, a child's first breath interrupts the gradual process of merely quantitative growth—a qualitative leap—and now the child is born. In the same way, spirit as it takes shape matures slowly and quietly toward its new form. It dissolves one small piece after another of the structure of its previous world. Only scattered symptoms signal that this world is tottering. The frivolity and boredom spreading through the established order, and the vague sense of something unknown, announce that something else is approaching. This gradual crumbling, which did not change the face of the whole, is interrupted by the dawn that, like 1807 XIV lightning, sets the shape of the new world before us all at once.
12 But this new world has no more complete actuality than a newborn child. It is essential not to overlook this. Its first appearance is only its immediacy, or its concept. A building is not finished when its foundation has been laid. No more is the concept of the whole, once reached, the whole itself. If we want to see an oak in the strength of its trunk, the spread of its branches, and the mass of its foliage, we are not satisfied to be shown an acorn instead. In the same way, science, the crown of a world of spirit, is not complete at its beginning. The beginning of the new spirit is the product of a sweeping upheaval of many forms of cultivation. It is the reward for a path with many twists and turns and for equally varied efforts and struggles. It is the whole that has returned into itself from both its succession and its extension: the whole's simple concept, now come into being. But the actuality of this simple whole consists in those forms, now reduced to moments, developing anew and taking shape in their 1807 XV new element, with the meaning that has come into being.
13 On one side, then, the new world's first appearance is only the whole veiled in its simplicity, or its universal foundation. On the other side, consciousness still has the riches of its previous existence present in memory. It misses the spread and differentiation of content in the newly appearing form. Still more, it misses the developed form through which differences are securely defined and put in their fixed relations. Without this development, science lacks general intelligibility and looks like the esoteric possession of a few individuals. It is an esoteric possession because only its concept, or its inner nature, is present as yet. It belongs to a few individuals because its appearance, not yet spread out, makes its existence something individual. Only what is completely determined is also open to everyone, comprehensible, capable of being learned and becoming everyone's possession. Science's form in terms of understanding is the road to it that is offered to everyone and made the same for everyone. To reach rational knowing through understanding is the 1807 XVI rightful demand of consciousness as it approaches science. For understanding is thinking, the pure I in general. What is understandable is already familiar and is shared by science and unscientific consciousness. Through it, the latter can enter the former directly.
14 Science that is only beginning has not yet achieved either completeness of detail or perfection of form, and is open to criticism on that account. But if the criticism is meant to strike at its essence, it would be as unjust as refusing to recognize the demand for that development is unacceptable. This opposition seems to be the main knot at which scientific cultivation is now wearing itself out, without yet properly understanding the issue. One side insists on rich material and intelligibility. The other at least scorns intelligibility and insists on immediate rationality and divinity. Even if the first side has been silenced, whether by the force of truth alone or also by the other's vehemence, and feels itself overcome 1807 XVII as regards the subject's foundation, its demands are still not satisfied. They are justified, but unfulfilled. Its silence is only half due to defeat. The other half comes from the boredom and indifference that usually follow when expectations are constantly aroused and promises go unfulfilled.
15 As for content, the other side sometimes makes it easy enough for itself to cover a wide field. It draws a mass of material onto its own ground—material already known and arranged. By concentrating especially on oddities and curiosities, it seems all the more to possess the rest, which knowledge has already dealt with in its own way. It also seems to master what has not yet been brought to order, and so to subject everything to the absolute idea. This idea then seems to have been recognized in everything and developed into a comprehensive science. But look more closely at this expansion. It has not come about through one and the same thing giving itself different forms. Instead, it is a formless repetition of one and the same thing, merely applied externally 1807 XVIII to different material and acquiring a tedious appearance of diversity. The idea may well be true in itself. In fact, though, it always remains at its beginning if its development consists only in repeating the same formula. The knowing subject carries one unmoving form around over what is there; the material is dipped from outside into this motionless element. This fulfills the demand no more than arbitrary notions about the content do. What is required is a richness that springs from itself and differences of form that determine themselves. Instead, this is a formalism of one color. It reaches differences in the material only because that material has already been prepared and is already known.
16 Yet this formalism declares its monotony and abstract universality to be the absolute. It assures us that dissatisfaction with it shows an inability to take up the absolute standpoint and hold on to it. Formerly, the bare possibility of imagining something differently was enough to refute an idea, and this same bare possibility, the general thought, also had the entire positive 1807 XIX value of actual knowledge. Here, similarly, we see all value assigned to the universal idea in this form of nonactuality. Dissolving what is distinct and determinate—or rather throwing it down into the abyss of emptiness without further development or any justification in itself—passes for speculative thinking. Here, to consider some existence as it is in the absolute means nothing more than saying that although we have just spoken of it as something, in the absolute, in A = A, there is nothing of the kind: everything there is one. To set this single piece of knowledge, that in the absolute everything is alike, against knowledge that distinguishes and is fulfilled, or seeks and demands fulfillment—to pass off one's absolute as the night in which, as people say, all cows are black—is the naivety of a mind empty of knowledge. Modern philosophy has accused and reviled formalism, only to reproduce it within itself. Even when its inadequacy is known and felt, it will not disappear from science until knowledge of absolute actuality 1807 XX has become completely clear about its own nature. A general idea placed before an attempt to work it out makes that attempt easier to grasp. It is therefore useful to give an approximate indication of it here, while also taking the opportunity to remove certain habitual forms that obstruct philosophical knowledge.
17 In my view—a view that must justify itself through the presentation of the system itself—everything depends on grasping and expressing truth not as substance alone, but just as much as subject. We should also note that substantiality includes both the universal, or the immediacy of knowing, and the immediacy that is being, or immediacy for knowing. Conceiving God as the one substance outraged the age in which this definition was stated. One reason was the instinct that self-consciousness was only submerged in it, not preserved. But the opposite position, which holds fast to thinking as thinking, to universality, is the same simplicity, or 1807 XXI undifferentiated, unmoving substantiality. Third, if thinking unites the being of substance as such with itself and grasps immediacy or intuition as thinking, the question still remains whether this intellectual intuition falls back into inert simplicity and presents actuality itself in a nonactual way.
18 Further, living substance is being that is truly subject, or, what means the same, is truly actual, only insofar as it is the movement of positing itself, or of mediating its becoming-other with itself. As subject, it is pure, simple negativity. By that very fact it is the splitting of the simple, or its doubling into opposites, which in turn negates this indifferent diversity and its opposition. Only this self-restoring sameness, or reflection into itself in otherness—not an original unity as such, or an immediate unity as such—is truth. Truth is the becoming of itself, the circle that presupposes its end as its purpose and has that end as its beginning. It is actual only through being carried out and through its end.
1807 XXII
19 So the life of God and divine knowing may indeed be described as love playing with itself. But this idea sinks into edification, even blandness, if it leaves out the seriousness, pain, patience, and labor of the negative. In itself, that life may well be undisturbed sameness and unity with itself, taking neither otherness and alienation nor the overcoming of alienation seriously. But this in itself is abstract universality. It leaves out that life's nature of being for itself, and thus the self-movement of form in general. If form is said to be equal to essence, then precisely for this reason it is a misunderstanding to think that knowing can be content with the in-itself or essence and dispense with form. It is a misunderstanding to think that an absolute first principle makes working it out unnecessary, or that absolute intuition makes its development unnecessary. Precisely because form is as essential to essence as essence is to itself, essence must not be grasped and expressed merely as essence—as immediate substance, or as the divine's pure intuition of itself. It must equally be grasped as form, 1807 XXIII in the full richness of developed form. Only then is it grasped and expressed as actual.
20 Truth is the whole. But the whole is only essence completing itself through its development. Of the absolute we must say that it is essentially a result: only at the end is it what it truly is. This is precisely its nature: to be actual, subject, or the becoming of itself. It may seem contradictory that the absolute should essentially be understood as a result. A little thought, however, clears up this apparent contradiction. The beginning, the principle, or the absolute as it is first and immediately stated, is only the universal. If I say “all animals,” those words cannot count as a zoology. Equally, it is obvious that words such as “divine,” “absolute,” “eternal,” and so on do not express what they contain. And in fact only such words express intuition as the immediate. Anything more than such a word—even the transition to a sentence—is a becoming-other that must be taken back: it is a mediation. But mediation is regarded with horror, 1807 XXIV as though absolute knowledge had been abandoned if we made anything more of mediation than that it is nothing absolute and is not in the absolute at all.
21 In fact, this horror comes from ignorance of the nature of mediation and of absolute knowing itself. For mediation is nothing but self-sameness in motion. It is reflection into itself, the moment of the I that is for itself, pure negativity, or simple becoming. The I, or becoming in general, this mediating, is precisely immediacy coming to be, and the immediate itself, because of its simplicity. So excluding reflection from truth and failing to grasp it as a positive moment of the absolute misunderstands reason. Reflection makes truth a result, but it also sublates this opposition to its becoming. For this becoming is equally simple, and therefore does not differ from truth's form of showing itself as simple in the result. Rather, it is precisely this having-returned into simplicity. An embryo is certainly human in itself, but not for itself. It is human for itself only 1807 XXV as cultivated reason, which has made itself what it is in itself. Only this is its actuality. But this result is itself simple immediacy. It is self-conscious freedom, resting in itself, which has not put the opposition aside and left it lying there, but is reconciled with it.
22 We can also express what has been said by saying that reason is purposive activity. Exalting supposedly given nature over misunderstood thinking, and especially banishing external purposiveness, has discredited the form of purpose in general. Yet Aristotle, too, defines nature as purposive activity. Purpose is the immediate, the resting thing that itself moves, or is subject. Its abstract power to move is being-for-itself, or pure negativity. The result is the same as the beginning only because the beginning is purpose. Or, the actual is the same as its concept only because the immediate, as purpose, has the self, or pure actuality, within itself. The purpose carried out, or the actual that exists, is movement and unfolded 1807 XXVI becoming. But this very unrest is the self. It is therefore equal to the beginning's immediacy and simplicity because it is the result, what has returned into itself. What has returned into itself is precisely the self, and the self is sameness and simplicity relating to itself.
23 The need to represent the absolute as subject made use of propositions such as “God is the eternal,” or “the moral world order,” or “love,” and so on. In these propositions, truth is simply posited as subject, but is not presented as the movement of reflecting itself into itself. A proposition of this kind begins with the word “God.” By itself, this is a meaningless sound, a mere name. Only the predicate says what he is, filling the name and giving it meaning. Only in this ending does the empty beginning become actual knowledge. In that respect, it is hard to see why one should not speak only of the eternal, the moral world order, and so on—or, as the ancients did, of pure concepts, being, the one, and so on—of what carries the meaning, without adding the meaningless sound. But the word indicates precisely that what is posited is not a being, an essence, 1807 XXVII or a universal in general, but something reflected into itself, a subject. Yet this is only anticipated. The subject is assumed as a fixed point to which predicates are attached as their support. The movement that attaches them belongs to the person knowing it and is not regarded as belonging to the point itself. Yet only through this movement would the content be presented as subject. As this movement is constituted, it cannot belong to the subject. But once that fixed point is presupposed, the movement cannot be constituted differently: it can only be external. So this anticipation that the absolute is subject not only fails to be the actuality of this concept; it even makes that actuality impossible. For the anticipation posits the concept as a resting point, whereas its actuality is self-movement.
24 Among the various consequences of what has been said, we can single out this one: knowing is actual, and can be presented, only as science or as a system. Further, a so-called fundamental proposition or principle of philosophy, even if true, is also false simply because it is a fundamental proposition or principle. It is therefore easy to refute it. The 1807 XXVIII refutation consists in showing its deficiency. It is deficient because it is only the universal or principle, the beginning. If the refutation is thorough, it is drawn from and developed out of the principle itself, not achieved through opposing assurances and notions brought in from outside. Properly speaking, then, it would be the principle's development and thus the remedy for its deficiency—unless it misunderstood itself by attending only to its negative side, without also becoming conscious of its advance and result on their positive side. Conversely, the properly positive working-out of the beginning is at the same time a negative stance toward it: toward its one-sided form of being only immediate, or only purpose. It can therefore equally be taken as a refutation of what forms the system's foundation. Better, though, it is a demonstration that the system's foundation or principle is in fact only its beginning.
25 That truth is actual only as a system, or that substance is essentially subject, is expressed in the idea that declares the absolute to be spirit. This is the highest concept, and it belongs to the modern age and its 1807 XXIX religion. Only the spiritual is actual. It is essence, or what is in itself; it is what relates, or is determinate, otherness and being-for-itself; and in this determinacy, or its being outside itself, it remains within itself. In other words, it is in and for itself. But at first it is this being-in-and-for-itself only for us, or in itself: it is spiritual substance. It must also be this for itself. It must be knowledge of the spiritual and knowledge of itself as spirit. That means it must be an object to itself, but just as immediately a mediated object—that is, an object sublated and reflected into itself. It is for itself only for us insofar as it has produced its spiritual content itself. But insofar as it is for itself also for its own self, this self-production, the pure concept, is also for it the objective element in which it exists. In this way, in its existence it is for itself an object reflected into itself. Spirit that knows itself as spirit in this way is science. Science is its actuality and the realm it builds for itself in its own element.
26 Pure self-knowledge in absolute otherness, this ether as such, is the ground 1807 XXX and soil of science, or knowing in general. The beginning of philosophy presupposes, or demands, that consciousness be in this element. But this element itself is complete and transparent only through the movement of its becoming. It is pure spirituality, or the universal in the mode of simple immediacy. Because it is the immediacy of spirit, because substance in general is spirit, it is transfigured essentiality: reflection that is itself simple, or immediacy; being that is reflection into itself. Science, for its part, demands that self-consciousness should have risen into this ether in order to be able to live, and actually live, with and in science. Conversely, the individual has the right to demand that science at least provide the ladder to this standpoint. This right rests on the individual's absolute independence, which it knows it possesses in every form of its knowing. In every form, whether science recognizes it or not, and whatever its content, the individual is also the absolute form, or has immediate certainty of itself—and, if we prefer this expression, 1807 XXXI thereby has unconditional being. Consciousness's standpoint is to know objective things as opposed to itself and itself as opposed to them. If science regards this standpoint as its other, and regards the place where consciousness is at home with itself as instead the loss of spirit, then consciousness in turn regards the element of science as a distant beyond in which it no longer possesses itself. Each side seems to the other to be the reverse of truth. For natural consciousness to entrust itself directly to science is an attempt, prompted by an attraction it does not understand, to try walking on its head for once. The compulsion to adopt this unfamiliar position and move about in it seems an unprepared and unnecessary act of violence it is asked to inflict on itself. Whatever science may be in itself, in relation to immediate self-consciousness it presents itself as something inverted. Or, because immediate self-consciousness is the principle of actuality, science has the form of nonactuality while that consciousness exists for itself outside science. Science must therefore unite that element with itself, 1807 XXXII or rather show that and how it belongs to science itself. Lacking actuality, science is only the in-itself, the purpose, still only something inward, not spirit but as yet only spiritual substance. It must express itself and become for itself. This means nothing other than that it must posit self-consciousness as one with itself.
27 This becoming of science in general, or of knowing, is what this Phenomenology of spirit presents as the first part of its system. Knowing as it first is, or immediate spirit, is what lacks spirit: sensory consciousness. To become genuine knowing, or to produce the element of science that is its pure concept, spirit must work through a long road. As presented in its content and in the forms that appear within it, this becoming looks different from a guide leading unscientific consciousness to science. It also looks different from a grounding of science—and certainly different from the enthusiasm that begins immediately with absolute knowing, as though fired from a pistol, and has already disposed 1807 XXXIII of other standpoints by declaring that it takes no notice of them.
28 But the task of leading the individual from its uncultivated standpoint to knowing had to be grasped in its general sense. It was necessary to consider the universal individual, world spirit, in its cultivation. As to the relation between the two, in the universal individual each moment shows itself as it acquires concrete form and a shape of its own. The particular individual, however, is incomplete spirit: a concrete shape whose entire existence falls under one specific determination and in which the others are present only as blurred traces. In a spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has sunk to an inconspicuous moment. What was previously the subject itself is now only a trace. Its shape is wrapped up and has become a simple shading. The individual whose substance is the higher spirit goes through this past in the way someone taking up a higher science reviews preparatory knowledge long since mastered, to bring its content to mind. He recalls it without 1807 XXXIV dwelling on it or making it his main interest. In the same way, each individual goes through the stages of cultivation of universal spirit, but as forms spirit has already left behind, as stages on a road already worked out and leveled. We see knowledge that occupied the mature minds of men in earlier ages reduced to the lessons, exercises, and even games of childhood. In educational progress we will recognize the history of the world's cultivation retraced in outline. This past existence is already an acquired possession of universal spirit, which forms the individual's substance, or its inorganic nature. From the individual's side, its cultivation in this respect consists in acquiring what is already there, consuming its inorganic nature into itself and taking possession of it for itself. But this is equally nothing other than universal spirit, or substance, giving itself its self-consciousness: its becoming and reflection into itself.
29 Science presents this formative movement both in its detail and necessity, and presents in its shape what has already sunk to a 1807 XXXV moment and possession of spirit. The goal is spirit's insight into what knowing is. Impatience demands the impossible: reaching the goal without the means. On the one hand, we must endure the length of this road, for every moment is necessary. On the other hand, we must stay at each moment, for each is itself an individual, complete shape. It is considered absolutely only insofar as its determinacy is considered as a whole or something concrete, or the whole is considered in the distinctive character of this determination. The individual's substance, world spirit, had the patience to pass through these forms over the long stretch of time and to undertake the immense labor of world history. Since it could not reach consciousness of itself with any less labor, the individual certainly cannot comprehend its substance with less. Still, the individual's trouble is also reduced, because in itself this has been accomplished already. The content is already actuality erased down to possibility, immediacy brought under control. Already something thought, it is the possession of individuality. What must be converted is no longer existence into being-in-itself, 1807 XXXVI but only the in-itself into the form of being-for-itself. We must define more closely how this happens.
30 What the individual is spared in this movement is the sublation of existence. What still remains is the representation of the forms and familiarity with them. Existence taken back into substance has, through that first negation, only been placed immediately in the element of the self. It therefore still has the same character of uncomprehended immediacy or unmoving indifference as existence itself. In other words, it has only passed into representation. At the same time, it has thereby become something familiar, something spirit has finished with, in which its activity and therefore its interest no longer lie. The activity that finishes with existence is immediate mediation, mediation that exists, and hence the movement only of particular spirit that does not comprehend itself. Knowing, in contrast, is directed against the representation produced by this activity, against this familiarity. It is the activity of the universal self and the interest of thinking.
31 What is familiar is not known simply because it is familiar. It is the 1807 XXXVII most common way of deceiving oneself and others to presuppose something as familiar in knowing, and to accept it on that basis. For all its talk back and forth, such knowing never moves from the spot, without knowing what is happening to it. Subject and object, and so on, God, nature, understanding, sensibility, and so on, are taken without examination as familiar and valid foundations. They form fixed points both of departure and return. The movement goes back and forth between them while they remain unmoved, and so proceeds only on their surface. Grasping and testing likewise consist in seeing whether everyone also finds what is said about them in their own representation—whether or not it seems that way and is familiar to them.
32 Analyzing a representation, as it used to be practiced, was already nothing other than sublating the form of its familiarity. Breaking a representation into its original elements is a return to its moments. At least these no longer have the form of the representation as we found it, but constitute the self's immediate possession. Admittedly, this analysis reaches only thoughts that are themselves familiar, fixed, and 1807 XXXVIII resting determinations. But this separated, nonactual element is itself an essential moment. For the concrete moves itself only because it divides itself and makes itself nonactual. The activity of separation is the power and labor of understanding, the most astonishing and greatest power—or rather, absolute power. The circle that rests closed within itself and holds its moments as substance is an immediate and therefore unsurprising relation. But an accident, separated from what encompasses it, gains an existence of its own and a separate freedom. What is bound, and actual only in its connection with something else, gains this freedom as such. That is the immense power of the negative: the energy of thinking, of the pure I. Death, if that is what we want to call this nonactuality, is the most terrible thing. Holding fast to what is dead requires the greatest strength. Powerless beauty hates understanding because understanding asks of it what it cannot do. But spirit's life is not the life that shrinks from death and keeps itself untouched by devastation. It is the life that endures death and preserves itself in it. Spirit wins its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment. 1807 XXXIX It is not this power as something positive that looks away from the negative, as when we say of something, “This is nothing,” or “This is false,” and, finished with it, turn away to something else. Spirit is this power only by looking the negative in the face and staying with it. This staying is the magic power that turns the negative into being. It is the same thing that was called subject above. By giving determinacy existence in its own element, subject sublates abstract immediacy—immediacy that merely is in general. It is thereby true substance: being, or immediacy, that does not have mediation outside it but is itself this mediation.
33 Making what is represented into the possession of pure self-consciousness, this raising into universality in general, is only one side. It is not yet completed cultivation. Ancient study differed from modern study in this: it thoroughly cultivated natural consciousness itself. Testing itself in each part of its existence and philosophizing about everything it encountered, natural consciousness produced itself as a universality active through and through. In 1807 XL modern times, by contrast, the individual finds the abstract form ready-made. The effort to grasp it and make it one's own is more an unmediated forcing-out of what is within, a cut-short production of the universal, than the universal's emergence from the concrete and from the variety of existence. So the work now consists less in purifying the individual of the immediate sensory mode and making it into a substance that thinks and is thought. Rather, it consists in the opposite: making the universal actual and giving it spirit by sublating fixed, determinate thoughts. But making fixed thoughts fluid is much harder than making sensory existence fluid. The reason is the one given earlier. Those determinations have the I, the power of the negative or pure actuality, as their substance and the element of their existence. Sensory determinations, by contrast, have only powerless abstract immediacy, or being as such. Thoughts become fluid when pure thinking, this inward immediacy, recognizes itself as a moment, or when pure certainty of itself abstracts from itself. It does not leave itself out or set itself aside. Instead, it gives up the fixity 1807 XLI of its self-positing: both the fixity of the pure concrete that the I itself is, as opposed to differentiated content, and the fixity of differentiated terms that, posited in the element of pure thinking, share in the I's unconditional character. Through this movement, pure thoughts become concepts. Only then are they what they truly are: self-movements, circles, what their substance is—spiritual essences.
34 This movement of pure essences constitutes the nature of scientific procedure in general. Considered as the connectedness of its content, it is that content's necessity and expansion into an organic whole. Through it, the road by which the concept of knowing is reached likewise becomes a necessary and complete becoming. This preparation thus ceases to be an accidental philosophizing that attaches itself, as chance dictates, to this or that object, relation, or thought of imperfect consciousness. Nor does it try to ground truth by reasoning back and forth, drawing conclusions and inferences from determinate thoughts. Instead, through the concept's movement, this road will embrace the complete 1807 XLII worldly existence of consciousness in its necessity.
35 Further, such a presentation forms the first part of science because spirit's existence, as what comes first, is nothing other than the immediate, or the beginning. But the beginning is not yet spirit's return into itself. The element of immediate existence is therefore the specific feature that distinguishes this part of science from the others. Stating this difference leads us to discuss some fixed thoughts that usually occur here.
36 Spirit's immediate existence, consciousness, has two moments: knowing and objectivity that is negative to knowing. As spirit develops in this element and unfolds its moments, this opposition belongs to them, and they all appear as forms of consciousness. The science of this road is the science of the experience consciousness undergoes. Substance is considered as it and its movement are consciousness's object. Consciousness knows and comprehends nothing but what is in its experience. For what is in experience is only spiritual substance, and specifically as the object of its self. 1807 XLIII But spirit becomes an object because it is this movement: becoming another to itself, that is, the object of its own self, and sublating this otherness. Experience is precisely the name for the movement in which the immediate, the unexperienced—that is, the abstract, whether of sensory being or of a simplicity merely thought—alienates itself, then returns to itself from this alienation. Only then is it presented in its actuality and truth and also possessed by consciousness.
37 The inequality in consciousness between the I and substance, which is its object, is their difference, the negative in general. It can be regarded as the deficiency of both. But it is their soul, or what moves them. That is why some ancient thinkers understood the void as what moves: they grasped what moves as the negative, but did not yet grasp the negative as the self. Now, although this negative appears at first as the I's inequality with the object, it is just as much substance's inequality with itself. What seems to happen outside substance, to be an activity directed against it, is its own doing. Substance shows itself 1807 XLIV to be essentially subject. Once it has shown this completely, spirit has made its existence equal to its essence. It is an object to itself as it is, and the abstract element of immediacy and of the separation between knowing and truth has been overcome. Being is absolutely mediated: it is substantial content that is just as immediately the I's possession, selflike, or the concept. With this, the Phenomenology of spirit comes to its close. What spirit prepares for itself in it is the element of knowing. Within this element, spirit's moments now spread out in the form of simplicity, which knows its object as itself. They no longer fall apart into the opposition of being and knowing. Instead, they remain in the simplicity of knowing. They are truth in the form of truth, and their diversity is only diversity of content. Their movement, which organizes itself into the whole in this element, is logic, or speculative philosophy.
38 Now, that system of spirit's experience includes only spirit's appearance. So the advance from it to the science of truth in the shape of truth seems merely negative. We might 1807 XLV want to be spared the negative as false and demand to be led straight to truth. Why deal with falsehood? The demand to begin at once with science has already been discussed above. Here we must answer it in terms of what the negative as false is in general. Ideas about this are the chief obstacles to entering into truth. This will give us occasion to discuss mathematical knowing. Unphilosophical knowing regards it as the ideal philosophy ought to strive to reach, but has so far striven in vain to attain.
39 The true and the false belong to the determinate thoughts that are treated as unmoving essences of their own. One stands fixed and isolated on that side, the other on this side, without any connection. Against this we must insist that truth is not a minted coin that can be handed over ready-made and pocketed just as it is. Nor is there a falsehood, any more than there is an evil. Admittedly, evil and falsehood are not as bad as the devil, since in the devil they are even made into a particular subject. As falsehood and 1807 XLVI evil, they are only universals, but they still have their own essential character in opposition to each other. Falsehood—since it alone concerns us here—would be the other, the negative of substance, which as the content of knowing is truth. But substance is itself essentially the negative: partly as the distinguishing and determining of content, partly as a simple distinguishing, that is, as self and knowing in general. We can certainly know falsely. To say that something is known falsely means that knowing is unequal to its substance. But this very inequality is distinguishing in general, which is an essential moment. Their equality does indeed emerge from this distinguishing, and this equality that has come to be is truth. But it is not truth as though the inequality had been thrown away like slag from pure metal, or even as though the tool were left apart from the finished vessel. Rather, inequality, as the negative, as the self, is itself still immediately present in truth as such. Yet this does not mean that falsehood constitutes a moment, let alone a component, of truth. To say that there is something true in every falsehood treats the two 1807 XLVII like oil and water, which do not mix and are combined only externally. Precisely because their expressions signify the moment of complete otherness, those expressions must no longer be used where that otherness has been sublated. Speaking of the unity of subject and object, finite and infinite, being and thinking, and so on, has this awkward feature: “object” and “subject,” and so on, mean what they are outside their unity. In the unity, then, they are not meant as what their expressions say. In the same way, falsehood is no longer a moment of truth as falsehood.
40 Dogmatism in the way of thinking in knowledge and the study of philosophy is nothing other than the opinion that truth consists in a proposition that is a fixed result, or is immediately known. Questions such as when Caesar was born, or how many toises a stadium measured, and which stadium, and so on, should receive a precise answer. It is likewise definitely true that the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the two other sides of a right-angled triangle. But the nature of such a so-called truth is 1807 XLVIII different from the nature of philosophical truths.
41 To mention historical truths briefly: insofar as we consider what is purely historical in them, it is readily admitted that they concern individual existence, content on its accidental and arbitrary side, and determinations of it that are not necessary. But even bare truths like the example just given are not without the movement of self-consciousness. To know one of them, we must make many comparisons, consult books, or investigate in some other way. Even where intuition is immediate, only knowledge of it together with its grounds is held to have true value, although supposedly it is only the bare result that really matters.
42 As for mathematical truths, someone who knew Euclid's theorems by heart without their proofs—without knowing them from within, as we might say by contrast—would be even less likely to count as a geometer. Likewise, knowledge acquired by measuring many 1807 XLIX right-angled triangles and finding that their sides have the familiar relation would be considered unsatisfactory. Yet even in mathematical knowing, the proof's essential character does not mean that it is a moment of the result itself. Instead, in the result the proof is over and has disappeared. As a result, the theorem is certainly recognized as true. But this added circumstance does not affect its content, only its relation to the subject. The movement of mathematical proof does not belong to what is the object. It is an activity external to the subject matter. Thus the nature of a right-angled triangle does not divide itself up in the way presented in the construction needed to prove the proposition expressing its relation. The whole production of the result is a route and a means of knowing. In philosophical knowing too, the becoming of existence as existence differs from the becoming of the essence or inner nature of the subject. But first, philosophical knowing contains both, whereas mathematical knowing presents only the becoming of existence: that is, the being of the subject's nature in knowing as 1807 L such. Second, philosophical knowing also unites these two particular movements. The inward arising, or the becoming of substance, is inseparably a passage into the outward, into existence, being for another. Conversely, the becoming of existence is a taking of itself back into essence. Thus the movement is the double process and becoming of the whole. Each at the same time posits the other, and each therefore also has both in it as two aspects. Together they make up the whole by dissolving themselves and making themselves its moments.
43 In mathematical knowing, insight is an activity external to the subject. It follows that the true subject is changed by it. The means—construction and proof—therefore certainly contain true propositions. But it must equally be said that the content is false. In the example above, the triangle is torn apart and its parts are added to other figures that the construction brings into being on it. Only at the end is the triangle restored. It is what really concerns us, but it was lost from view during the process and appeared only in pieces belonging to other wholes. Here, then, we also see 1807 LI negativity entering the content. We would have to call this a falsity of the content just as much as the disappearance of thoughts held to be fixed in the movement of the concept.
44 But the real deficiency of this knowing concerns both knowing itself and its material in general. As to knowing, first, we do not see the necessity of the construction. It does not emerge from the concept of the theorem but is prescribed. We must blindly obey the instruction to draw these particular lines, when infinitely many others could be drawn. We know nothing further; we have only the good faith that this will serve to conduct the proof. Afterwards, this usefulness does indeed appear. It is therefore only external, because it appears only afterwards, in the proof. Likewise, the proof follows a path beginning somewhere whose relation to the intended result is not yet known. Its advance takes up these determinations and relations and leaves others aside, without our immediately seeing what necessity guides it. An external purpose governs this movement.
1807 LII
45 The self-evidence of this deficient knowing, in which mathematics takes pride and with which it boasts against philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the deficiency of its material. It is therefore of a kind philosophy must reject. Its purpose, or concept, is magnitude. This is precisely the inessential relation without a concept. So knowing moves along the surface. It does not touch the subject itself, its essence or concept, and therefore is not comprehension. The material about which mathematics provides its welcome treasure of truths is space and the one. Space is the existence in which the concept inscribes its differences as in an empty, dead element, where they are likewise unmoving and lifeless. The actual is not something spatial in the way mathematics considers it. Neither concrete sensory intuition nor philosophy deals with nonactual things of the kind found in mathematics. In such a nonactual element there is also only nonactual truth: fixed, dead propositions. We can stop at any one of them. The next begins afresh 1807 LIII on its own, without the first moving itself on to the next and without a necessary connection arising in this way from the nature of the subject itself. Because of this principle and element—and this is the formal character of mathematical self-evidence—knowing also advances along the line of equality. For what is dead does not move itself. It therefore does not reach differences of essence, essential opposition or inequality, and so does not reach the passage of one opposite into the other, qualitative, immanent movement, or self-movement. For magnitude, the inessential difference, is all mathematics considers. It abstracts from the fact that the concept divides space into its dimensions and determines their connections and the connections within them. For example, it does not consider the relation of line to surface. And where it compares a circle's diameter with its circumference, it comes up against their incommensurability: a relation of the concept, an infinite that escapes mathematical determination.
46 Immanent, so-called pure mathematics also does not set time as time against 1807 LIV space as the second material of its investigation. Applied mathematics does deal with time, as with motion and other actual things. But it takes from experience the synthetic propositions—that is, propositions about their relations determined by their concept—and merely applies its formulas to these presuppositions. It often gives so-called proofs of propositions such as those about the equilibrium of a lever or the relation of space and time in falling motion, and so on. That these are offered and accepted as proofs proves only how great knowing's need for proof is: where it has nothing more, it values even the empty appearance of proof and finds satisfaction in it. A critique of those proofs would be as remarkable as it would be instructive. It would partly clear mathematics of this false ornament, partly show its limit and, from that, the necessity of another kind of knowing. As for time, which one might expect to form, as the counterpart of space, the material of the other part of pure mathematics: it is the concept itself in existence. The principle of 1807 LV magnitude, of difference without a concept, and the principle of equality, of abstract, lifeless unity, cannot deal with that pure restlessness of life and absolute differentiation. So this negativity becomes the second material of this knowing only when paralyzed, namely as the one. This knowing, an external activity, degrades what moves itself into material, in order to have in it an indifferent, external, lifeless content.
47 Philosophy, by contrast, considers determination not as inessential but insofar as it is essential. Its element and content are not the abstract or nonactual, but the actual: what posits itself and lives within itself, existence in its concept. This is the process that produces and passes through its own moments. This entire movement constitutes the positive and its truth. Truth therefore also includes the negative—what would be called falsehood if it could be regarded as something to abstract from. What disappears must instead itself be considered essential. It must not be defined as something fixed, cut off from truth 1807 LVI and left lying outside it somewhere unknown. Nor should truth be treated as a dead positive resting on the other side. Appearance is the arising and passing away that does not itself arise and pass away, but is in itself and constitutes the actuality and movement of the life of truth. Truth is thus the Bacchic frenzy in which not one member is sober. And because each member, as it separates itself, also immediately dissolves, the frenzy is equally transparent and simple repose. In the judgment of that movement, the individual forms of spirit, like determinate thoughts, do not stand. But they are as much positive and necessary moments as they are negative and disappearing. In the whole of the movement, grasped as repose, what distinguishes itself within it and gives itself a particular existence is preserved as something that recollects itself. Its existence is knowledge of itself, just as this knowledge is also immediately existence.
48 It might seem necessary to say more in advance about the method of this movement, or of science. But its concept already lies in what has been said. Its proper 1807 LVII presentation belongs to logic, or rather is logic itself. For method is nothing other than the structure of the whole set out in its pure essentiality. But we must be conscious that the system of ideas about what philosophical method is, too, belongs to a vanished cultivation. If this should sound boastful or revolutionary—a tone I know to be far from my own—we should remember that the scientific apparatus borrowed from mathematics is already, even in common opinion, at least outdated: definitions, divisions, axioms, series of theorems and their proofs, fundamental propositions, and inferences and conclusions drawn from them. Even if its unfitness is not clearly understood, little or no use is now made of it. Even if it is not disapproved of in itself, it is not liked. And we must have this prejudice in favor of what is excellent: that it establishes itself in use and wins favor. It is not hard to see, however, that setting up a proposition, giving reasons for it, and likewise 1807 LVIII refuting the opposite proposition with reasons is not the form in which truth can appear. Truth is its own movement within itself. That method, by contrast, is knowing external to its material. It therefore belongs to mathematics and must be left to mathematics, whose principle, as noted, is the conceptless relation of magnitude, and whose material is dead space and the equally dead one. In a freer manner—that is, mixed more with arbitrariness and chance—it may also remain in ordinary life, conversation, or historical instruction meant more to satisfy curiosity than to provide knowledge, as a preface roughly is too. In ordinary life, consciousness has as its content information, experiences, concrete sensory things, thoughts, and principles: in general, things regarded as already there, or as fixed, resting being or essence. Consciousness partly runs along this content, partly interrupts its connection by exercising free choice over it. It acts as an external determining and handling of that content. It traces it back to something certain, even if only the feeling of the moment. Conviction is 1807 LIX satisfied when it has reached a resting point familiar to it.
49 The necessity of the concept rules out both the loose progress of argumentative conversation and the stiffer progress of scientific display. But, as noted above, their place is not to be taken by the absence of method in presentiment and enthusiasm, or by arbitrary prophetic talk that despises not merely that kind of scientific procedure but scientific procedure altogether.
50 Likewise, Kant's threefold form—still dead and uncomprehended, rediscovered only by instinct—has been raised to its absolute significance. The true form has thereby been established together with its true content, and the concept of science has emerged. But this does not make scientific the use of this form that reduces it to a lifeless schema, an actual phantom, and reduces scientific organization to a table. This formalism, discussed above in general, should now be described more closely. It thinks it has comprehended and expressed the nature and life of a 1807 LX form when it has stated a determination from its schema as a predicate of that form: subjectivity or objectivity, magnetism, electricity, and so on, contraction or expansion, east or west, and the like. This can be multiplied without limit. In this approach, any determination or form can be used again for another as a form or moment of the schema, and each can gratefully perform the same service for the other. This is a circle of reciprocity through which we learn nothing of the subject itself—what either the one or the other is. In part, sensory determinations are taken from ordinary intuition, though they are supposed to mean something other than what they say. In part, what has meaning in itself—the pure determinations of thought, such as subject, object, substance, cause, the universal, and so on—is used just as unexamined and uncritically as in ordinary life, and just like strength and weakness, expansion and contraction. So this metaphysics is as unscientific as those sensory representations.
1807 LXI
51 Instead of the inward life and self-movement of its existence, intuition—here meaning sensory knowing—states some such simple determination according to a superficial analogy. This empty, external application of a formula is called construction. Such formalism is like every other kind. How dull would a head have to be if it could not learn in a quarter of an hour the theory that there are asthenic, sthenic, and indirectly asthenic diseases, with as many plans of treatment—or could not be turned in that short time from a routine practitioner into a theoretical physician, since until quite recently such instruction was enough for this? Suppose the formalism of natural philosophy teaches that understanding is electricity, or that the animal is nitrogen, or is equal to south or north, and so on, or represents it—whether stated as baldly as here or brewed up with more terminology. The inexperienced may fall into admiring amazement at this power to bring together things that seem far apart, and at the violence done to the resting sensory thing by this connection. The connection gives it the appearance of a concept while sparing the 1807 LXII main task: stating the concept itself, or the meaning of the sensory representation. They may revere a profound genius in it. They may also enjoy the cheerfulness of such determinations, since they replace the abstract concept with something intuitive and make it more pleasing, and congratulate themselves on their sensed kinship with such splendid activity. The trick of this wisdom is as quickly learned as it is easy to perform. Once known, its repetition becomes as unbearable as repeating a conjuring trick one has seen through. The instrument of this monotonous formalism is no harder to handle than a painter's palette containing only two colors, say red and green: one to color a surface when a historical picture is wanted, the other when a landscape is wanted. It would be hard to decide which is greater: the complacency with which everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth is daubed with this colored wash, or the conceit about the excellence of this 1807 LXIII universal remedy. Each supports the other. This method sticks the few determinations of its general schema onto everything heavenly and earthly, every natural and spiritual form, and files everything away in this manner. What it produces is nothing less than a clear-as-day account of the universe's organism: a table resembling a skeleton with little labels stuck to it, or the rows of sealed jars with attached labels in a grocer's shop. The table is as clear as either of these. Just as flesh and blood have been removed from the bones, and the contents of the jars—likewise not alive—are hidden, so the living essence of the subject has been omitted or hidden. It was already noted above that this manner perfects itself into absolute painting in one color. Ashamed even of the schema's differences, it sinks them into the emptiness of the absolute as belonging to reflection, so as to restore pure identity, the formless white. The sameness of color in that schema and its lifeless determinations, this absolute identity, and the passage from one to 1807 LXIV the other are each as much dead understanding as the others, and equally external knowing.
52 What is excellent cannot escape this fate: being stripped of life and spirit, flayed in this way, and seeing its skin worn by lifeless knowing and its vanity. Yet even in this fate we can recognize its power over people's hearts, if not their spirits. We can also recognize its development into the universality and determinacy of form in which its completion consists. Only that development makes it possible to use this universality for superficiality.
53 Science may organize itself only through the concept's own life. In science, the determinacy that a schema would stick onto existence from outside is the self-moving soul of fulfilled content. The movement of what is consists, on one side, in becoming other to itself and thus becoming its immanent content. On the other side, it takes this unfolding, or this existence of its own, back into itself. That is, it makes itself a moment and simplifies itself into determinacy. In the first movement, negativity is distinguishing and positing existence. In 1807 LXV this return into itself, it is the becoming of determinate simplicity. In this way the content shows that its determinacy is not received from and attached by another. It gives itself this determinacy and, from itself, arranges itself into a moment and a place in the whole. Tabulating understanding keeps to itself the content's necessity and concept—what makes up the concrete character, actuality, and living movement of the subject it arranges. Or rather, it does not keep this to itself: it does not know it. For if it had this insight, it would surely show it. It does not even know the need for such insight. Otherwise it would stop its schematizing, or at least know that it had nothing more than a table of contents. It gives only the table of contents; it does not supply the content itself. Even if the determination is one like magnetism, something concrete or actual in itself, it has still sunk into something dead when it is merely predicated of another existence. It is not known as that existence's immanent life, or in the way it has its native and distinctive self-production and presentation within it. Formal understanding leaves others to add this 1807 LXVI main thing. Instead of entering the subject's immanent content, it always surveys the whole and stands above the individual existence it discusses. That means it does not see it at all. Scientific knowing, by contrast, requires giving oneself over to the life of the object, or, what amounts to the same thing, having its inner necessity before oneself and expressing it. Immersed in its object in this way, knowing forgets that overview, which is only knowing's reflection out of the content and into itself. But sunk in the material and advancing with its movement, knowing returns into itself—though only when the fullness or content takes itself back into itself, simplifies itself into determinacy, reduces itself to one side of an existence, and passes into its higher truth. Through this, the simple whole that surveys itself emerges on its own from the riches in which its reflection seemed lost.
54 Because substance, as expressed above, is subject within itself, all content is its own reflection into itself. The subsistence, or substance, of an 1807 LXVII existence is self-sameness, for its inequality with itself would be its dissolution. But self-sameness is pure abstraction, and this is thinking. When I say quality, I say simple determinacy. Through quality, an existence is distinguished from another, or is an existence. It is for itself, or subsists, through this simplicity with itself. But thereby it is essentially thought. In this lies the comprehension that being is thinking. Here lies the insight usually missing from ordinary conceptless talk about the identity of thinking and being. Now, because the subsistence of existence is self-sameness or pure abstraction, it is abstraction from itself, or is itself its inequality with itself and its dissolution—its own inwardness and taking-itself-back into itself, its becoming. Because of this nature of what is, and insofar as what is has this nature for knowing, knowing is not an activity that handles the content as something alien, nor a reflection into itself out of the content. Science is not that idealism which replaced assertive dogmatism with assuring 1807 LXVIII dogmatism, or the dogmatism of self-certainty. Rather, as knowing sees the content return into its own inwardness, its activity is both immersed in the content, since it is the content's immanent self, and returned into itself, since it is pure self-sameness in otherness. It is thus the cunning that seems to refrain from activity and watches as determinacy and its concrete life, precisely while thinking it pursues its own preservation and particular interest, does the opposite: dissolves itself and makes itself a moment of the whole.
55 Above, the meaning of understanding was given from the side of substance's self-consciousness. What has now been said makes clear its meaning in terms of substance as something that is. Existence is quality, self-identical determinacy or determinate simplicity, determinate thought. This is the understanding of existence. Through this it is nous, which Anaxagoras first recognized as essence. Those who followed him grasped the nature of existence more precisely as eidos or idea: that is, determinate universality, kind. The word kind may seem too ordinary 1807 LXIX and too little for the ideas, the beautiful, holy, and eternal that are now so prevalent. But in fact “idea” expresses neither more nor less than “kind.” Yet now we often see an expression that precisely designates a concept rejected in favor of another that wraps the concept in mist, if only because it belongs to a foreign language, and thus sounds more edifying. Precisely in being determined as kind, existence is simple thought. Nous, simplicity, is substance. Because of its simplicity or self-sameness it appears fixed and enduring. But this self-sameness is equally negativity, through which that fixed existence passes into its dissolution. At first, determinacy seems to be determinate only by relating to another, and its movement seems to be inflicted on it by an alien force. But that it has its otherness within itself and is self-movement is contained precisely in that simplicity of thinking itself. For this is thought moving and distinguishing itself, its own inwardness, the pure concept. Thus understanding is a becoming, and as this becoming it is reason.
1807 LXX
56 Logical necessity consists in this nature of what is: that in its being it is its concept. It alone is the rational and the rhythm of the organic whole. It is as much knowledge of the content as the content is concept and essence. Or, it alone is the speculative. The concrete form, moving itself, makes itself into simple determinacy. It thereby raises itself to logical form and is in its essentiality. Its concrete existence is only this movement and is immediately logical existence. So there is no need to impose formalism externally on the concrete content. This content is in itself the passage into formalism. But the latter ceases to be external formalism, because form is the concrete content's own native becoming.
57 Scientific method is inseparable from its content and determines its rhythm through itself. As already noted, this nature of method has its proper presentation in speculative philosophy. What has been said here certainly expresses the concept, but can count as no more than an assurance given in advance. Its truth does not lie in this partly narrative 1807 LXXI exposition. So it is just as little refuted by an opposing assurance that things are not so, but are this way or that; by recalling and recounting habitual ideas as settled and familiar truths; or by serving up and assuring us of something new from the shrine of inward divine intuition. Knowing commonly reacts in this way when it first encounters something previously unknown. It does so to save its freedom and its own insight, its own authority against an alien authority—for that is how what it first encounters appears. It also wants to remove the appearance and supposed disgrace of having learned something. When the unfamiliar is accepted with applause, the same kind of reaction consists in what, in another sphere, was ultrarevolutionary speech and action.
58 So what matters in the study of science is taking on the effort of the concept. This requires attention to the concept as such, to simple determinations such as being-in-itself, being-for-itself, self-sameness, and so on. These are pure 1807 LXXII self-movements that might be called souls, if their concept did not designate something higher than souls. The concept interrupts the habitual running along representations. This is as tiresome to that habit as it is to formal thinking that argues back and forth in nonactual thoughts. That habit can be called material thinking: an accidental consciousness merely immersed in the material, which therefore finds it hard at the same time to lift its self purely out of the material and be with itself. The other kind, argumentative reasoning, is by contrast freedom from the content and vanity toward it. It is asked to make the effort of giving up this freedom. Instead of being the principle that arbitrarily moves the content, it must sink this freedom into the content, let the content move itself through its own nature—that is, through the self as its own self—and observe this movement. Giving up one's own intrusions into the immanent rhythm of concepts, not interfering with it through arbitrary choice or wisdom acquired elsewhere: this restraint is itself an essential moment of attention to the concept.
1807 LXXIII
59 We should bring out more clearly the two sides of argumentative reasoning to which comprehending thought is opposed. On one side, reasoning takes a negative stance toward the content it has grasped, knowing how to refute and destroy it. The insight that this is not so is merely the negative. It is the final thing, which does not itself go beyond itself to a new content. To have content again, something else must be taken up from somewhere. This is reflection into the empty I, the vanity of its knowing. But this vanity expresses not only that this content is empty, but also that this insight itself is empty. For it is the negative that does not see the positive within itself. Because this reflection does not gain its own negativity as content, it is never in the subject at all, but always beyond it. It therefore imagines that asserting emptiness always takes it further than an insight rich in content. By contrast, as shown earlier, in comprehending thought the negative belongs to the content itself. Both as the content's immanent movement and determination, and as their whole, it is the 1807 LXXIV positive. Grasped as a result, it is what comes out of this movement, the determinate negative, and thus equally a positive content.
60 But insofar as such thinking has a content—whether representations, thoughts, or a mixture of both—it has another side that makes comprehension difficult for it. This side's remarkable nature is closely linked to the essence of the idea described above. Or rather, it expresses that essence as it appears in the movement that is thinking apprehension. In its negative attitude, just discussed, argumentative thinking is itself the self into which the content returns. In its positive knowing, by contrast, the self is a represented subject to which the content relates as accident and predicate. This subject is the basis to which the content is attached and on which the movement runs back and forth. Comprehending thought is different. The concept is the object's own self, which presents itself as its becoming. So it is not a resting subject that carries accidents without moving. It is the concept that moves itself and takes its determinations back 1807 LXXV into itself. In this movement, that resting subject itself perishes. It enters into the differences and content. Instead of remaining opposite them, it constitutes the determinacy—that is, the differentiated content—as well as its movement. So the firm ground that reasoning has in the resting subject begins to shake, and only this movement itself becomes the object. The subject that fills its content ceases to go beyond that content and cannot have still other predicates or accidents. Conversely, the content's dispersed elements are thereby bound under the self. The content is not a universal that, free of the subject, could belong to several subjects. Thus the content is in fact no longer the subject's predicate. It is the substance, the essence and concept of what is being discussed. Representational thinking by nature runs along accidents or predicates and rightly goes beyond them, because they are no more than predicates and accidents. But when what has the form of a predicate in the proposition is substance itself, this running-along is checked. It suffers, so to speak, a counterthrust. 1807 LXXVI Starting from the subject as though it would remain the underlying basis, thought finds instead that the predicate is substance, that the subject has passed into the predicate and is thereby sublated. What seems to be a predicate has become the entire independent mass, so thought cannot wander freely but is held back by this weight. Usually the subject is first laid down as the fixed, objective self. From here the necessary movement advances to the variety of determinations or predicates. Here the knowing I itself replaces that subject and becomes both the linking of predicates and the subject holding them. But when that first subject enters the determinations themselves and is their soul, the second subject, the knowing one, still finds the first in the predicate. It had wanted to be done with the first subject and go beyond it to return into itself. Instead of being the agent moving the predicate, reasoning about whether this or that predicate should be assigned to the first subject, it still has to deal with the self of the content. It is not to be for itself but together with this self.
1807 LXXVII
61 Formally, this can be expressed by saying that the speculative proposition destroys the nature of judgment or the proposition in general, which includes the difference between subject and predicate. The proposition of identity into which the former turns contains the counterthrust against that relation. This conflict between the form of a proposition in general and the unity of the concept that destroys it resembles the conflict in rhythm between meter and accent. Rhythm results from the hovering middle and union of the two. Likewise, in the philosophical proposition, the identity of subject and predicate should not destroy the difference expressed by the proposition's form. Instead, their unity should emerge as a harmony. The proposition's form is the appearance of the determinate sense, or the accent that distinguishes its fulfillment. But the predicate's expressing substance, and the subject's itself falling into the universal, is the unity in which that accent dies away.
62 To illustrate this with examples: in the proposition “God is being,” the predicate is being. It has a substantial meaning in which the subject dissolves. Being is 1807 LXXVIII meant here not as a predicate but as essence. God therefore seems to cease to be what the proposition's arrangement makes him: the fixed subject. Instead of advancing in the passage from subject to predicate, thought feels checked because the subject is lost. Missing it, thought is thrown back to the thought of the subject. Or, because the predicate is itself expressed as a subject, as being, as the essence that exhausts the subject's nature, thought immediately finds the subject in the predicate too. So instead of entering itself in the predicate and gaining the free position of argumentative reasoning, it remains immersed in the content—or at least is required to remain immersed in it. Likewise, when we say “The actual is the universal,” the actual as subject passes away in its predicate. The universal is not supposed to mean merely a predicate, as though the proposition said that the actual is universal. Instead, the universal is supposed to express the essence of the actual. So thought loses the fixed objective ground it had in the subject, while being thrown back to that ground in the predicate. 1807 LXXIX In the predicate it returns not into itself but into the subject of the content.
63 This unfamiliar checking accounts for much of the complaint that philosophical writings are unintelligible—provided the individual otherwise has the cultivation needed to understand them. What has been said shows the reason for a quite specific charge often made against them: that much must be read repeatedly before it can be understood. This charge is supposed to be something outrageous and final, allowing no reply if it is justified. The above makes clear how matters stand. Because the philosophical proposition is a proposition, it suggests the ordinary relation of subject and predicate and the habitual way knowing behaves. Its philosophical content destroys this behavior and the opinion supporting it. Opinion learns that something different is meant from what it thought. Correcting its opinion in this way forces knowing to return to the proposition and now grasp it differently.
64 One difficulty that should be avoided is mixing the speculative 1807 LXXX and argumentative ways of proceeding: sometimes what is said of the subject means its concept, while at other times it means only its predicate or accident. One way disrupts the other. Only a philosophical exposition that rigorously excluded the ordinary relation between the parts of a proposition would succeed in giving its subject a fully formed shape.
65 In fact, nonspeculative thinking also has a right that is valid but is not respected in the speculative proposition. The form of the proposition must not be sublated only immediately, merely through its content. This opposing movement must be expressed. It must not remain only that inward checking: this return of the concept into itself must be presented. This movement, which does what proof was otherwise supposed to do, is the dialectical movement of the proposition itself. It alone is the actual speculative, and only expressing it is speculative presentation. As a proposition, the speculative is only the inward checking and the return of essence into itself that does not exist outwardly. Philosophical 1807 LXXXI expositions thus often refer us to this inward intuition, sparing themselves the presentation of the proposition's dialectical movement that we demanded. The proposition is supposed to express what truth is. But truth is essentially subject. As subject it is only the dialectical movement, this course that produces itself, carries itself forward, and returns into itself. In other kinds of knowing, proof supplies this aspect of expressed inwardness. But once dialectic was separated from proof, the concept of philosophical proof was in fact lost.
66 One may point out that dialectical movement likewise has propositions as its parts or elements. So the difficulty just shown seems to recur continually and to be a difficulty in the subject itself. This resembles what happens in ordinary proof: the grounds it uses themselves need grounding, and so on to infinity. But this form of grounding and conditioning belongs to the kind of proof from which dialectical movement differs, and thus to external knowing. As for dialectical movement itself, its element is the 1807 LXXXII pure concept. It therefore has a content that is subject within itself through and through. So no content occurs that behaves as an underlying subject whose meaning would belong to it as a predicate. The proposition is immediately only an empty form. Apart from the self as sensuously intuited or represented, it is chiefly the name as name that designates the pure subject, the empty one without a concept. For this reason it may be useful, for example, to avoid the name God. This word is not immediately also a concept, but a proper name, the fixed repose of the underlying subject. By contrast, “being,” for example, or “the one,” “singularity,” “the subject,” and so on, themselves immediately indicate concepts. Even if speculative truths are said of that subject, their content still lacks the immanent concept because the subject is present only as a resting subject. This circumstance easily gives them the form of mere edification. From this side too, then, philosophical 1807 LXXXIII exposition itself can be responsible for increasing or reducing the obstacle created by the habit of grasping the speculative predicate according to the proposition's form, rather than as concept and essence. Faithful to insight into the nature of the speculative, the presentation must retain dialectical form and admit nothing except insofar as it is comprehended and is the concept.
67 Just as obstructive to the study of philosophy as argumentative reasoning is an unreasoning conceit about settled truths. Their possessor thinks there is no need to return to them, but takes them as a foundation and believes he can state them and use them to judge and condemn. From this side, it is especially necessary to make philosophizing a serious business again. For every science, art, skill, and craft, people are convinced that possessing it requires a varied effort of learning and practice. Yet with philosophy the prejudice now seems to prevail that although having eyes and fingers, and being given leather and tools, does not enable everyone to make shoes, everyone immediately knows how to philosophize and judge philosophy 1807 LXXXIV because natural reason gives him the standard for it—as though he did not also have the standard for a shoe in his foot. Possessing philosophy seems to be located precisely in the absence of knowledge and study, and philosophy seems to stop where these begin. It is often taken to be a formal knowledge empty of content. There is a great lack of insight that what is true, even in its content, in any knowledge or science can deserve that name only when produced by philosophy. The other sciences may try reasoning without philosophy as much as they like, but without it they cannot have life, spirit, or truth within them.
68 In place of genuine philosophy, immediate revelation of the divine and sound common sense regard themselves as a perfect equivalent and an adequate substitute for the long road of cultivation, for the movement, as rich as it is deep, through which spirit reaches knowledge. This common sense has not worked at or cultivated itself in other knowledge or in genuine philosophizing. It is as good a substitute as chicory 1807 LXXXV is praised for being for coffee. It is not pleasant to see ignorance, and a crudity lacking both form and taste, unable to hold its thinking to an abstract proposition, still less to the connection between several, declare itself now freedom and tolerance of thought, now genius. As genius now runs rampant in philosophy, it once notoriously did in poetry. But instead of poetry, its productions, when they made sense, yielded trivial prose; when they went beyond that, they yielded deranged talk. Likewise today, a natural philosophizing that thinks itself too good for the concept, and takes its lack of concepts for intuitive and poetic thinking, brings to market arbitrary combinations of an imagination merely disorganized by thought. These creations are neither fish nor flesh, neither poetry nor philosophy.
69 Flowing instead in the calmer bed of sound common sense, natural philosophizing serves up a rhetoric of trivial truths. If confronted with their insignificance, it assures us that their meaning and 1807 LXXXVI fullness are present in its heart and must likewise be present in others' hearts. By invoking innocence of heart, purity of conscience, and the like, it thinks it has said final things against which no objection can be made and beyond which nothing more can be demanded. But the point was that the best should not remain inside, but be brought to daylight from that mineshaft. The trouble of offering final truths of this sort could have been spared long ago, since they have long been found in the catechism, popular proverbs, and so on. It is not hard to catch such truths in their vagueness or distortion, and often to show this consciousness, within itself, the exact opposite of them. Trying to escape the confusion created in it, it will fall into fresh confusions and may burst out that things are admittedly this way and that way, but that the other things are sophistries. This is common sense's catchword against cultivated reason, just as ignorance of philosophy has learned once and for all to call it daydreaming. By appealing to 1807 LXXXVII feeling, its inward oracle, common sense has finished with anyone who disagrees. It must declare that it has nothing further to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same within himself. In other words, it tramples on the root of humanity. For humanity's nature is to press toward agreement with others, and it exists only in an achieved community of consciousnesses. What is inhuman, what is animal, consists in staying at the level of feeling and being able to communicate only through feeling.
70 If someone asked for a royal road to science, none more convenient could be given than relying on sound common sense and, to keep up with the times and philosophy as well, reading reviews of philosophical works—or even their prefaces and opening paragraphs. These give the general principles on which everything depends; the reviews add to historical information a judgment that, precisely because it is judgment, is even beyond what it judges. This ordinary road is traveled in a dressing gown. But in 1807 LXXXVIII high-priestly robes strides the exalted feeling of the eternal, holy, infinite. Its road is rather already immediate being at the center itself, the genius of deep original ideas and lofty flashes of thought. Yet just as such depth does not yet reveal the source of essence, these rockets are not yet the highest heaven. True thoughts and scientific insight can be won only through the labor of the concept. It alone can produce the universality of knowing that is neither the ordinary vagueness and poverty of common sense, but cultivated and complete knowledge; nor the extraordinary universality of reason's capacity corrupted by laziness and the conceit of genius, but truth that has reached its native form and can become the possession of all self-conscious reason.
71 I place that through which science exists in the self-movement of the concept. The views mentioned, and other outward aspects of our age's ideas about truth's nature and shape, differ from this, indeed 1807 LXXXIX directly oppose it. This seems to promise no favorable reception for an attempt to present the system of science in that character. Still, I can reflect that although, for example, the excellence of Plato's philosophy is sometimes located in his scientifically worthless myths, there have also been times—even called times of enthusiasm—when Aristotle's philosophy was valued for its speculative depth. Plato's Parmenides, perhaps the greatest work of art of ancient dialectic, was regarded as the true unveiling and positive expression of divine life. Even amid much obscurity in what ecstasy produced, this misunderstood ecstasy was in fact supposed to be nothing other than the pure concept. Further, what is excellent in the philosophy of our own time itself places its value in scientific character. Even if others take a different view, it actually establishes itself only through that character. So I may also hope that this attempt to vindicate science for the concept and present it in this, its distinctive element, will gain entry through the inner truth of the subject. We 1807 XC must be convinced that truth has the nature of breaking through when its time has come, that it appears only when that time has come, and therefore never appears too early or finds an unready public. We must also be convinced that the individual needs this effect to test by it what is still his solitary concern, and to experience the conviction that so far belongs only to the particular as something universal. Here, however, we must often distinguish the public from those who act as its representatives and spokespeople. In some respects the public behaves differently from them, even oppositely. When a philosophical work does not appeal to it, the public is more kindly inclined to take the blame itself. Those others, certain of their competence, put all the blame on the writer. The effect in the public is quieter than the activity of these dead people burying their dead. General insight is now more cultivated overall, its curiosity more alert, and its judgment more quickly settled, so that the feet of those who will carry you out are already at the door. Yet we must often distinguish from this the slower effect that corrects 1807 XCI both the attention forced by impressive assurances and the dismissive criticism. Only after some time does it give one group a contemporary world, while another after that time has no posterity left.
72 Besides, this is an age in which spirit's universality has grown so strong and individuality has, as it should, become correspondingly less important. Universality holds to and demands its full scope and cultivated richness. So the share of the individual's activity in spirit's total work can only be small. The individual must therefore forget himself all the more, as the nature of science already requires. He must become and do what he can, but less must also be demanded of him, just as he himself may expect less of himself and claim less for himself.
About this section
Preface is part of The Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is chapter 1 of 10 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.