Mouseiaan open library of the ancient world

II. Perception

4 of 10 chapters in The Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Original German

1807 38

II. Die Wahrnehmung; oder das *Ding*, und die *Täuschung*.

111 Die unmittelbare Gewiſsheit nimmt sich nicht das Wahre, denn ihre Wahrheit ist das Allgemeine, sie aber will das Diese nehmen. Die Wahrnehmung nimmt hingegen das, was ihr das seyende ist, als Allgemeines. Wie die Allgemeinheit ihr Princip überhaupt, so sind auch ihre in ihr unmittelbar sich unterscheidenden Momente, Ich ein allgemeines, und der Gegenstand ein allgemeiner. Jenes Princip ist uns entstanden, und unser Aufnehmen der Wahrnehmung daher nicht mehr ein erscheinendes Aufnehmen, wie der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit, sondern ein nothwendiges. In dem Entstehen des Princips sind zugleich die beyden Momente, die an ihrer Erscheinung nur herausfallen, geworden; das eine nemlich die Bewegung des Aufzeigens, das andere dieselbe Bewegung, aber als Einfaches; jenes das Wahrnehmen, diſs der Gegenstand. Der Gegenstand ist dem Wesen nach dasselbe, was die Bewegung ist, sie die Entfaltung und Unterscheidung der Momente, er das Zusammengefaſstseyn derselben. Für uns oder 1807 39 an sich ist das Allgemeine als Princip das Wesen der Wahrnehmung; und gegen diese Abstraction, die beyden unterschiednen, das Wahrnehmende und das Wahrgenommene das Unwesentliche. Aber in der That, weil beyde selbst das Allgemeine oder das Wesen sind, sind sie beyde wesentlich; indem sie aber sich als entgegengesetzte auf einander beziehen, so kann in der Beziehung nur das eine das wesentliche seyn; und der Unterschied des Wesentlichen und Unwesentlichen muſs sich an sie vertheilen. Das Eine als das einfache bestimmt, der Gegenstand, ist das Wesen, gleichgültig dagegen ob er wahrgenommen wird, oder nicht; das Wahrnehmen aber als die Bewegung ist das unbeständige, das seyn kann, oder auch nicht, und das unwesentliche.

112 Dieser Gegenstand ist nun näher zu bestimmen, und diese Bestimmung aus dem Resultate das sich ergeben, kurz zu entwickeln; die ausgeführtere Entwicklung gehört nicht hierher. Da sein Princip das Allgemeine, in seiner Einfachheit ein vermitteltes ist, so muſs er diſs als seine Natur an ihm ausdrücken; er zeigt sich dadurch als das Ding von vielen Eigenschafften. Der Reichthum des sinnlichen Wissens gehört der Wahrnehmung, nicht der unmittelbaren Gewiſsheit an, an der er nur das beyherspielende war, denn nur jene hat die Negation, den Unterschied oder die Mannigfaltigkeit an ihrem Wesen.

113 Das Dieses ist also gesetzt, als nicht dieses, oder als aufgehoben; und damit nicht Nichts, sondern 1807 40 ein bestimmtes Nichts, oder ein Nichts von einem Inhalte, nemlich dem Diesen. Das Sinnliche ist hiedurch selbst noch vorhanden, aber nicht, wie es in der unmittelbaren Gewiſsheit seyn sollte, als das gemeynte Einzelne, sondern als Allgemeines, oder als das, was sich als Eigenschafft bestimmen wird. Das Aufheben stellt seine wahrhafte gedoppelte Bedeutung dar, welche wir an dem Negativen gesehen haben; es ist ein Negiren und ein Aufbewahren zugleich; das Nichts, als Nichts des Diesen, bewahrt die Unmittelbareit auf, und ist selbst sinnlich, aber eine allgemoine Unmittelbarkeit. — Das Seyn aber ist ein Allgemeines dadurch, daſs es die Vermittlung oder das negative an ihm hat; indem es diſs an seiner Unmittelbarkeit ausdrückt, ist es eine unterschiedene, bestimmte Eigenschafft. Damit sind zugleich viele solche Eigenschafften, eine die negative der andern, gesetzt. Indem sie in der Einfachheit des Allgemeinen ausgedrückt sind, beziehen sich diese Bestimmtheiten, die eigentlich erst durch eine ferner hinzukommende Bestimmung Eigenschafften sind, auf sich selbst, sind gleichgültig gegen einander, jede für sich, frey von der andern. Die einfache sich selbst gleiche Allgemeinheit selbst aber, ist wieder von diesen ihren Bestimmtheiten unterschieden, und frey; sie ist das reine sich auf sich beziehen, oder das Medium, worin diese Bestimmtheiten alle sind, sich also in ihr als in einer einfachen Einheit durchdringen, ohne sich aber zu berühren; denn eben 1807 41 durch die Theilnahme an dieser Allgemeinheit sind sie gleichgültig für sich. — Diſs abstracte allgemeine Medium, das die Dingheit überhaupt oder das reine Wesen genannt werden kann, ist nichts anderes als das Hier und Itzt, wie es sich erwiesen hat, nemlich als ein einfaches zusammen von vielen, aber die vielen sind in ihrer Bestimmtheit selbst einfach allgemeine. Diſs Saltz ist einfaches Hier, und zugleich vielfach; es ist weiſs, und auch scharf, auch kubisch gestaltet, auch von bestimmter Schwere, und so weiter. Alle diese vielen Eigenschafften sind in Einem einfachen Hier, worin sie sich also durchdringen; keine hat ein anderes Hier, als die andere, sondern jede ist allenthalben, in demselben, worin die andere ist; und zugleich, ohne durch verschiedene Hier geschieden zu seyn, afficiren sie sich in dieser Durchdringung nicht; das weise afficirt oder verändert das kubische nicht, beyde nicht das scharfe, und so weiter, sondern da jede selbst einfaches sich auf sich beziehen ist, läſst sie die andern ruhig und bezieht sich nur durch das gleichgültige Auch auf sie. Dieses Auch ist also das reine Allgemeine selbst, oder das Medium, die sie so zusammenfassende Dingheit.

114 In diesem Verhältnisse, das sich ergeben hat, ist nur erst der Charakter der positiven Allgemeinheit beobachtet und entwickelt; es bietet sich aber noch eine Seite dar, welche auch hereingenommen werden muſs. Nemlich wenn die vielen bestimmten Eigenschafften schlechterdings gleichgültig wären, 1807 42 und sich durchaus nur auf sich selbst bezögen, so wären sie keine bestimmte; denn sie sind diſs nur in sofern sie sich unterscheiden, und sich auf andere als entgegengesetzte beziehen. Nach dieser Entgegensetzung aber können sie nicht in der einfachen Einheit ihres Mediums zusammen seyn, die ihnen eben so wesentlich ist als die Negation; die Unterscheidung derselben, insofern sie nicht eine gleichgültige, sondern ausschlieſsende, anderes negirende ist, fallt also auſser diesem einfachen Medium; und dieses ist daher nicht nur ein Auch, gleichgültige Einheit, sondern auch Eins, ausschlieſsende Einheit. — Das Eins ist das Moment der Negation, wie es selbst auf eine einfache Weise sich auf sich bezieht, und Anderes ausschlieſst; und wodurch die Dingheit, als Ding bestimmt ist. An der Eigenschafft ist die Negation als Bestimmtheit, die unmittelbar eins ist mit der Unmittelbarkeit des Seyns, welche durch diese Einheit mit der Negation, Allgemeinheit ist; als Eins aber ist sie, wie sie von dieser Einheit mit dem Gegentheil befreyt, und an und fur sich selbst ist.

115 In diesen Momenten zusammen ist das Ding als das Wahre der Wahrnehmung vollendet, so weit es nöthig ist, es hier zu entwickeln. Es ist α) die gleichgültige passive Allgemeinheit, das Auch der vielen Eigenschafften, oder vielmehr Materien, β) die Negation ebenso als einfach; oder das Eins, das Ausschlieſsen entgegengesetzter Eigenschafften, und γ) die vielen Eigenschafften selbst, die 1807 43 Beziehung der zwey ersten Momente; die Negation, wie sie sich auf das gleichgültige Element bezieht, und sich darin als eine Menge von Unterschieden ausbreitet; der Punkt der Einzelnheit in dem Medium des Bestehens in die Vielheit ausstrahlend. Nach der Seite, daſs diese Unterschiede dem gleichgültigen Medium angehören, sind sie selbst allgemein, beziehen sich nur auf sich, und afficiren sich nicht; nach der Seite aber, daſs sie der negativen Einheit angehören, sind sie zugleich ausschlieſsend; haben aber diese entgegengesetzte Beziehung nothwendig an Eigenschafften, die aus ihrem Auch entfernt sind. Die sinnliche Allgemeinheit, oder die unmittelbare Einheit des Seyns und des Negativen, ist erst so Eigenschaft, insofern das Eins und die reine Allgemeinheit aus ihr entwickelt, und von einander unterschieden sind, und sie diese miteinander zusammenschlieſst; diese Beziehung derselben auf die reinen wesentlichen Momente vollendet erst das Ding.

116 So ist nun das Ding der Wahrnehmung beschaffen; und das Bewuſstseyn ist als Wahrnehmendes bestimmt, insofern diſs Ding sein Gegenstand ist; es hat ihn nur zu nehmen, und sich als reines Auffassen zu verhalten; was sich ihm dadurch ergibt, ist das Wahre. Wenn es selbst bey diesem Nehmen etwas thäte, würde es durch solches hinzusetzen oder weglassen die Wahrheit verändern. Indem der Gegenstand das Wahre und Allgemeine, sich selbst Gleiche, das Bewuſstseyn sich aber das 1807 44 veranderliche und unwesentliche ist, kann es ihm geschehen, daſs es den Gegenstand unrichtig auffaſst, und sich täuscht. Das Wahrnehmende hat das Bewuſstseyn der Möglichkeit der Täuschung; denn in der Allgemeinheit, welche das Princip ist, ist das Andersseyn selbst unmittelbar für es, aber als das nichtige, aufgehobene. Sein Kriterium der Wahrheit ist daher die Sichselbstgleichheit, und sein Verhalten, als sich selbst gleiches aufzufassen. Indem zugleich das verschiedene für es ist, ist es ein Beziehen der verschiedenen Momente seines Auffassens auf einander; wenn sich aber in dieser Vergleichung eine Ungleichheit hervorthut, so ist diſs nicht eine Unwahrheit des Gegenstandes, denn er ist das sich selbst gleiche, sondern des Wahrnehmens.

117 Sehen wir nun zu, welche Erfahrung das Bewuſstseyn in seinem wirklichen Wahrnehmen macht. Sie ist für uns in der so eben gegebenen Entwicklung des Gegenstandes und des Verhaltens des Bewuſstseyns zu ihm schon enthalten; und wird nur die Entwicklung der darin vorhandenen Widersprüche seyn. — Der Gegenstand, den Ich aufnehme, bietet sich als rein Einer dar; auch werde ich die Eigenschafft an ihm gewahr, die allgemein ist, dadurch aber über die Einzelnheit hinausgeht. Das erste Seyn des gegenständlichen Wesens als eines Einen, war also nicht sein wahres Seyn; da er das Wahre ist, fällt die Unwahrheit in mich, und das Auffassen war nicht richtig. Ich muſs um der Allgemeinheit 1807 45 der Eigenschafft willen das gegenständliche Wesen, vielmehr als eine Gemeinschafft überhaupt nehmen. Ich nehme nun ferner die Eigenschafft wahr als bestimmte, anderem entgegengesetzte, und es ausschlieſsende. Ich faſste das gegenständliche Wesen also in der That nicht richtig auf, als Ich es als eine Gemeinschafft mit Andern oder als die Continuität bestimmte, und muſs, vielmehr um der Bestimmtheit der Eigenschaft willen, die Continuität trennen, und es als ausschlieſsendes Eins setzen. An dem getrennten Eins finde ich viele solche Eigenschafften, die einander nicht afficiren, sondern gleichgültig gegeneinander sind; ich nahm den Gegenstand also nicht richtig wahr, als ich ihn als ein ausschlieſsendes auffaſste, sondern er ist, wie vorhin nur Continuität überhaupt, so itzt ein allgemeines gemeinschafftliches Medium, worin viele Eigenschafften als sinnliche Allgemeinheiten, jede für sich ist, und als bestimmte die andern ausschlieſst. Das einfache und wahre, das ich wahrnehme, ist aber hiemit auch nicht ein allgemeines Medium, sondern die einzelne Eigenschafft für sich, die aber so weder Eigenschafft, noch ein bestimmtes Seyn ist; denn sie ist nun weder an einem Eins, noch in Beziehung auf andere. Eigenschafft ist sie aber nur am Eins, und bestimmt nur in Beziehung auf andere. Sie bleibt als diſs reine sich auf sich selbst beziehen, nur sinnliches Seyn überhaupt, da sie den Charakter der Negativität nicht mehr an ihr hat; und das Bewuſstseyn 1807 46 für welches itzt ein sinnliches Seyn ist, ist nur ein Meynen, das heiſst, es ist aus dem Wahrnehmen ganz heraus und in sich zurückgegangen. Allein das sinnliche Seyn und Meynen geht selbst in das Wahrnehmen über; ich bin zu dem Anfang zurückgeworfen, und wieder in denselben, sich in jedem Momente und als Ganzes aufhebenden, Kreislauff hineingerissen.

118 Das Bewuſstseyn durchlaufft ihn also nothwendig wieder, aber zugleich nicht auf dieselbe Weise wie das erstemal. Es hat nemlich die Erfahrung über das Wahrnehmen gemacht, daſs das Resultat und das Wahre desselben seine Auflösung, oder die Reflexion in sich selbst aus dem Wahren ist. Es hat sich hiemit für das Bewuſstseyn bestimmt, wie sein Wahrnehmen wesentlich beschaffen ist, nemlich nicht ein einfaches reines Auffassen, sondern in seinem Auffassen zugleich aus dem Wahren heraus in sich reflectirt zu seyn. Diese Rückkehr des Bewuſstseyns in sich selbst, die sich in das reine Auffassen unmittelbar, — denn sie hat sich als dem Wahrnehmen wesentlich gezeigt, — einmischt, verändert das Wahre. Das Bewuſstseyn erkennt diese Seite zugleich als die seinige, und nimmt sie auf sich, wodurch es also den wahren Gegenstand rein erhalten wird. — Es ist hiemit itzt, wie es bey der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit geschah, an dem Wahrnehmen die Seite vorhanden, daſs das Bewuſstseyn in sich zurückgedrängt wird, aber zunächst nicht in 1807 47 dem Sinne, in welchem diſs bey jener der Fall war; als ob in es die Wahrheit des Wahrnehmens fiele, sondern vielmehr erkennt es, daſs die Unwahrheit, die darin vorkömmt, in es fällt. Durch diese Erkenntniſs aber ist es zugleich fähig, sie aufzuheben; es unterscheidet sein Auffassen des Wahren von der Unwahrheit seines Wahrnehmens, corrigirt diese, und insofern es diese Berichtigung selbst vornimmt, fällt allerdings die Wahrheit, als Wahrheit des Wahrnehmens in dasselbe. Das Verhalten des Bewuſstseyns, das nunmehr zu betrachten ist, ist also so beschaffen, daſs es nicht mehr bloſs wahrnimmt, sondern auch seiner Reflexion in sich bewuſst ist, und diese von der einfachen Auffassung selbst abtrennt.

119 Ich werde also zuerst des Dings als Eines gewahr, und habe es in dieser wahren Bestimmung fest zu halten; wenn in der Bewegung des Wahrnehmens etwas dem Widersprechendes vorkommt, so ist diſs als meine Reflexion zu erkennen. Es kommen nun in der Wahrnehmung auch verschiedene Eigenschafften vor, welche Eigenschafften des Dings zu seyn scheinen; allein, das Ding ist Eins und von dieser Verschiedenheit, wodurch es aufhörte, Eins zu seyn, sind wir uns bewuſst, daſs sie in uns fällt. Diſs Ding ist also in der That nur weiſs, an unser Auge gebracht, scharf auch, an unsre Zunge, auch kubisch an unser Gefühl, und so fort. Die gänzliche Verschiedenheit dieser Seiten nehmen wir nicht aus 1807 48 dem Dinge, sondern aus uns; sie fallen uns an unserem von der Zunge ganz unterschiedenen Auge und so fort, so auseinander. Wir sind somit das allgemeine Medium, worin solche Momente sich absondern, und für sich sind. Hiedurch also, daſs wir die Bestimmtheit allgemeines Medium zu seyn, als unsre Reflexion betrachten, erhalten wir die Sichselbstgleichheit und Wahrheit des Dinges, Eins zu seyn.

120 Diese verschiedenen Seiten, welche das Bewuſstseyn auf sich nimmt, sind aber, jede so für sich, als in dem allgemeinen Medium sich befindend betrachtet, bestimmt; das Weiſse ist nur in Entgegensetzung gegen das Schwarze, und so fort, und das Ding Eins gerade dadurch, daſs es andern sich entgegensetzt. Es schlieſst aber andere nicht, insofern es Eins ist, von sich aus; denn Eins zu seyn ist das allgemeine auf sich selbst beziehen, und dadurch, daſs es Eins ist, ist es vielmehr allen gleich; sondern durch die Bestimmtheit. Die Dinge selbst also sind an und für sich bestimmte; sie haben Eigenschafften, wodurch sie sich von andern unterscheiden. Indem die Eigenschafft die eigene Eigenschafft des Dinges, oder eine Bestimmtheit an ihm selbst ist, hat es mehrere Eigenschafften. Denn vors erste ist das Ding das wahre, es ist an sich selbst; und was an ihm ist, ist an ihm als sein eigenes Wesen, nicht um anderer willen; also sind zweytens die bestimmten Eigenschafften nicht nur um anderer 1807 49 Dinge willen, und für andere Dinge, sondern an ihm selbst; sie sind aber bestimmte Eigenschafften an ihm nur, indem sie mehrere sich von einander unterscheidende sind; und drittens, indem sie so in der Dingheit sind, sind sie an und für sich und gleichgültig gegen einander. Es ist also in Wahrheit das Ding selbst, welches weiſs, und auch kubisch, auch scharf, und so fort ist, oder das Ding ist das Auch, oder das allgemeine Medium, worin die vielen Eigenschaften auſser einander bestehen, ohne sich zu berühren und aufzuheben; und so genommen wird es als das wahre genommen.

121 Bey diesem Wahrnehmen nun ist das Bewuſstseyn zugleich sich bewuſst, daſs es sich auch in sich selbst reflectirt und in dem Wahrnehmen das dem Auch entgegengesetzte Moment vorkommt. Diſs Moment aber ist Einheit des Dings mit sich selbst, welche den Unterschied aus sich ausschlieſst. Sie ist es demnach, welche das Bewuſstseyn auf sich zu nehmen hat; denn das Ding selbst ist das Bestehen der vielen verschiedenen und unabhängigen Eigenschafften. Es wird also von dem Dinge gesagt, es ist weiſs, auch kubisch, und auch scharf u. s. f. Aber insofern es weiſs ist, ist es nicht kubisch, und insofern es kubisch und auch weiſs ist, ist es nicht scharf u. s. f. Das in eins setzen dieser Eigenschafften kommt nur dem Bewuſstseyn zu, welches sie daher an dem Ding nicht in Eins fallen zu lassen hat. Zu dem Ende bringt es das Insofern herbey, wodurch es sie 1807 50 auseinander, und das Ding als das Auch erhält. Recht eigentlich wird das Einsseyn von dem Bewuſstseyn erst so auf sich genommen, daſs dasjenige, was Eigenschafft genannt wurde, als freye Materie vorgestellt wird. Das Ding ist auf diese Weise zum wahrhafften Auch erhoben, indem es eine Sammlung von Materien, und statt Eins zu seyn zu einer bloſs umschlieſsenden Oberfläche wird.

122 Sehen wir zurück auf dasjenige, was das Bewuſstseyn vorhin auf sich genommen, und itzt auf sich nimmt; was es vorhin dem Dinge zuschrieb, und itzt ihm zuschreibt, so ergibt sich daſs es abwechslungsweise, ebensowohl sich selbst als auch das Ding zu beydem macht, zum reinen vielheitslosen Eins, wie zu einem in selbstständige Materien aufgelösten Auch. Das Bewuſstseyn findet also durch diese Vergleichung, daſs nicht nur sein Nehmen des Wahren, die Verschiedenheit des Auffassens und des in sich Zurückgehens an ihm hat, sondern daſs vielmehr das Wahre selbst, das Ding, sich auf diese gedoppelte Weise zeigt. Es ist hiemit die Erfahrung vorhanden, daſs das Ding sich für das auffassende Bewuſstseyn auf eine bestimmte Weise darstellt, aber zugleich aus der Weise, in der es sich darbietet, heraus und in sich reflectirt ist, oder an ihm selbst eine entgegengesetzte Wahrheit hat.

123 Das Bewuſstseyn ist also auch aus dieser zweyten Art, sich im Wahrnehmen zu verhalten, nemlich das Ding als das wahre sich selbst gleiche, 1807 51 sich aber für das ungleiche, für das aus der Gleichheit heraus in sich zurückgehende, zu nehmen, selbst heraus, und der Gegenstand ist ihm itzt diese ganze Bewegung, welche vorher an den Gegenstand und an das Bewuſstseyn vertheilt war. Das Ding ist Eins, in sich reflectirt; es ist für sich; aber es ist auch für ein anderes; und zwar ist es ein anderes für sich, als es für anderes ist. Das Ding ist hienach für sich, und auch für ein anderes, ein gedoppeltes verschiedenes Seyn; aber es ist auch Eins; das Einsseyn aber widerspricht dieser seiner Verschiedenheit; das Bewuſstseyn hätte hienach diſs in einssetzen wieder auf sich zu nehmen, und von dem Dinge abzuhalten. Es müſste also sagen, daſs das Ding, insofern es für sich ist, nicht für anderes ist. Allein dem Dinge selbst kommt auch das Einsseyn zu, wie das Bewuſstseyn erfahren hat; das Ding ist wesentlich in sich reflectirt. Das Auch, oder der gleichgültige Unterschied fällt also wohl ebenso in das Ding, als das Einsseyn; aber da beydes verschieden, nicht in dasselbe, sondern in verschiedene Dinge; der Widerspruch, der an dem gegenständlichen Wesen überhaupt ist, vertheilt sich an zwey Gegenstände. Das Ding ist also wohl an und für sich, sich selbst gleich; aber diese Einheit mit sich selbst wird durch andere Dinge gestört; so ist die Einheit des Dings erhalten, und zugleich das Andersseyn auſser ihm, so wie auſser dem Bewuſstseyn.

1807 52

124 Ob nun zwar so der Widerspruch des gegenständlichen Wesens an verschiedene Dinge vertheilt ist, so wird darum doch an das abgesonderte einzelne Ding selbst der Unterschied kommen. Die verschiedenen Dinge sind also für sich gesetzt; und der Widerstreit fällt in sie so gegenseitig, daſs jedes nicht von sich selbst, sondern nur von dem andern verschieden ist. Jedes ist aber hiemit selbst als ein unterschiedenes bestimmt, und hat den wesentlichen Unterschied von den andern an ihm; aber zugleich nicht so, daſs diſs eine Entgegensetzung an ihm selbst wäre, sondern es für sich ist einfache Bestimmtheit, welche seinen wesentlichen es von andern unterscheidenden Charakter ausmacht. In der That ist zwar, da die Verschiedenheit an ihm ist, dieselbe nothwendig als wirklicher Unterschied mannichfaltiger Beschaffenheit an ihm. Allein weil die Bestimmtheit das Wesen des Dinges ausmacht, wodurch es von andern sich unterscheidet und für sich ist, so ist diese sonstige mannichfaltige Beschaffenheit das unwesentliche. Das Ding hat hiemit zwar in seiner Einheit das gedoppelte Insofern an ihm, aber mit ungleichem Werthe; wodurch diſs Entgegengesetztseyn also nicht zur wirklichen Entgegensetzung des Dings selbst wird, sondern insofern diſs durch seinen absoluten Unterschied in Entgegensetzung kommt, hat es sie gegen ein anderes Ding auſser ihm. Die sonstige Mannichfaltigkeit aber ist zwar auch nothwendig an dem Dinge, so daſs sie nicht von 1807 53 ihm wegbleiben kann, aber sie ist ihm unwesentlich.

125 Diese Bestimmtheit, welche den wesentlichen Charakter des Dings ausmacht, und es von allen andern unterscheidet, ist nun so bestimmt, daſs das Ding dadurch im Gegensatze mit andern ist, aber sich darin für sich erhalten soll. Ding aber, oder für sich seyendes Eins ist es nur, insofern es nicht in dieser Beziehung auf andere steht; denn in dieser Beziehung ist vielmehr der Zusammenhang mit anderem gesetzt; und Zusammenhang mit anderem ist das Aufhören des für sich seyns. Durch den absoluten Charakter gerade, und seine Entgegensetzung verhält es sich zu andern, und ist wesentlich nur diſs Verhalten; das Verhältniſs aber ist die Negation seiner Selbstständigkeit, und das Ding geht vielmehr durch seine wesentliche Eigenschafft zu Grunde.

126 Die Nothwendigkeit der Erfahrung für das Bewuſstseyn, daſs das Ding eben durch die Bestimmtheit, welche sein Wesen und sein für sich seyn ausmacht, zu Grunde geht, kann kurz dem einfachen Begriffe nach so betrachtet werden. Das Ding ist gesetzt als für sich seyn, oder als absolute Negation alles Andersseyns; daher absolute, nur sich auf sich beziehende Negation; aber die sich auf sich beziehende Negation ist Aufheben seiner selbst, oder sein Wesen in einem andern zu haben.

127 In der That enthält die Bestimmung des Gegenstandes, wie er sich ergeben hat, nichts anderes; er 1807 54 soll eine wesentliche Eigenschafft, welche sein einfaches für sich seyn ausmacht, bey dieser Einfachheit aber auch die Verschiedenheit an ihm selbst haben, welche zwar nothwendig seyn, aber nicht die wesentliche Bestimmtheit ausmachen soll. Aber diſs ist eine Unterscheidung, welche nur noch in den Worten liegt; das unwesentliche, welches doch zugleich nothwendig seyn soll, hebt sich selbst auf, oder ist dasjenige, was so eben die Negation seiner selbst genannt wurde.

128 Es fällt hiemit das letzte Insofern hinweg, welches das für sich seyn, und das seyn für anderes trennte; der Gegenstand ist vielmehr in einer und derselben Rücksicht das Gegentheil seiner selbst, für sich insofern er für anderes, und für anderes insofern er für sich ist. Er ist für sich, in sich reflectirt, Eins; aber diſs für sich, in sich reflectirt, Eins seyn ist mit seinem Gegentheile dem Seyn für ein anderes in einer Einheit, und darum nur als aufgehobenes gesetzt; oder diſs für sich seyn ist eben so unwesentlich, als dasjenige, was allein das unwesentliche seyn sollte, nemlich das Verhältniſs zu anderem.

129 Der Gegenstand ist hiedurch in seinen reinen Bestimmtheiten oder in den Bestimmtheiten, welche seine Wesenheit ausmachen sollten, eben so aufgehoben, als er in seinem sinnlichen Seyn zu einem aufgehobenen wurde. Aus dem sinnlichen Seyn wird er ein allgemeines; aber diſs allgemeine ist, da es aus dem sinnlichen herkommt, wesentlich durch 1807 55 dasselbe bedingt, und daher überhaupt nicht wahrhafft sich selbst gleiche, sondern mit einem Gegensatze afficirte Allgemeinheit, welche sich darum in die Extreme der Einzelnheit und Allgemeinheit, des Eins der Eigenschafften und des Auchs der freyen Materien trennt. Diese reinen Bestimmtheiten scheinen die Wesenheit selbst auszudrücken, aber sie sind nur ein für sich seyn, welches mit dem Seyn für ein anderes behafftet ist; indem aber beyde wesentlich in einer Einheit sind, so ist itzt die unbedingte absolute Allgemeinheit vorhanden, und das Bewuſstseyn tritt hier erst wahrhafft in das Reich des Verstandes ein.

130 Die sinnliche Einzelnheit also verschwindet zwar in der dialektischen Bewegung der unmittelbaren Gewiſsheit und wird Allgemeinheit, aber nur sinnliche Allgemeinheit. Das Meynen ist verschwunden, und das Wahrnehmen nimmt den Gegenstand, wie er an sich ist; oder als Allgemeines überhaupt; die Einzelnheit tritt daher an ihm, als wahre Einzelnheit, als an sich seyn des Eins hervor, oder als reflectirtseyn in sich selbst. Es ist aber noch ein bedingtes für sich seyn, neben welchem ein anderes für sich seyn, die der Einzelnheit entgegengesetzte, und durch sie bedingte Allgemeinheit vorkommt; aber diese beyden widersprechenden Extreme sind nicht nur neben einander, sondern in Einer Einheit, oder, was dasselbe ist, das gemeinschafftliche beyder, das für sich seyn ist mit dem Gegensatze überhaupt behafftet, das heiſst, es ist zugleich nicht ein für sich seyn. Diese 1807 56 Momente sucht die Sophisterey des Wahrnehmens von ihrem Widerspruche zu retten, und durch die Unterscheidung der Rücksichten, durch das Auch und Insofern festzuhalten, so wie endlich durch die Unterscheidung des unwesentlichen, und eines ihm entgegengesetzten Wesens, das Wahre zu ergreiffen. Allein diese Auskunftsmittel, statt die Täuschung in dem Auffassen abzuhalten, erweisen sich vielmehr selbst als nichtig, und das Wahre, das durch diese Logik des Wahrnehmens gewonnen werden soll, erweiſst sich in Einer und derselben Rücksicht das Gegentheil zu seyn, und hiemit zu seinem Wesen die unterscheidungs- und bestimmungslose Allgemeinheit zu haben.

131 Diese leeren Abstractionen der Einzelnheit, und der ihr entgegengesetzten Allgemeinheit, so wie des Wesens, das mit einem unwesentlichen verknüpft, eines unwesentlichen, das doch zugleich nothwendig ist, sind die Mächte, deren Spiel der wahrnehmende, oft sogenannte gesunde Menschenverstand ist; er, der sich für das gediegne reale Bewuſstseyn nimmt, ist im Wahrnehmen nur das Spiel dieser Abstractionen; er ist überhaupt immer da am ärmsten, wo er am reichsten zu seyn meynt. Indem er von diesen nichtigen Wesen herumgetrieben, von dem einen dem andern in die Arme geworfen wird und durch seine Sophisterey abwechslungsweise itzt das eine, dann das geradentgegengesetzte festzuhalten und zu behaupten bemüht, sich der Wahrheit 1807 57 widersetzt, meynt er von der Philosophie, sie habe es nur mit Gedankendingen zu thun. Sie hat in der That auch damit zu thun, und erkennt sie für die reinen Wesen, für die absoluten Elemente und Mächte; aber damit erkennt sie dieselben zugleich in ihrer Bestimmtheit, und ist darum Meister über sie, während jener wahrnehmende Verstand sie für das Wahre nimmt, und von ihnen aus einer Irre in die andere geschickt wird. Er selbst kommt nicht zu dem Bewuſstseyn, daſs es solche einfache Wesenheiten sind, die in ihm walten, sondern er meynt es immer mit ganz gediegnem Stoffe und Inhalte zu thun zu haben, so wie die sinnliche Gewiſsheit nicht weiſs, daſs die leere Abstraction des reinen Seyns ihr Wesen ist; aber in der That sind sie es, an welchen er durch allen Stoff und Inhalt hindurch und hin und her läufft; sie sind der Zusammenhalt und die Herrschafft desselben, und allein dasjenige, was das sinnliche als Wesen für das Bewuſstseyn ist, was seine Verhältnisse zu ihm bestimmt, und woran die Bewegung des Wahrnehmens und seines Wahren abläufft. Dieser Verlauff, ein beständig abwechselndes Bestimmen des Wahren und Aufheben dieses Bestimmens, macht eigentlich das tägliche und beständige Leben und Treiben des Wahrnehmenden und in der Wahrheit sich zu bewegen meynenden Bewuſstseyns aus. Es geht darin unaufhaltsam zu dem Resultate des gleichen Aufhebens aller dieser wesentlichen Wesenheiten oder Bestimmungen fort, 1807 58 ist aber in jedem einzelnen Momente nur dieser Einen Bestimmtheit als des Wahren sich bewuſst, und dann wieder der entgegengesetzten. Es wittert wohl ihre Unwesenheit; sie gegen die drohende Gefahr zu retten, geht es zur Sophisterey über, das was es selbst so eben als das Nichtwahre behauptete, itzt als das Wahre zu behaupten. Wozu diesen Verstand eigentlich die Natur dieser unwahren Wesen treiben will, die Gedanken von jener Allgemeinheit und Einzelnheit, vom Auch und Eins, von jener Wesentlichkeit, die mit einer Unwesentlichkeit nothwendig verknüpft ist, und von einem Unwesentlichen, das doch nothwendig ist, — die Gedanken von diesen Unwesen zusammen zu bringen und sie dadurch aufzuheben, dagegen sträubt er sich durch die Stützen des Insofern und der verschiedenen Rücksichten, oder dadurch, den einen Gedanken auf sich zu nehmen, um den andern getrennt, und als den wahren zu erhalten. Aber die Natur dieser Abstractionen bringt sie an und für sich zusammen, der gesunde Verstand ist der Raub derselben, die ihn in ihrem wirbelnden Kreise umhertreiben. Indem er ihnen die Wahrheit dadurch geben will, daſs er bald die Unwahrheit derselben auf sich nimmt, bald aber auch die Täuschung einen Schein der unzuverlässigen Dinge nennt und das Wesentliche von einem ihnen nothwendigen, und doch unwesentlich seyn sollenden abtrennt, und jenes als ihre Wahrheit gegen dieses festhält, erhält er ihnen nicht ihre Wahrheit, sich aber gibt er die Unwahrheit.

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.

1807 38

II. Perception; or the *Thing* and *Deception*.

111 Immediate certainty does not take the true to itself, for its truth is the universal, whereas it wishes to take the this. Perception, by contrast, takes what is for it as a universal. Just as universality is its principle in general, so too its moments that immediately distinguish themselves within it are universal: I is a universal, and the object a universal. That principle has arisen for us, and our apprehension of perception is therefore no longer an appearing apprehension, as was that of sense-certainty, but a necessary one. In the arising of the principle, the two moments that merely fall out in its appearance have at the same time come to be: one, namely, the movement of pointing-out, the other the same movement, but as something simple; the former is perceiving, the latter the object. The object is essentially the same as the movement: the movement is the unfolding and differentiation of the moments, the object their being gathered together. For us, or 1807 39 in itself, the universal as principle is the essence of perception; and against this abstraction, the two differentiated elements, the perceiving and the perceived, are the inessential. But in fact, because both are themselves the universal or essence, both are essential. Yet since they relate to one another as opposites, only one can be essential in the relation, and the difference between essential and inessential must be distributed between them. The one determined as simple, the object, is essence, indifferent to whether it is perceived or not; perceiving, however, as movement, is the inconstant, which may or may not be, and the inessential.

112 This object must now be determined more closely, and this determination briefly developed from the result that has emerged; the more detailed development does not belong here. Since its principle, the universal, is something mediated in its simplicity, the object must express this within it as its nature; it thereby shows itself as the thing of many properties. The wealth of sensuous knowing belongs to perception, not to immediate certainty, in which it was only incidentally at play; for perception alone has negation, difference or multiplicity, within its essence.

113 The this is thus posited as not this, or as sublated, and thereby not nothing, but 1807 40 a determinate nothing, or a nothing of a content, namely the this. The sensuous itself is thereby still present, but not as it was supposed to be in immediate certainty, as the singular meant, but as a universal, or as what will determine itself as a property. Sublation exhibits its true twofold meaning, which we have seen in the negative: it is at once a negating and a preserving. Nothing, as nothing of the this, preserves immediacy and is itself sensuous, but a universal immediacy. Being, however, is a universal through having mediation or the negative within it; when it expresses this in its immediacy, it is a differentiated, determinate property. Many such properties are thereby posited at once, one the negative of another. Since they are expressed in the simplicity of the universal, these determinatenesses, which properly become properties only through a further determination, relate to themselves, are indifferent to one another, each for itself, free of the others. But simple, self-equal universality itself is in turn distinct from these determinatenesses of its own and free; it is pure self-relation, or the medium in which all these determinatenesses are, and in which, as in a simple unity, they therefore interpenetrate without touching one another. For precisely 1807 41 through participating in this universality they are indifferently for themselves. This abstract universal medium, which may be called thinghood in general, or pure essence, is nothing other than the here and now as they have proved to be: namely, a simple togetherness of many, but the many are themselves, in their determinateness, simple universals. This salt is a simple here and at the same time manifold: it is white, and also pungent, also cubical in shape, also of a determinate weight, and so on. All these many properties are in one simple here, in which they therefore interpenetrate; none has a different here from another, but each is everywhere in the same here in which the other is. And at the same time, without being separated by different heres, they do not affect one another in this interpenetration: the white does not affect or alter the cubical, neither affects the pungent, and so on. Rather, since each is itself a simple relating-to-itself, it leaves the others undisturbed and relates to them only through the indifferent also. This also is thus the pure universal itself, or the medium, the thinghood gathering them together in this way.

114 In the relation that has emerged, only the character of positive universality has so far been observed and developed; but another side presents itself, which must also be included. Namely, if the many determinate properties were utterly indifferent 1807 42 and related entirely only to themselves, they would not be determinate; for they are so only insofar as they differ and relate to others as opposites. According to this opposition, however, they cannot be together in the simple unity of their medium, which is just as essential to them as negation. Their differentiation, insofar as it is not indifferent but exclusive, negating others, thus falls outside this simple medium; and the medium is therefore not merely an also, indifferent unity, but also one, exclusive unity. The one is the moment of negation as it itself relates to itself in a simple way and excludes another, and through which thinghood is determined as a thing. In the property, negation is as determinateness immediately one with the immediacy of being, which through this unity with negation is universality; but as one, negation is as it is freed from this unity with its opposite and is in and for itself.

115 In these moments together, the thing as the true of perception is complete, insofar as it is necessary to develop it here. It is α) indifferent, passive universality, the also of the many properties, or rather matters; β) negation likewise as simple, or the one, the exclusion of opposed properties; and γ) the many properties themselves, 1807 43 the relation of the first two moments: negation as it relates to the indifferent element and spreads out within it as a multitude of differences; the point of singularity radiating into multiplicity in the medium of subsistence. Insofar as these differences belong to the indifferent medium, they are themselves universal, relate only to themselves, and do not affect one another; insofar as they belong to negative unity, however, they are at the same time exclusive, but necessarily have this opposed relation to properties removed from their also. Sensuous universality, or the immediate unity of being and the negative, is a property only insofar as the one and pure universality are developed out of it and distinguished from one another, and it unites them with one another. Only this relation of the property to the pure essential moments completes the thing.

116 Such, then, is the constitution of the thing of perception; and consciousness is determined as perceiving insofar as this thing is its object. It has only to take the object and behave as pure apprehension; what thereby results for it is the true. If consciousness itself did anything in this taking, it would alter the truth through such addition or omission. Since the object is the true and universal, the self-equal, while consciousness is for itself the 1807 44 changeable and inessential, it may happen that consciousness apprehends the object incorrectly and deceives itself. The perceiver is conscious of the possibility of deception; for in universality, which is the principle, otherness itself is immediately present for it, but as the null, the sublated. Its criterion of truth is therefore self-equality, and its attitude is to apprehend as self-equal. Since the diverse is also for it, it is a relating of the various moments of its apprehension to one another; but if an inequality emerges in this comparison, this is not an untruth of the object, for the object is the self-equal, but an untruth of perceiving.

117 Let us now observe what experience consciousness undergoes in its actual perceiving. For us, this experience is already contained in the development just given of the object and of consciousness's attitude toward it, and will be only the development of the contradictions present there. The object I apprehend presents itself as purely one; I also become aware in it of the property, which is universal and thereby goes beyond singularity. The first being of the objective essence as a one was therefore not its true being; since it is the true, the untruth falls within me, and the apprehension was incorrect. For the sake of the universality 1807 45 of the property, I must rather take the objective essence as a community in general. I now further perceive the property as determinate, opposed to another and excluding it. I thus did not in fact apprehend the objective essence correctly when I determined it as a community with others, or as continuity; rather, for the sake of the property's determinateness, I must divide the continuity and posit the essence as an excluding one. In the separated one I find many such properties that do not affect one another but are indifferent to one another. Thus I did not perceive the object correctly when I apprehended it as something excluding; instead, just as it was previously only continuity in general, it is now a universal common medium, in which many properties, as sensuous universals, are each for themselves and, as determinate, exclude the others. But the simple and true that I perceive is thereby not a universal medium either, but the singular property for itself, which, however, is thus neither property nor determinate being; for it is now neither in a one nor in relation to others. Yet it is a property only in the one, and determinate only in relation to others. As this pure relating-to-itself, it remains only sensuous being in general, since it no longer has the character of negativity within it; and consciousness 1807 46 for which there is now a sensuous being is only a meaning—that is, it has gone entirely out of perception and back into itself. Yet sensuous being and meaning themselves pass over into perception; I am thrown back to the beginning and swept again into the same cycle, sublating itself at every moment and as a whole.

118 Consciousness thus necessarily runs through the cycle again, but not in the same way as the first time. For it has experienced concerning perception that its result and truth is its dissolution, or reflection into itself out of the true. It has thereby become determinate for consciousness how its perceiving is essentially constituted: namely, not as simple pure apprehension, but as being, in its apprehension, at the same time reflected into itself out of the true. This return of consciousness into itself, which immediately mingles with pure apprehension—for it has shown itself essential to perception—alters the true. Consciousness at the same time recognizes this side as its own and takes it upon itself, whereby it will thus preserve the true object in its purity. Perception now therefore has the aspect that consciousness is driven back into itself, as happened in sense-certainty, but initially not in 1807 47 the sense in which it occurred there, as though the truth of perception fell within consciousness; rather, consciousness recognizes that the untruth occurring in perception falls within it. But through this recognition it is at the same time capable of sublating that untruth; it distinguishes its apprehension of the true from the untruth of its perceiving, corrects the latter, and insofar as it itself undertakes this correction, truth does indeed fall within consciousness as the truth of perceiving. The attitude of consciousness now to be considered is therefore so constituted that it no longer merely perceives, but is also conscious of its reflection into itself and separates this from simple apprehension itself.

119 I thus first become aware of the thing as one, and must hold it fast in this true determination; if something contradicting it occurs in the movement of perception, this must be recognized as my reflection. Now various properties also occur in perception, which seem to be properties of the thing; but the thing is one, and we are conscious that this diversity, through which it would cease to be one, falls within us. Thus this thing is in fact white only when brought to our eye, pungent also when brought to our tongue, also cubical to our touch, and so forth. We take the complete diversity of these aspects not from 1807 48 the thing but from ourselves; they fall apart for us in this way in our eye, which is entirely different from our tongue, and so forth. We are thus the universal medium in which such moments separate themselves and are for themselves. By regarding the determination of being a universal medium as our reflection, we thus preserve the thing's self-equality and truth of being one.

120 But these various aspects that consciousness takes upon itself are determinate, whether each is considered for itself or as situated in the universal medium; white is only in opposition to black, and so forth, and the thing is one precisely through opposing itself to others. Yet it does not exclude others from itself insofar as it is one, for being one is universal self-relation, and through being one it is rather equal to all; it excludes through determinateness. The things themselves are thus determinate in and for themselves; they have properties through which they distinguish themselves from others. Since the property is the thing's own property, or a determinateness within the thing itself, it has several properties. For, first, the thing is the true, it is in itself; and what is in it is in it as its own essence, not for the sake of others. Thus, second, the determinate properties are not merely for the sake of other 1807 49 things and for other things, but in the thing itself; but they are determinate properties in it only insofar as they are several properties differing from one another. And third, since they are thus in thinghood, they are in and for themselves and indifferent to one another. It is therefore in truth the thing itself that is white and also cubical, also pungent, and so forth; or the thing is the also, or the universal medium, in which the many properties subsist outside one another without touching and sublating one another; and taken thus, it is taken as the true.

121 In this perceiving, consciousness is at the same time conscious that it is also reflected into itself, and that the moment opposed to the also occurs in perceiving. This moment, however, is the thing's unity with itself, which excludes difference from itself. It is therefore this unity that consciousness must take upon itself; for the thing itself is the subsistence of the many different and independent properties. Thus it is said of the thing that it is white, also cubical, and also pungent, and so forth. But insofar as it is white, it is not cubical; and insofar as it is cubical and also white, it is not pungent, and so forth. The positing-as-one of these properties belongs only to consciousness, which must therefore not let them coincide as one in the thing. To this end it brings in the insofar as, through which it keeps them 1807 50 apart and preserves the thing as the also. Strictly speaking, consciousness takes being-one upon itself only when what was called property is represented as free matter. In this way the thing is raised to the true also, becoming a collection of matters and, instead of being one, a merely enclosing surface.

122 If we look back at what consciousness previously took upon itself and now takes upon itself, at what it previously ascribed to the thing and now ascribes to it, it emerges that consciousness alternately makes both itself and the thing into both: into the pure one without multiplicity, and into an also dissolved into independent matters. Through this comparison, consciousness thus finds that not only does its taking of the true have within it the diversity of apprehension and return into itself, but rather the true itself, the thing, shows itself in this twofold way. The experience is thereby present that the thing presents itself in a determinate way for apprehending consciousness, but at the same time is reflected out of the manner in which it offers itself and into itself, or has in itself an opposite truth.

123 Consciousness has thus itself also emerged from this second manner of behaving in perception, namely taking the thing as the true and self-equal, 1807 51 but itself as unequal, as returning into itself out of equality. The object is now for it this entire movement that was previously distributed between the object and consciousness. The thing is one, reflected into itself; it is for itself; but it is also for another, and indeed it is something different for itself from what it is for another. Accordingly, the thing is for itself and also for another, a twofold, diverse being; but it is also one, and being-one contradicts this diversity of its own. Consciousness would accordingly have to take this positing-as-one upon itself again and keep it away from the thing. It would therefore have to say that the thing, insofar as it is for itself, is not for another. Yet being-one also belongs to the thing itself, as consciousness has experienced; the thing is essentially reflected into itself. The also, or indifferent difference, thus falls within the thing just as much as being-one does; but since the two are different, they fall not within the same thing, but within different things. The contradiction present in objective essence in general is distributed between two objects. Thus the thing is indeed in and for itself, equal to itself; but this unity with itself is disturbed by other things. In this way the unity of the thing is preserved, and otherness is at the same time outside it, as well as outside consciousness.

1807 52

124 Although the contradiction of objective essence is thus distributed among different things, difference will nevertheless thereby enter the separate singular thing itself. The different things are thus posited for themselves, and the conflict falls reciprocally within them in such a way that each differs not from itself, but only from the other. Yet each is thereby itself determined as something differentiated, and has the essential difference from the others within it; but at the same time not so that this would be an opposition within itself. Rather, for itself it is simple determinateness, which constitutes its essential character distinguishing it from others. In fact, since diversity is within it, this diversity is necessarily present within it as an actual difference of manifold characteristics. But because determinateness constitutes the thing's essence, through which it distinguishes itself from others and is for itself, this further manifold character is the inessential. The thing thus does indeed have within its unity the twofold insofar as, but with unequal value; hence this being-opposed does not become an actual opposition of the thing itself. Rather, insofar as the thing enters opposition through its absolute difference, it has that opposition to another thing outside it. The further multiplicity is admittedly also necessarily present in the thing, so that it cannot be absent 1807 53 from it, but it is inessential to the thing.

125 This determinateness, which constitutes the essential character of the thing and distinguishes it from all others, is now determined in such a way that through it the thing stands in opposition to others, yet is supposed to preserve itself for itself in that opposition. But it is a thing, or a one that is for itself, only insofar as it does not stand in this relation to others; for in this relation there is posited rather connection with another, and connection with another is the cessation of being-for-itself. Precisely through its absolute character and its opposition, the thing relates to others and is essentially only this relating; but relation is the negation of its independence, and the thing rather perishes through its essential property.

126 The necessity of consciousness's experience that the thing perishes precisely through the determinateness constituting its essence and its being-for-itself may be considered briefly, according to the simple concept, as follows. The thing is posited as being-for-itself, or as absolute negation of all otherness; hence as absolute negation relating only to itself. But self-related negation is the sublation of itself, or having its essence in another.

127 In fact, the determination of the object as it has emerged contains nothing else. It 1807 54 is supposed to have an essential property constituting its simple being-for-itself, yet alongside this simplicity also to have diversity within itself, which is admittedly to be necessary, but not to constitute its essential determinateness. Yet this is a distinction that now lies only in words; the inessential that is nevertheless also supposed to be necessary sublates itself, or is what was just called the negation of itself.

128 Thus the final insofar as falls away, which separated being-for-itself from being-for-another; rather, the object is in one and the same respect the opposite of itself: for itself insofar as it is for another, and for another insofar as it is for itself. It is for itself, reflected into itself, one; but this being-for-itself, reflected into itself, one, is in a unity with its opposite, being-for-another, and is therefore posited only as sublated. Or this being-for-itself is just as inessential as what alone was supposed to be inessential, namely the relation to another.

129 The object is thereby sublated in its pure determinatenesses, or in the determinatenesses that were supposed to constitute its essentiality, just as it became something sublated in its sensuous being. From sensuous being it becomes a universal; but this universal, since it comes from the sensuous, is essentially 1807 55 conditioned by it, and hence is not truly self-equal universality at all, but universality affected by an opposition, which therefore divides into the extremes of singularity and universality, the one of properties and the also of free matters. These pure determinatenesses seem to express essentiality itself, but they are only a being-for-itself encumbered with being-for-another; yet since both are essentially in one unity, unconditioned, absolute universality is now present, and only here does consciousness truly enter the realm of understanding.

130 Sensuous singularity thus does indeed vanish in the dialectical movement of immediate certainty and become universality, but only sensuous universality. Meaning has vanished, and perception takes the object as it is in itself, or as a universal in general; singularity therefore emerges in it as true singularity, as the being-in-itself of the one, or as being-reflected into itself. But it is still a conditioned being-for-itself, beside which another being-for-itself occurs: universality opposed to singularity and conditioned by it. Yet these two contradictory extremes are not merely beside one another, but in one unity; or, what is the same, what they have in common, being-for-itself, is encumbered with opposition in general—that is, at the same time it is not being-for-itself. These 1807 56 moments, the sophistry of perception seeks to rescue from their contradiction and hold fast through distinguishing respects, through the also and the insofar as, and finally to seize the true through distinguishing the inessential and an essence opposed to it. Yet instead of preventing deception in apprehension, these expedients themselves prove null, and the true supposedly to be won through this logic of perception proves to be its opposite in one and the same respect, and thus to have for its essence universality without distinction or determination.

131 These empty abstractions of singularity and the universality opposed to it, of essence linked with an inessential, of an inessential that is nevertheless also necessary, are the powers whose plaything is perceptive understanding, often called common sense. Common sense, which takes itself to be solid, real consciousness, is in perceiving only the play of these abstractions; in general it is always poorest where it means to be richest. Driven about by these null essences, thrown from one into the arms of the other, and resisting truth 1807 57 through its sophistry, as it tries alternately to hold fast and assert now the one, now its exact opposite, it supposes philosophy to deal only with things of thought. Philosophy does indeed deal with these, and recognizes them as pure essences, absolute elements and powers; but thereby it also recognizes them in their determinateness and is therefore master over them, whereas perceiving understanding takes them for the true and is sent by them from one error into another. It does not itself become conscious that such simple essentialities govern within it, but always supposes it is dealing with wholly solid material and content, just as sense-certainty does not know that the empty abstraction of pure being is its essence. Yet in fact these abstractions are what understanding runs back and forth along through all material and content; they are what holds that content together and rules it, and alone constitute what the sensuous as essence is for consciousness, what determines consciousness's relations to it, and what the movement of perception and its true runs its course upon. This course, a constantly alternating determination of the true and sublation of this determining, actually constitutes the daily and constant life and activity of perceiving consciousness, which supposes itself to move in truth. In it consciousness advances irresistibly toward the result of equally sublating all these essential essentialities or determinations, 1807 58 but in each individual moment it is conscious only of this one determinateness as the true, and then again of its opposite. It does indeed scent their lack of essence; to rescue them from the threatening danger, it turns to the sophistry of asserting as true what it itself just asserted as untrue. What the nature of these untrue essences actually seeks to drive this understanding toward is bringing together the thoughts of that universality and singularity, of the also and the one, of that essentiality which is necessarily linked with an inessentiality, and of an inessential that is nevertheless necessary—the thoughts of these nonessences—and thereby sublating them. Against this it struggles, using the supports of the insofar as and the various respects, or taking one thought upon itself so as to keep the other separate and preserve it as true. But the nature of these abstractions brings them together in and for themselves; common sense is their prey, driven about in their whirling circle. In wishing to give them truth, now taking their untruth upon itself, now calling deception a semblance of unreliable things, and separating the essential from what is necessary to them yet supposedly inessential, holding fast to the former as their truth against the latter, common sense does not preserve their truth, but gives itself untruth.

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.

1807 38

II. Perception; or the *Thing* and *Deception*.

111 Immediate certainty does not take hold of truth, for its truth is the universal, while it wants to take the this. Perception, by contrast, takes what is for it as a universal. Universality is its principle in general, and its moments, which immediately distinguish themselves within it, are also universal: I am a universal, and the object is a universal. This principle has arisen for us. Our taking up perception is therefore no longer an appearing apprehension, as with sensory certainty, but a necessary one. In the arising of the principle, the two moments that merely fall out in its appearance have also come to be. One is the movement of pointing-out; the other is the same movement, but as something simple. The first is perceiving, the second the object. In essence, the object is the same as the movement. The movement unfolds and distinguishes the moments; the object is their being gathered together. For us, or 1807 39 in itself, the universal as principle is the essence of perception. Against this abstraction, the two distinguished terms, the perceiving and the perceived, are inessential. But in fact, because both are themselves the universal or essence, both are essential. Yet because they relate to one another as opposites, only one can be essential in the relation. The difference between essential and inessential must be distributed between them. The one determined as simple, the object, is essence, indifferent to whether it is perceived or not. Perceiving, as movement, is the unstable term that may be or may not be, the inessential.

112 We must now define this object more closely and briefly develop its determination from the result we have reached. A fuller development does not belong here. Its principle, the universal, is something mediated in its simplicity. The object must therefore express this within itself as its nature. It thereby shows itself as the thing with many properties. The richness of sensory knowing belongs to perception, not to immediate certainty, where it only played alongside. For only perception has negation, difference or multiplicity, within its essence.

113 Thus the this is posited as not-this, or as sublated. It is thereby not nothing, but 1807 40 a determinate nothing, or a nothing with a content, namely the this. The sensory is thus still present, but not as it was supposed to be in immediate certainty, as the individual thing meant. It is present as universal, or as what will be determined as a property. Sublation displays its true double meaning, which we have seen in the negative: it is at once a negating and a preserving. Nothing, as the nothing of the this, preserves immediacy and is itself sensory, but a universal immediacy. Being, however, is a universal through having mediation, or the negative, within it. In expressing this in its immediacy, it is a differentiated, determinate property. At the same time, many such properties are thereby posited, each the negative of another. Expressed in the simplicity of the universal, these determinations—which become properties properly speaking only through a further determination—relate to themselves. They are indifferent to one another, each for itself, free of the other. But simple, self-identical universality itself is in turn distinct from these determinations of its own and free. It is pure self-relation, or the medium in which all these determinations are. In it, as a simple unity, they thus interpenetrate without touching one another. For precisely 1807 41 by sharing in this universality, they are indifferent for themselves. This abstract universal medium, which can be called thinghood in general or pure essence, is nothing other than the here and now as they have proved to be: a simple togetherness of many. But the many are themselves, in their determinacy, simple universals. This salt is a simple here and at the same time manifold. It is white, and also sharp-tasting, also cubic in shape, also of a specific weight, and so on. All these many properties are in one simple here, in which they therefore interpenetrate. None has a different here from another: each is everywhere in the same here in which the other is. At the same time, though not separated by different heres, they do not affect one another in this interpenetration. The white does not affect or change the cubic; neither affects the sharp taste, and so on. Since each is itself simple self-relation, it leaves the others alone and relates to them only through the indifferent also. This also is therefore the pure universal itself, or the medium, the thinghood that gathers them together in this way.

114 In the relation that has emerged, only the character of positive universality has so far been observed and developed. But another side presents itself that must also be included. If the many determinate properties were wholly indifferent 1807 42 and related only to themselves, they would not be determinate. For they are determinate only insofar as they differ and relate to others as opposites. But in this opposition they cannot be together in the simple unity of their medium, which is as essential to them as negation. Their differentiation, insofar as it is not indifferent but excludes and negates another, therefore falls outside this simple medium. The medium is consequently not merely an also, an indifferent unity, but also one, an excluding unity. The one is the moment of negation as it relates to itself in a simple way and excludes another. Through it, thinghood is determined as a thing. In the property, negation is determinacy immediately one with the immediacy of being, which through this unity with negation is universality. But as one, negation is freed from this unity with its opposite and is in and for itself.

115 In these moments together, the thing as the truth of perception is complete, as far as it needs to be developed here. It is α) indifferent, passive universality, the also of the many properties, or rather matters; β) negation, likewise as simple, or the one, the exclusion of opposite properties; and γ) the many properties themselves, the 1807 43 relation of the first two moments: negation as it relates to the indifferent element and spreads within it as a multitude of differences, the point of individuality radiating into multiplicity in the medium of subsistence. Insofar as these differences belong to the indifferent medium, they are themselves universal, relate only to themselves, and do not affect one another. But insofar as they belong to the negative unity, they are at the same time excluding. Yet they necessarily have this opposed relation to properties removed from their also. Sensory universality, or the immediate unity of being and the negative, becomes a property only when the one and pure universality have been developed out of it and distinguished from one another, and it joins them together. Only this relation of the property to the pure essential moments completes the thing.

116 This, then, is how the thing of perception is constituted. Consciousness is determined as perceiving insofar as this thing is its object. Consciousness has only to take the object and behave as pure apprehension. What results for it is truth. If it itself did anything in taking the object, such addition or omission would change the truth. The object is the true and universal, equal to itself; consciousness takes itself to be the 1807 44 changeable and inessential. So consciousness may apprehend the object incorrectly and be deceived. Perceiving consciousness is aware of the possibility of deception. For in universality, which is the principle, otherness itself is immediately present for it, but as null, sublated. Its criterion of truth is therefore self-sameness, and its behavior is to apprehend the object as equal to itself. Since difference is also present for consciousness, consciousness relates the different moments of its apprehension to one another. But if an inequality comes out in this comparison, this is not an untruth of the object, since the object is equal to itself. It is an untruth of perceiving.

117 Let us now see what experience consciousness undergoes in its actual perceiving. For us, this experience is already contained in the development just given of the object and consciousness's relation to it. It will only be the development of the contradictions present there. The object I apprehend presents itself as purely one. I also become aware of a property in it that is universal and thus goes beyond individuality. The objective essence's first being as a one was therefore not its true being. Since the object is truth, the untruth falls within me, and the apprehension was incorrect. Because of the property's universality, 1807 45 I must instead take the objective essence as a community in general. I now further perceive the property as determinate, opposed to and excluding another. So I did not in fact apprehend the objective essence correctly when I defined it as a community with others, or as continuity. Because of the property's determinacy, I must instead divide the continuity and posit the essence as an excluding one. In the separated one, I find many such properties that do not affect one another but are mutually indifferent. So I did not perceive the object correctly when I apprehended it as excluding. Rather, just as it was previously only continuity in general, it is now a universal common medium in which many properties, as sensory universals, are each for themselves and, as determinate, exclude the others. But the simple and true that I perceive is thereby also not a universal medium. It is the individual property for itself. Yet in this way the property is neither a property nor a determinate being. For it is now neither in a one nor related to others. But it is a property only in the one, and determinate only in relation to others. As this pure self-relation, it remains only sensory being in general, since it no longer has the character of negativity within it. Consciousness 1807 46 for which there is now a sensory being is only a meaning: it has stepped entirely out of perceiving and returned into itself. But sensory being and meaning themselves pass into perception. I am thrown back to the beginning and swept again into the same circuit, which sublates itself at every moment and as a whole.

118 Thus consciousness necessarily goes through this circuit again, but not in the same way as the first time. For it has experienced that the result and truth of perceiving is perceiving's dissolution, or reflection into itself out of truth. Consciousness has thereby come to see how its perceiving is essentially constituted: not as a simple, pure apprehension, but as something reflected out of truth into itself in its apprehension. This return of consciousness into itself immediately mixes itself into pure apprehension, since it has proved essential to perceiving, and changes truth. At the same time, consciousness recognizes this side as its own and takes responsibility for it. In this way, it will keep the true object pure. So now, as happened with sensory certainty, perception has the side where consciousness is pushed back into itself. But initially this is not in 1807 47 the same sense as before—as though the truth of perception fell within consciousness. Instead, consciousness recognizes that the untruth occurring in perception falls within it. But through this recognition it is also capable of sublating that untruth. It distinguishes its apprehension of truth from the untruth of its perceiving and corrects the latter. Insofar as consciousness itself carries out this correction, truth does indeed fall within it as the truth of perceiving. The behavior of consciousness that we must now consider is therefore such that it no longer merely perceives. It is also conscious of its reflection into itself and separates this reflection from simple apprehension itself.

119 Thus I first become aware of the thing as one and must hold it fast in this true determination. If anything contradicting it occurs in the movement of perceiving, I must recognize this as my reflection. Now, different properties also occur in perception and seem to be properties of the thing. But the thing is one, and we are conscious that this diversity, through which it would cease to be one, falls within us. So this thing is in fact white only when brought before our eye; also sharp-tasting when brought to our tongue; also cubic to our touch; and so on. We take the complete diversity of these sides not from 1807 48 the thing but from ourselves. They fall apart in this way for us in our eye, which is wholly different from our tongue, and so on. We are thus the universal medium in which such moments separate and are for themselves. By considering the determination of being a universal medium as our reflection, we therefore preserve the thing's self-sameness and its truth of being one.

120 Yet these different sides that consciousness takes upon itself are determinate, whether considered each for itself or as located in the universal medium. White is only in opposition to black, and so on, and the thing is one precisely by opposing itself to others. But it does not exclude others from itself insofar as it is one. For being one is universal self-relation, and through being one it is instead equal to all others. It excludes them through determinacy. So the things themselves are determinate in and for themselves: they have properties through which they differ from others. Since the property is the thing's own property, a determinacy within it, the thing has several properties. For, first, the thing is truth: it is in itself. What is in it is in it as its own essence, not for the sake of others. So, second, the determinate properties are not only for the sake of other 1807 49 things and for other things, but in the thing itself. Yet they are determinate properties in it only insofar as they are several properties distinguished from one another. And third, insofar as they are thus in thinghood, they are in and for themselves and indifferent to one another. So in truth it is the thing itself that is white and also cubic, also sharp-tasting, and so on. Or the thing is the also, the universal medium in which the many properties subsist outside one another without touching or sublating one another. Taken in this way, it is taken as truth.

121 Now, in this perceiving, consciousness is at the same time aware that it also reflects into itself, and that a moment opposed to the also occurs in perceiving. But this moment is the thing's unity with itself, which excludes difference from itself. This unity, then, is what consciousness must take upon itself. For the thing itself is the subsistence of the many different and independent properties. So it is said of the thing: it is white, also cubic, and also sharp-tasting, and so on. But insofar as it is white it is not cubic, and insofar as it is cubic and also white it is not sharp-tasting, and so on. Putting these properties into one belongs only to consciousness, which must therefore not let them fall into one in the thing. To this end it introduces the insofar as, through which it keeps them 1807 50 apart and preserves the thing as the also. Strictly speaking, consciousness takes being-one upon itself only by representing what was called a property as free matter. The thing is thus raised to a genuine also, becoming a collection of matters and, instead of being one, a merely enclosing surface.

122 Look back at what consciousness took upon itself before and takes upon itself now, and at what it attributed to the thing before and attributes to it now. We find that alternately it makes both itself and the thing into both: a pure one without multiplicity, and an also dissolved into independent matters. Through this comparison, consciousness therefore finds that not only does its taking of truth contain the difference between apprehension and returning into itself, but truth itself, the thing, shows itself in this double way. The experience is thus present that the thing presents itself for apprehending consciousness in a determinate way, but is at the same time reflected out of the way it offers itself and into itself, or has an opposite truth within itself.

123 So consciousness has itself also emerged from this second way of behaving in perception: taking the thing as the true, self-identical term, 1807 51 and itself as the unequal term that returns into itself out of equality. Its object is now this whole movement, which was previously divided between the object and consciousness. The thing is one, reflected into itself; it is for itself. But it is also for another, and specifically it is different for itself from what it is for another. The thing therefore is for itself and also for another: a double, different being. But it is also one, and being-one contradicts this diversity of its own. Consciousness would therefore again have to take this putting-into-one upon itself and keep it away from the thing. It would have to say that the thing, insofar as it is for itself, is not for another. But being-one belongs to the thing itself too, as consciousness has experienced. The thing is essentially reflected into itself. Thus the also, or indifferent difference, falls within the thing just as much as being-one does. But since the two differ, they fall not in the same thing but in different things. The contradiction in objective essence in general is distributed between two objects. The thing is therefore indeed equal to itself in and for itself, but this unity with itself is disturbed by other things. In this way the thing's unity is preserved, while otherness is at the same time outside it, as well as outside consciousness.

1807 52

124 Although the contradiction of objective essence is thus distributed among different things, difference will nevertheless come into the separate individual thing itself. The different things are therefore posited for themselves, and their conflict falls reciprocally between them, so that each differs not from itself but only from the other. But each is thereby itself determined as something differentiated, and has the essential difference from the others within it. Yet this is not supposed to be an opposition within the thing itself. Rather, for itself it is simple determinacy, forming its essential character that distinguishes it from others. In fact, since diversity is within it, diversity is necessarily present within it as an actual difference of manifold constitution. But because determinacy forms the thing's essence, through which it differs from others and is for itself, this other manifold constitution is inessential. Thus the thing does indeed have within its unity the double insofar as, but with unequal value. As a result, this opposition does not become an actual opposition of the thing itself. Instead, insofar as the thing enters into opposition through its absolute difference, it has this opposition against another thing outside it. The other multiplicity is also necessarily in the thing, so it cannot be 1807 53 absent from it, but it is inessential to the thing.

125 The determinacy that forms the thing's essential character and distinguishes it from all others is now defined so that the thing stands through it in opposition to others, but is supposed to preserve itself for itself in that opposition. Yet it is a thing, or a one existing for itself, only insofar as it does not stand in this relation to others. For in this relation, connection with another is instead posited, and connection with another is the ending of being-for-itself. Precisely through its absolute character and its opposition, it relates to others and is essentially only this relation. But the relation negates its independence, and the thing instead perishes through its essential property.

126 Consciousness necessarily experiences that the thing perishes precisely through the determinacy that forms its essence and its being-for-itself. In terms of the simple concept, we can briefly consider this necessity as follows. The thing is posited as being-for-itself, or as absolute negation of all otherness: therefore as absolute negation relating only to itself. But self-relating negation is sublation of itself, or having its essence in another.

127 In fact, the determination of the object as it has emerged contains nothing else. The object 1807 54 is supposed to have an essential property that constitutes its simple being-for-itself. But along with this simplicity, it is also supposed to have diversity within itself, a diversity that is indeed necessary but supposedly does not constitute its essential determinacy. Yet this is a distinction that now lies only in words. The inessential that is nevertheless also supposed to be necessary sublates itself, or is what was just called the negation of itself.

128 The last insofar as, which separated being-for-itself from being-for-another, thereby falls away. Instead, the object is in one and the same respect the opposite of itself: for itself insofar as it is for another, and for another insofar as it is for itself. It is for itself, reflected into itself, one. But this being for itself, reflected into itself, one, is in a unity with its opposite, being-for-another, and is therefore posited only as sublated. Or, this being-for-itself is just as inessential as what alone was supposed to be inessential, namely its relation to another.

129 Thus the object is sublated in its pure determinations, or in the determinations that were supposed to constitute its essence, just as it became something sublated in its sensory being. From sensory being it becomes a universal. But because this universal comes from the sensory, it is essentially 1807 55 conditioned by it. It is therefore not truly self-identical universality at all, but universality affected by an opposition. It consequently divides into the extremes of individuality and universality, the one of properties and the also of free matters. These pure determinations seem to express essence itself, but they are only a being-for-itself burdened with being-for-another. Yet because both are essentially in one unity, unconditioned absolute universality is now present, and only here does consciousness truly enter the realm of understanding.

130 Sensory individuality does indeed disappear in the dialectical movement of immediate certainty and become universality, but only sensory universality. Meaning has disappeared, and perceiving takes the object as it is in itself, or as universal in general. Individuality therefore emerges in the object as true individuality, as the being-in-itself of the one, or as being-reflected into itself. But this is still a conditioned being-for-itself. Beside it there occurs another being-for-itself: universality, opposed to individuality and conditioned by it. But these two contradictory extremes are not merely beside one another. They are in one unity. Or, what amounts to the same thing, what they share, being-for-itself, is burdened with opposition in general. That is, it is at the same time not a being-for-itself. The 1807 56 sophistry of perceiving tries to save these moments from their contradiction. It tries to hold them fast by distinguishing respects, by the also and insofar as, and finally to grasp truth by distinguishing the inessential from an essence opposed to it. But instead of keeping deception out of apprehension, these expedients themselves prove null. The truth that this logic of perceiving is supposed to win shows itself to be the opposite in one and the same respect. It thereby has as its essence universality without distinctions or determinations.

131 These empty abstractions—individuality and the universality opposed to it, essence linked to something inessential, and an inessential that is nevertheless also necessary—are the powers whose plaything perceiving understanding, often called sound common sense, is. Taking itself to be solid, real consciousness, it is in perception only the play of these abstractions. In general, it is always poorest where it thinks itself richest. Driven about by these null essences and thrown from one into the arms of another, it uses its sophistry to try to hold fast and assert first one, then its exact opposite. In resisting truth 1807 57 in this way, it thinks philosophy deals only with things of thought. Philosophy does in fact deal with them and recognizes them as pure essences, as absolute elements and powers. But at the same time it recognizes them in their determinacy and is therefore master over them. Perceiving understanding, by contrast, takes them as truth and is sent by them from one error to another. It does not itself become conscious that such simple essences govern it. Instead, it always thinks it is dealing with thoroughly solid material and content, just as sensory certainty does not know that the empty abstraction of pure being is its essence. Yet in fact it is along these abstractions that it runs back and forth through all material and content. They hold that material together and govern it. They alone are what the sensory is as essence for consciousness, what determines consciousness's relations to it, and what the movement of perceiving and its truth runs its course through. This course, a constantly alternating determination of truth and sublation of that determination, is really the daily and constant life and activity of consciousness that perceives and thinks it moves in truth. In it, consciousness advances unstoppably to the result of equally sublating all these essential essences or determinations. 1807 58 But at each individual moment, it is conscious only of this one determinacy as truth, and then again of its opposite. It does sense their lack of essence. To save them from the danger threatening them, it turns to the sophistry of now asserting as true what it itself just asserted as untrue. The nature of these untrue essences really wants to drive this understanding to bring together the thoughts of those nonentities: that universality and individuality, the also and one, that essentiality necessarily linked with inessentiality, and an inessential that is nevertheless necessary—and thereby to sublate them. Understanding resists this with the supports of the insofar as and the different respects, or by taking one thought upon itself so as to keep the other separate and preserve it as truth. But the nature of these abstractions brings them together in and for themselves. Sound common sense is their prey, driven about in their whirling circle. It tries to give them truth, sometimes by taking their untruth upon itself, sometimes by calling deception an appearance of unreliable things. It separates the essential from something necessary to things that is nevertheless supposed to be inessential, and holds the former fast as their truth against the latter. In doing so, it does not preserve their truth, but gives itself untruth.

About this section

II. Perception 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 4 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.

Download the complete work as JSON · Retex Markdown