Mouseiaan open library of the ancient world

III. Force and understanding

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

Original German

1807 59

III. Krafft und Verstand, Erscheinung und übersinnliche Welt.

132 Dem Bewuſstseyn ist in der Dialektik der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit das Hören und Sehen u. s. w. vergangen, und als Wahrnehmen ist es zu Gedanken gekommen, welche es aber erst im unbedingt allgemeinen zusammenbringt. Diſs unbedingte wäre nun selbst wieder nichts anders, als das auf eine Seite tretende Extrem des für sich seyns, wenn es als ruhiges einfaches Wesen genommen würde, denn so träte ihm das Unwesen gegenüber; aber auf dieses bezogen wäre es selbst unwesentlich, und das Bewuſstseyn nicht aus der Täuschung des Wahrnehmens herausgekommen; allein es hat sich als ein solches ergeben, welches aus einem solchen bedingten für sich seyn in sich zurückgegangen ist. — Diſs unbedingte Allgemeine, das nunmehr der wahre Gegenstand des Bewuſstseyns ist, ist noch als Gegenstand desselben; es hat seinen Begriff als Begriff noch nicht erfaſst. Beydes ist wesentlich zu unterscheiden; dem Bewuſstseyn ist der Gegenstand aus dem Verhältnisse zu einem andern in sich zurück 1807 60 gegangen, und hiemit an sich Begriff geworden; aber das Bewuſstseyn ist noch nicht für sich selbst der Begriff, und deſswegen erkennt es in jenem reflectirten Gegenstande nicht sich. Für uns ist dieser Gegenstand durch die Bewegung des Bewuſstseyns so geworden, daſs dieses in das Werden desselben verflochten, und die Reflexion auf beyden Seiten dieselbe, oder nur Eine ist. Weil aber das Bewuſstseyn in dieser Bewegung nur das gegenständliche Wesen, nicht das Bewuſstseyn als solches zu seinem Inhalte hatte, so ist für es das Resultat in gegenständlicher Bedeutung zu setzen, und das Bewuſstseyn noch von dem gewordenen zurücktretend, so daſs ihm dasselbe als gegenständliches das Wesen ist.

133 Der Verstand hat damit zwar seine eigne Unwahrheit und die Unwahrheit des Gegenstandes aufgehoben; und was ihm dadurch geworden, ist der Begriff des Wahren; als an sich seyendes Wahres, das noch nicht Begriff ist, oder das des für sich seyns des Bewuſstseyns entbehrt, und das der Verstand, ohne sich darin zu wissen, gewähren läſst. Dieses treibt sein Wesen für sich selbst; so daſs das Bewuſstseyn keinen Antheil an seiner freyen Realisirung hat, sondern ihr nur zusieht, und sie rein auffaſst. Wir haben hiemit noch vors erste an seine Stelle zu treten, und der Begriff zu seyn, welcher das ausbildet, was in dem Resultate enthalten ist; an diesem ausgebildeten Gegenstande, der dem 1807 61 Bewuſstseyn als ein seyendes sich darbietet, wird es sich erst zum begreiffenden Bewuſstseyn.

134 Das Resultat war das unbedingt allgemeine, zunächst in dem negativen und abstracten Sinne, daſs das Bewuſstseyn seine einseitigen Begriffe negirte, und sie abstrahirte, nemlich sie aufgab. Das Resultat hat aber an sich die positive Bedeutung, daſs darin die Einheit, des für sich seyns und des für ein anderes seyns, oder der absolute Gegensatz unmittelbar als dasselbe Wesen gesetzt ist. Es scheint zunächst nur die Form der Momente zu einander zu betreffen; aber das für sich seyn und das für anderes seyn ist eben sowohl der Inhalt selbst, weil der Gegensatz in seiner Wahrheit keine andere Natur haben kann, als die sich im Resultate ergeben hat, daſs nemlich der in der Wahrnehmung für wahrgehaltene Inhalt, in der That nur der Form angehört, und in ihre Einheit sich auflöst. Dieser Inhalt ist zugleich allgemein; es kann keinen andern Inhalt geben, der durch seine besondere Beschaffenheit sich dem entzöge, in diese unbedingte Allgemeinheit zurückzugehen. Ein solcher Inhalt wäre irgend eine bestimmte Weise für sich zu seyn, und zu anderem sich zu verhalten. Allein für sich zu seyn, und zu anderem sich zu verhalten überhaupt, macht seine Natur und Wesen aus, deren Wahrheit ist, unbedingt allgemeines zu seyn; und das Resultat ist schlechthin allgemein.

1807 62

135 Weil aber diſs unbedingt Allgemeine Gegenstand für das Bewuſstseyn ist, so tritt an ihm der Unterschied der Form und des Inhalts hervor, und in der Gestalt des Inhalts haben die Momente das Aussehen, in welchem sie sich zuerst darboten, einerseits allgemeines Medium vieler bestehender Materien, und anderseits in sich reflectirtes Eins, worin ihre Selbstständigkeit vertilgt ist, zu seyn. Jenes ist die Auflösung der Selbstständigkeit des Dinges, oder die Paſſivität, die ein Seyn für ein anderes ist, diſs aber das für sich seyn. Es ist zu sehen, wie diese Momente in der unbedingten Allgemeinheit, die ihr Wesen ist, sich darstellen. Es erhellt zunächst, daſs sie dadurch, daſs sie nur in dieser sind, überhaupt nicht mehr auseinander liegen, sondern wesentlich an ihnen selbst sich aufhebende Seiten sind, und nur das Uebergehen derselben in einander gesetzt ist.

136 Das eine Moment erscheint also als das auf die Seite getretene Wesen, als allgemeines Medium oder als das Bestehen selbstständiger Materien. Die Selbstständigkeit dieser Materien aber ist nichts anders als diſs Medium; oder diſs allgemeine ist durchaus die Vielheit solcher verschiedenen Allgemeinen. Das Allgemeine ist an ihm selbst in ungetrennter Einheit mit dieser Vielheit, heiſst aber, diese Materien sind, jede wo die andere ist, sie durchdringen sich gegenseitig, — ohne aber sich zu berühren, weil umgekehrt das viele unterschiedene eben so selbstständig ist. Damit ist zugleich auch ihre reine 1807 63 Porosität oder ihr Aufgehobenseyn gesetzt. Diſs Aufgehobenseyn wieder, oder die Reduction dieser Verschiedenheit zum reinen für sich seyn ist nichts anders als das Medium selbst und diſs die Selbststandigkeit der Unterschiede. Oder die selbstständig gesetzten gehen unmittelbar in ihre Einheit, und ihre Einheit unmittelbar in die Entfaltung über, und diese wieder zurück in die Reduction. Diese Bewegung ist aber dasjenige was Krafft genannt wird; das eine Moment derselben, nemlich sie als Ausbreitung der selbstständigen Materien in ihrem Seyn ist ihre Aeuſserung; sie aber als das Verschwundenseyn derselben ist die in sich aus ihrer Aeuſserung zurückgedrangte, oder die eigentliche Krafft. Aber erstens die in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft muſs sich auſsern; und zweytens in der Aeuſserung ist sie ebenso in sich selbst seyende Krafft, als sie in diesem in sich selbstseyn Aeuſserung ist. — Indem wir so beyde Momente in ihrer unmittelbaren Einheit erhalten, so ist eigentlich der Verstand, dem der Begriff der Krafft angehört, der Begriff, welcher die unterschiedenen Mornente, als unterschiedene trägt; denn an ihr selbst sollen sie nicht unterschieden seyn; der Unterschied ist hiemit nur im Gedanken. — Oder es ist im obigen nur erst der Begriff der Krafft, nicht ihre Realität gesetzt worden. In der That aber ist die Krafft das unbedingt allgemeine, welches, was es für ein anderes, eben so an sich selbst ist; oder welches den Unterschied — denn er ist nichts anderes, als das 1807 64 für ein anderes seyn, — an ihm selbst hat. Daſs also die Krafft in ihrer Wahrheit sey, muſs sie ganz vom Gedanken frey gelassen und als die Substanz dieser Unterschiede gesetzt werden, das heiſst einmal, sie als diese ganze Krafft wesentlich an und für sich bleibend, und dann ihre Unterschiede als substantiell, oder als für sich bestehende Momente. Die Krafft als solche, oder als in sich zurückgedrängte ist hiemit für sich als ein ausschlieſsendes Eins, welchem die Entfaltung der Materien ein anderes bestehendes Wesen ist, und es sind so zwey unterschiedne selbstständige Seiten gesetzt. Aber die Krafft ist auch das Ganze, oder sie bleibt was sie ihrem Begriffe nach ist, nemlich diese Unterschiede bleiben reine Formen, oberflächliche verschwindende Momente. Die Unterschiede der in sich zurückgedrängten eigentlichen Krafft, und der Entfaltung der selbstständigen Materien, wären zugleich gar nicht, wenn sie nicht ein Bestehen hätten, oder die Krafft wäre nicht, wenn sie nicht auf diese entgegengesetzte Weise existirte; aber, sie existirt auf diese entgegengesetzte Weise, heiſst nichts anderes, als beyde Momente sind selbst zugleich selbstständig. — Diese Bewegung des sich beständig verselbstständigens der beyden Momente und ihres sich wieder aufhebens, ist es also, was zu betrachten ist. — Es erhellt im allgemeinen, daſs diese Bewegung nichts anderes ist, als die Bewegung des Wahrnehmens, worin die beyden Seiten, das wahrnehmende und das wahrgenommene 1807 65 zugleich, einmal als das Auffassen des Wahren eins und ununterschieden, dabey aber ebensowohl jede Seite in sich reflectirt oder für sich ist. Hier sind diese beyden Seiten Momente der Krafft; sie sind ebensowohl in einer Einheit, als diese Einheit, welche gegen die für sich seyenden Extreme als die Mitte erscheint, sich immer in eben diese Extreme zersetzt, die erst dadurch sind. — Die Bewegung, welche sich vorhin als das sich selbst Vernichten widersprechender Begriffe darstellte, hat also hier die gegenständliche Form, und ist Bewegung der Krafft, als deren Resultat das unbedingt allgemeine als ungegenständliches, oder als Innres der Dinge hervorgeht.

137 Die Krafft ist, wie sie bestimmt worden, indem sie als solche, oder als in sich reflectirt vorgestellt wird, die eine Seite ihres Begriffs; aber als ein substantiirtes Extrem, und zwar das unter der Bestimmtheit des Eins gesetzte. Hiemit ist das Bestehen der entfalteten Materien aus ihr ausgeschlossen, und ein anderes als sie. Indem es nothwendig ist, daſs sie selbst dieses Bestehen sey, oder daſs sie sich äuſsere, so stellt sich ihre Aeuſserung so vor, daſs jenes andere zu ihr hinzutritt, und sie sollicitirt. Aber in der That, indem sie nothwendig sich äuſsert, hat sie diſs, was als ein anderes Wesen gesetzt war, an ihr selbst. Es muſs zurückgenommen werden, daſs sie als ein Eins, und ihr Wesen, sich zu äuſsern, als ein anderes zu ihr von auſsen hinzutretendes gesetzt wurde; sie ist vielmehr selbst diſs allgemeine 1807 66 Medium des Bestehens der Momente als Materien; oder sie hat sich geäuſsert, und was das andere sollicitirende seyn sollte, ist sie vielmehr. Sie existirt also itzt als das Medium der entfalteten Materien. Aber sie hat gleich wesentlich die Form des Aufgehobenseyns der bestehenden Materien, oder ist wesentlich Eins; diſs Eins-seyn ist hiemit itzt, da sie gesetzt ist als das Medium von Materien, ein anderes als sie, und sie hat diſs ihr Wesen auſser ihr. Indem sie aber nothwendig diſs seyn muſs, als was sie noch nicht gesetzt ist, so tritt diſs andere hinzu und sollicitirt sie zur Reflexion in sich selbst, oder hebt ihre Aeuſserung auf. In der That aber ist sie selbst dieses in sich reflectirt-seyn, oder diſs aufgehobenseyn der Aeuſserung; das Einsseyn verschwindet, wie es erschien, nemlich als ein anderes; sie ist es selbst, sie ist in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft.

138 Das, was als anderes auftritt, und sie sowohl zur Aeuſserung als zur Rückkehr in sich selbst sollicitirt, ist, wie sich unmittelbar ergibt, selbst Krafft; denn das andre zeigt sich ebensowohl als allgemeines Medium, wie als Eins; und so daſs jede dieser Gestalten zugleich nur als verschwindendes Moment auftritt. Die Krafft ist hiemit dadurch, daſs ein anderes für sie, und sie für ein anderes ist, überhaupt noch nicht aus ihrem Begriffe herausgetreten. Es sind aber zugleich zwey Kräffte vorhanden; der Begriff beyder zwar derselbe, aber aus seiner Einheit in die Zweyheit herausgegangen. Statt daſs der 1807 67 Gegensatz durchaus wesentlich nur Moment bliebe, scheint er sich durch die Entzweyung in ganz selbstständige Kraffte, der Herrschafft der Einheit entzogen zu haben. Was es mit dieser Selbstständigkeit für eine Bewandniſs hat, ist näher zu sehen. Zunächst tritt die zweyte Krafft, als das sollicitirende und zwar als allgemeines Medium seinem Inhalte nach gegen die auf, welche als sollicitirte bestimmt ist; indem aber jene wesentlich Abwechslung dieser beyden Momente und selbst Krafft ist, so ist sie in der That gleichfalls nur erst allgemeines Medium, indem sie dazu sollicitirt wird, und ebeuso auch nurnegative Einheit, oder zum zurückgehen der Krafft sollicitirendes, dadurch, daſs sie sollicitirt wird. Es verwandelt sich hiemit auch dieser Unterschied, der zwischen beyden statt fand, daſs das eine das sollicitirende, das andere das sollicitirte seyn sollte, in dieselbe Austauschung der Bestimmtheiten gegeneinander.

139 Das Spiel der beyden Kräffte besteht hiemit in diesem entgegengesetzten Bestimmtseyn beyder, ihrem füreinander seyn in dieser Bestimmung, und der absoluten unmittelbaren Verwechslung der Bestimmungen, — einem Uebergange, wodurch allein diese Bestimmungen sind, in denen die Kräffte selbstständig aufzutreten scheinen. Das sollicitirende ist, zum Beyspiel, als allgemeines Medium, und dagegen das sollicitirte als zurückgediängte Krafft gesetzt; aber jenes ist allgemeines Medium selbst nur dadurch daſs das andere zurückgedrängte Krafft ist; 1807 68 oder diese ist vielmehr das sollicitirende für jenes, und macht dasselbe erst zum Medium. Jenes hat nur durch das andere seine Bestimmtheit, und ist sollicitirend, nur insofern es vom andern dazu sollicitirt wird, sollicitirend zu seyn; und es verliert eben so unmittelbar diese ihm gegebene Bestimmtheit; denn diese geht an das andere über oder vielmehr ist schon an dasselbe übergegangen; das fremde die Kraft sollicitirende tritt als allgemeines Medium auf, aber nur dadurch, daſs es von ihr dazu sollicitirt worden ist; das heiſst aber, sie setzt es so und ist vielmehr selbst wesentlich allgemeines Medium; sie setzt das sollicitirende so, darum weil diese andere Bestimmung ihr wesentlich, das heiſst, weil sie vielmehr sie selbst ist.

140 Zur Vervollständigung der Einsicht in den Begriff dieser Bewegung kann noch darauf aufmerksam gemacht werden, daſs sich die Unterschiede selbst in einem gedoppelten Unterschiede zeigen, einmal als Unterschiede des Inhalts, indem das eine Extrem in sich reflectirte Krafft, das andere aber Medium der Materien ist; das andremal als Unterschiede der Form, indem das eine sollicitirendes, das andre sollicitirtes, jenes thätig, diſs passiv ist. Nach dem Unterschiede des Inhalts sind sie überhaupt, oder für uns unterschieden; nach dem Unterschiede der Form aber sind sie selbstständig, in ihrer Beziehung sich von einander selbst abscheidend und entgegengesetzt. Daſs so die Extreme nach 1807 69 diesen beyden Seiten nichts an sich, sondern diese Seiten, worin ihr unterschiedenes Wesen bestehen sollte, nur verschwindende Momente, ein unmittelbares Uebergehen jeder in die entgegengesetzte sind, diſs wird für das Bewuſstseyn in der Wahrnehmung der Bewegung der Krafft. Für uns aber war, wie oben erinnert, auch noch diſs, daſs an sich die Unterschiede, als Unterschiede des Inhalts und der Form verschwanden, und auf der Seite der Form, dem Wesen nach das thätige, sollicitirende oder für sich seyende dasselbe, was auf der Seite des Inhalts als in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft; das passive, soliicitirte, oder für ein anderes seyende auf der Seite der Form dasselbe, was auf der Seite des Inhalts als allgemeines Medium der vielen Materien sich darstellte.

141 Es ergibt sich hieraus, daſs der Begriff der Krafft durch die Verdopplung in zwey Kräffte wirklich wird, und wie er diſs wird. Diese zwey Kräfte existiren als für sich seyende Wesen; aber ihre Existenz ist eine solche Bewegung gegeneinander, daſs ihr Seyn vielmehr ein reines Gesetztseyn durch ein anderes ist, das heiſst, daſs ihr Seyn vielmehr die reine Bedeutung des Verschwindens hat. Sie sind nicht als Extreme, die etwas festes für sich behielten, und nur eine äuſsere Eigenschafft gegen einander in die Mitte und in ihre Berührung schickten; sondern was sie sind, sind sie nur in dieser Mitte und Berührung. Es ist darin unmittelbar ebensowohl das in sich zurückgedrängt- oder das für sich seyn der Krafft, wie 1807 70 die Aeuſserung, das sollicitiren, wie das sollicitirtseyn; diese Momente hiemit nicht an zwey selbstständige Extreme vertheilt, welche sich nur eine entgegengesetzte Spitze böten, sondern ihr Wesen ist diſs schlechthin, jedes nur durchs andere, und was jede so durchs andre ist, unmittelbar nicht mehr zu seyn, indem sie es ist. Sie haben hiemit in der That keine eignen Substanzen, welche sie trügen und erhielten. Der Begriff der Krafft erhält sich vielmehr als das Wesen in seiner Wirklichkeit selbst; die Krafft als wirkliche ist schlechthin nur in der Aeuſserung, welche zugleich nichts anders, als ein sich selbst aufheben ist. Diese wirkliche Krafft vorgestellt als frey von ihrer Aeuſserung und für sich seyend, ist sie die in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft, aber diese Bestimmtheit ist in der That, wie sich ergeben hat, selbst nur ein Moment der Aeuſserung. Die Wahrheit der Krafft bleibt also nur der Gedanke derselben; und haltungslos stürzen die Momente ihrer Wirklichkeit, ihre Substanzen und ihre Bewegung in eine ununterschiedene Einheit zusammen, welche nicht die in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft ist, denn diese ist selbst nur ein solches Moment, sondern diese Einheit ist ihr Begriff, als Begriff. Die Realisirung der Krafft ist also zugleich Verlust der Realität; sie ist darin vielmehr ein ganz anderes geworden, nemlich diese Allgemeinheit, welche der Verstand zuerst oder unmittelbar als ihr Wesen erkennt, und welche sich auch als ihr Wesen an 1807 71 ihrer seynsollenden Realitat an den wirklichen Substanzen erweist.

142 Insofern wir das erste allgemeine als den Begriff des Verstandes obetrachten, worin die Krafft noch nicht für sich ist, so ist das zweyte itzt ihr Wesen, wie es sich an und für sich darstellt. Oder umgekehrt, betrachten wir das erste allgemeine als das unmittelbare, das ein wirklicher Gegenstand für das Bewuſstseyn seyn sollte, so ist diſs zweyte als das negative der sinnlich gegenständlichen Krafft bestimmt; es ist sie, wie sie in ihrem wahren Wesen nur als Gegenstand des Verstandes ist; jenes erste wäre die in sich zurückgedrängte Krafft oder sie als Substanz; diſs zweyte aber ist das Innere der Dinge, als Inneres, welches mit dem Begriffe als Begriff dasselbe ist.

143 Dieses wahrhaffte Wesen der Dinge hat sich itzt so bestimmt, daſs es nicht unmittelbar für das Bewuſstseyn ist, sondern daſs dieses ein mittelbares Verhältniſs zu dem Innern hat, und als Verstand durch diese Mitte des Spiets der Kräffte in den wahren Hintergrund der Dinge blickt. Die Mitte, welche die beyden Extreme, den Verstand und das Innere, zusammenschlieſst, ist das entwickelte Seyn der Krafft, das für den Verstand selbst nunmehr ein Verschwinden ist. Es heiſst darum Erscheinung; denn Schein nennen wir das Seyn, das unmittelbar an ihm selbst ein Nichtseyn ist. Es ist aber nicht nur ein Schein, sondern Erscheinung, ein Ganzes des Scheins. Diſs Ganze als Ganzes oder Allgemeines, ist es, was das 1807 72 Innere ausmacht, das Spiel der Kräffte, als Reflexion desselben in sich selbst. In ihm sind für das Bewuſstseyn auf gegenständliche Weise die Wesen der Wahrnehmung so gesetzt, wie sie an sich sind, nemlich als unmittelbar in das Gegentheil ohne Ruhe und Seyn sich verwandelnde Momente, das Eins unmittelbar in das Allgemeine, das Wesentliche unmittelbar in das unwesentliche und umgekehrt. Diſs Spiel der Kräffte ist daher das entwickelte negative, aber die Wahrheit desselben ist das positive, nemlich das Allgemeine, der an sich seyende Gegenstand. — Das Seyn desselben für das Bewuſstseyn ist vermittelt durch die Bewegung der Erscheinung, worin das Seyn der Wahrnehmung, und das sinnlich gegenständliche überhaupt nur negative Bedeutung hat, das Bewuſstseyn also daraus sich in sich als in das Wahre reflectirt, aber als Bewuſstseyn wieder diſs Wahre zum gegenständlichen Innern macht, und diese Reflexion der Dinge von seiner Reflexion in sich selbst unterscheidet; wie ihm die vermittelnde Bewegung ebenso noch eine gegenständliche ist. Diſs Innere ist ihm daher ein Extrem gegen es; aber es ist ihm darum das Wahre, weil es darin als in dem an sich zugleich die Gewiſsheit seiner selbst oder das Moment seines Fürsichseyns hat; aber dieses Grundes ist es sich noch nicht bewuſst, denn das Fürsichseyn, welches das Innre an ihm selbst haben sollte, wäre nichts anderes als die negative Bewegung, aber diese ist dem Bewuſstseyn noch die 1807 73 *gegenständliche verschwindende Erscheinung, noch nicht sein eignes Fürsichseyn; das Innre ist ihm daher wohl Begriff, aber es kennt die Natur des Begriffes noch nicht.

144 In diesem innern Wahren, als dem absolut allgemeinen, welches vom Gegensatze des Allgemeinen und Einzelnen gereinigt und für den Verstand geworden ist, schlieſst sich erst über der sinnlichen als der erscheinenden Welt, nunmehr eine übersinnliche als die wahre Welt auf, über dem verschwindenden Disseits das bleibende Jenseits; ein Ansich, welches die erste und darum selbst unvollkommene Erscheinung der Vernunft, oder nur das reine Element ist, worin die Wahrheit ihr Wesen hat.

145 Unser Gegenstand ist hiemit nunmehr der Schluſs, welcher zu seinen Extremen, das Innere der Dinge, und den Verstand, und zu seiner Mitte die Erscheinung hat; die Bewegung dieses Schlusses aber gibt die weitere Bestimmung dessen, was der Verstand durch die Mitte hindurch im Innern erblickt, und die Erfahrung, welche er über dieses Verhältniſs des Zusammengeschlossenseyns macht.

146 Noch ist das Innere reines Jenseits für das Bewuſstseyn, denn es findet sich selbst in ihm noch nicht; es ist leer, denn es ist nur das Nichts der Erscheinung und positiv das einfache Allgemeine. Diese Weise des Innern zu seyn, stimmt unmittelbar denjenigen bey, welche sagen, daſs das Innre der Dinge nicht zu erkennen sey; aber der Grund würde anders gefaſst werden müssen. Von diesem Innern, 1807 74 wie es hier unmittelbar ist, ist allerdings keine Kenntniſs vorhanden, aber nicht deſswegen, weil die Vernunft zu kurzsichtig, oder beschränkt, oder wie man es sonst nennen will, wäre; worüber hier noch nichts bekannt ist, denn so tief sind wir noch nicht eingedrungen; sondern um der einfachen Natur der Sache selbst willen, weil nemlich im Leeren nichts erkannt wird, oder von der andern Seite ausgesprochen, weil es eben als das Jenseits des Bewuſstseyns bestimmt ist. — Das Resultat ist freylich dasselbe, wenn ein Blinder in den Reichthum der übersinnlichen Welt, — wenn sie einen hat, er sey nun eigenthümlicher Inhalt derselben, oder das Bewuſstseyn selbst sey dieser Inhalt, — und wenn ein Sehender in die reine Finsterniſs, oder wenn man will, in das reine Licht, wenn sie nur dieses ist, gestellt wird; der Sehende sieht in seinem reinen Lichte so wenig als in seiner reinen Finsterniſs, und gerade so viel als der Blinde in der Fülle des Reichthums, der vor ihm läge. Wenn es mit dem Innern und dem Zusammengeschlossenseyn mit ihm durch die Erscheinung weiter nichts wäre, so bliebe nichts übrig, als sich an die Erscheinung zu halten, das heiſst, etwas als wahr zu nehmen, von dem wir wissen, daſs es nicht wahr ist; oder damit doch in dem leeren, welches zwar erst als Leerheit von gegenständlichen Dingen geworden, aber als Leerheit an sich, auch für die Leerheit aller geistigen Verhältnisse und der Unterschiede des Bewuſstseyns als 1807 75 Bewuſstseyns genommen werden muſs, — damit also in diesem so ganz Leeren, welches auch das Heilige genannt wird, doch etwas sey, es mit Träumereyen, Erscheinungen, die das Bewuſstseyn sich selbst erzeugt, zu erfüllen; es müſste sich gefallen lassen, daſs so schlecht mit ihm umgegangen wird, denn es wäre keines bessern würdig, indem Träumereyen selbst noch besser sind, als seine Leerheit.

147 Das Innere oder das übersinnliche Jenseits ist aber entstanden, es kommt aus der Erscheinung her, und sie ist seine Vermittlung; oder die Erscheinung ist sein Wesen, und in der That seine Erfällung. Das Uebersinnliche ist das sinnliche und wahrgenommene gesetzt, wie es in Wahrheit ist; die Wahrheit des sinnlichen und wahrgenommenen aber ist, Erscheinung zu seyn. Das Uebersinnliche ist also die Erscheinung, als Erscheinung. — Wenn dabey gedacht wird, das Uebersinnliche sey also die sinnliche Welt, oder die Welt, wie sie für die unmittelbare sinnliche Gewiſsheit und Wahrnehmung ist, so ist diſs ein verkehrtes Verstehen; denn die Erscheinung ist vielmehr nicht die Welt des sinnlichen Wissens und Wahrnehmens als seyende, sondern sie als aufgehobene oder in Wahrheit als innere gesetzt. Es pflegt gesagt zu werden, das übersinnliche sey nicht die Erscheinung; dabey wird aber unter der Erscheinung nicht die Erscheinung verstanden, sondern vielmehr die sinnliche Welt, als selbst reelle Wirklichkeit.

1807 76

148 Der Verstand, welcher unser Gegenstand ist, befindet sich auf eben dieser Stelle, daſs ihm das Innere nur erst als das allgemeine noch unerfüllte Ansich geworden; das Spiel der Kräffte hat nur eben diese negative Bedeutung, nicht an sich und nur diese positive, das Vermittelnde, aber auſser ihm zu seyn. Seine Beziehung auf das Innre durch die Vermittlung aber ist seine Bewegung, durch welche es sich ihm erfüllen wird. — Unmittelbar für ihn ist das Spiel der Kräffte; das Wahre aber ist ihm das einfache Innre; die Bewegung der Krafft ist daher ebenso nur als einfaches überhaupt das Wahre. Von diesem Spiele der Kräffte haben wir aber gesehen, daſs es diese Beschaffenheit hat, daſs die Krafft, welche sollicitirt wird von einer andern Krafft, ebenso das sollicitirende für diese andere ist, welche selbst erst hierdurch sollicitirende wird. Es ist hierin ebenso nur der unmittelbare Wechsel oder das absolute Austauschen der Bestimmtheit vorhanden, welche den einzigen Inhalt des auftretenden ausmacht; entweder allgemeines Medium, oder negative Einheit zu seyn. Es hört in seinem bestimmten Auftreten selbst unmittelbar auf, das zu seyn als was es auftritt; es sollicitirt durch sein bestimmtes Auftreten die andere Seite, die sich hiedurch äuſsert; das heiſst, diese ist unmittelbar itzt das, was die erste seyn sollte. Diese beyden Seiten, das Verhältniſs des Sollicitirens und das Verhältniſs des bestimmten entgegengesetzten Inhalts ist jedes für sich die absolute 1807 77 Verkehrung und Verwechslung. Aber diese beyden Verhältnisse sind selbst wieder dasselbe, und der Unterschied der Form, das sollicitirte und das sollicitirende zu seyn ist dasselbe, was der Unterschied des Inhalts ist, das sollicitirte als solches, nemlich das passive Medium; das sollicitirende hingegen das thätige, die negative Einheit oder das Eins. Hiedurch verschwindet aller Unterschied besonderer Kräffte, die in dieser Bewegung vorhanden seyn sollten, gegen einander überhaupt; denn sie beruhten allein auf jenen Unterschieden; und der Unterschied der Kräffte fällt ebenso mit jenen beyden nur in einen zusammen. Es ist alo weder die Krafft noch das sollicitiren und sollicitirt werden, noch die Bestimmtheit, bestehendes Medium und in sich reflectirte Einheit zu seyn, weder einzeln für sich etwas, noch sind es verschiedene Gegensätze; sondern was in diesem absoluten Wechsel ist, ist nur der Unterschied als allgemeiner oder als ein solcher, in welchen sich die vielen Gegensätze reducirt haben. Dieser Unterschied als allgemeiner ist daher das einfache an dem Spiele der Krafft selbst, und das Wahre desselben; er ist das Gesetz der Krafft.

149 Zu dem einfachen Unterschiede wird die absolut wechselnde Erscheinung, durch ihre Bezichung auf die Einfachheit des Innern oder des Verstandes. Das Innre ist zunächst nur das an sich Allgemeine: diſs an sich einfache Allgemeine ist aber wesentlich ebenso absolut der allgemeine Unterschied; denn es ist 1807 78 das Resultat des Wechsels selbst, oder der Wechsel ist sein Wesen; aber der Wechſel, als im Innern gesetzt, wie er in Wahrheit ist, in dasselbe hiemit als ebenso absolut allgemeiner, beruhigter, sich gleich bleibender Unterschied aufgenommen. Oder die Negation ist wesentliches Moment des Allgemeinen, und sie oder die Vermittlung also im Allgemeinen ist allgemeiner Unterschied. Er ist im Gesetze ausgedrückt, als dem beständigen Bilde der unstäten Erscheinung. Die übersinnliche Welt ist hiemit ein ruhiges Reich von Gesetzen, zwar jenseits der wahrgenommenen Welt, denn diese stellt das Gesetz nur durch beständige Veränderung dar, aber in ihr eben so gegenwärtig, und ihr unmittelbares stilles Abbild.

150 Diſs Reich der Gesetze ist zwar die Wahrheit des Verstandes, welche an dem Unterschiede, der in dem Gesetze ist, den Inhalt hat; es ist aber zugleich nur seine erste Wahrheit, und füllt die Erscheinung nicht aus. Das Gesetz ist in ihr gegenwärtig, aber es ist nicht ihre ganze Gegenwart; es hat unter immer andern Umständen eine immer andere Wirklichkeit. Es bleibt dadurch der Erscheinung für sich eine Seite, welche nicht im Innern ist; oder sie ist in Wahrnoch nicht als Erscheinung, als aufgehobenes für sich seyn gesetzt. Dieser Mangel des Gesetzes muſs sich an ihm selbst ebenso hervorthun. Was ihm zu mangeln scheint, ist daſs es zwar den Unterschied selbst an ihm hat, aber als allgemeinen, unbestimmten. 1807 79 Insofern es aber nicht das Gesetz überhaupt, sondern ein Gesetz ist, hat es die Bestimmtheit an ihm; und es sind damit unbestimmt viele Gesetze vorhanden. Allein diese Vielheit ist vielmehr selbst ein Mangel; sie widerspricht nemlich dem Princip des Verstandes, welchem als Bewuſstseyn des einfachen Innern, die an sich allgemeine Einheit das Wahre ist. Die vielen Gesetze muſs er darum vielmehr in Ein Gesetz zusammenfallen lassen. Wie zum Beyspiel, das Gesetz, nach welchem der Stein fällt, und das Gesetz, nach welchem die himmlischen Sphären sich bewegen, als Ein Gesetz begriffen worden ist. Mit diesem ineinanderfallen aber verlieren die Gesetze ihre Bestimmtheit; das Gesetz wird immer oberflächlicher, und es ist damit in der That nicht die Einheit dieser bestimmten Gesetze, sondern ein ihre Bestimmtheit weglassendes Gesetz gefunden; wie das Eine Gesetz, welches die Gesetze des Falles der Körper an der Erde, und der himmlischen Bewegung in sich vereint, sie beyde in der That nicht ausdrückt. Die Vereinigung aller Gesetze in der allgemeinen Attraction drückt keinen Inhalt weiter aus, als eben den bloſsen Begriff des Gesetzes selbst, der darin als seyend gesetzt ist. Die allgemeine Attraction sagt nur diſs, daſs Alles einen bestandigen Unterschied zu anderem hat. Der Verstand meynt dabey, ein al gemeines Gesetz gefunden zu haben, welches die allgemeine Wirklichkeit als solche ausdrucke; aber hat in der That nur den Begriff des 1807 80 *Gesetzes selbst gefunden; jedoch so, daſs er zugleich diſs damit aussagt, alle Wirklichkeit ist an ihr selbst gesetzmäſsig. Der Ausdruck der allgemeinen Attraction hat darum insofern groſse Wichtigkeit, als er gegen das gedankenlose Vorstellen gerichtet ist, welchem alles in der Gestalt der Zufälligkeit sich darbietet, und welchem die Bestimmtheit die Form der sinnlichen Selbstständigkeit hat.

151 Es steht somit den bestimmten Gesetzen, die allgemeine Attraction, oder der reine Begriff des Gesetzes, gegenüber. Insofern dieser reine Begriff, als das Wesen, oder als das wahre Innere betrachtet wird, gehört die Bestimmtheit des bestimmten Gesetzes selbst noch der Erscheinung oder vielmehr dem sinnlichen Seyn an. Allein der reine Begriff des Gesetzes geht nicht nur über das Gesetz, welches, selbst ein bestimmtes, andern bestimmten Gesetzen gegenübersteht, sondern er geht auch über das Gesetz als solches hinaus. Die Bestimmtheit, von welcher die Rede war, ist eigentlich selbst nur verschwindendes Moment, welches hier nicht mehr als Wesenheit vorkommen kann; denn es ist nur das Gesetz als das Wahre vorhanden; aber der Begriff des Gesetzes ist gegen das Gesetz selbst gekehrt. An dem Gesetze nemlich ist der Unterschied selbst unmittelbar aufgefaſst und in das Allgemeine aufgenommen, damit aber ein Bestehen der Momente, deren Beziehung es ausdrückt, als gleichgültiger und an sich seyender Wesenheiten. Diese Theile des 1807 81 Unterschieds am Gesetze, sind aber zugleich selbst bestimmte Seiten; der reine Begriff des Gesetzes, als allgemeine Attraction muſs in seiner wahren Bedeutung so aufgefaſst werden, daſs in ihm als absolut einfachem die Unterschiede, die an dem Gesetze als solchem vorhanden sind, selbst wieder in das Innre als einfache Einheit zurückgehen; sie ist die innre Nothwendigkeit des Gesetzes.

152 Das Gesetz ist dadurch auf eine gedoppelte Weise vorhanden, das einemal als Gesetz, an dem die Unterschiede als selbstständige Momente ausgedrückt sind; das anderemal in der Form des einfachen in sich zurückgegangenseyns, welche wieder Kraft genannt werden kann, aber so daſs sie nicht die zurückgedrängte, sondern die Kraft überhaupt oder als der Begriff der Krafft ist, eine Abstraction, welche die Unterschiede dessen, was attrahirt und attrahirt wird, selbst in sich zieht. So ist, zum Beyspiel, die einfache Electricität, die Kraft; der Ausdruck des Unterschieds aber fallt in das Gesetz; dieser Unterschied ist positive und negative Electricität. Bey der Bewegung des Falles ist die Kraft das einfache, die Schwere, welche das Gesetz hat, daſs die Gröſsen der unterschiedenen Momente der Bewegung, der verflossenen Zeit, und des durchlauffenen Raums, sich wie Wurzel und Quadrat zu einander verhalten. Die Electricität selbst ist nicht der Unterschied an sich oder in ihrem Wesen das Doppelwesen von positiver und negativer 1807 82 Electricität; daher man zu sagen pflegt, sie habe das Gesetz, auf diese Weise zu seyn, auch wohl, sie habe die Eigenschafft, so sich zu äuſsern. Diese Eigenschafft ist zwar wesentliche und einzige Eigenschafft dieser Krafft, oder sie ist ihr nothwendig. Aber die Nothwendigkeit ist hier ein leeres Wort; die Kraft muſs eben, weil sie muſs, so sich verdoppeln. Wenn freylich positive Elektricität gesetzt ist, ist auch negative an sich nothwendig; denn das positive ist nur als Beziehung auf ein negatives, oder das positive ist an ihm selbst der Unterschied von sich selbst, wie eben so das negative. Aber daſs die Electricität als solche, sich so theile, diſs ist nicht an sich das nothwendige; sie als einfache Krafft ist gleichgültig gegen ihr Gesetz, als positive und negative zu seyn; und wenn wir jenes ihren Begriff, diſs aber ihr Seyn nennen, so ist ihr Begriff gleichgültig gegen ihr Seyn; sie hat nur diese Eigenschafft; d. h. eben, es ist ihr nicht an sich nothwendig. — Diese Gleichgültigkeit erhält eine andere Gestalt, wenn gesagt wird, daſs es zur Definition der Electricität gehört, als positive und negative zu seyn, oder daſs diſs schlechthin ihr Begriff und Wesen ist. Alsdenn hieſse ihr Seyn ihre Existenz überhaupt; in jener Definition liegt aber nicht die Nothwendigkeit ihrer Existenz; sie ist entweder, weil man sie findet, das heiſst, sie ist gar nicht nothwendig; oder ihre Existenz ist durch andere Kräffte, das heiſst, ihre Nothwendigkeit ist eine äuſsere. Damit aber, daſs die 1807 83 Nothwendigkeit, in die Bestimmtheit des Seyns durch anderes gelegt wird, fallen wir wieder in die Vielheit der bestimmten Gesetze zurück, die wir so eben verlieſsen, um das Gesetz als Gesetz zu betrachten; nur mit diesem ist sein Begriff als Begriff, oder seine Nothwendigkeit zu vergleichen, die sich aber in allen diesen Formen nur noch als ein leeres Wort gezeigt hat.

153 Noch auf andere als die angezeigte Weise ist die Gleichgültigkeit des Gesetzes und der Krafft, oder des Begriffs und des Seyns vorhanden. In dem Gesetze der Bewegung z. B. ist es nothwendig, daſs die Bewegung in Zeit und Raum sich theile, oder dann auch in Entfernung und Geschwindigkeit. Indem die Bewegung nur das Verhältniſs jener Momente ist, so ist sie, das Allgemeine, hier wohl an sich selbst getheilt; aber nun drücken diese Theile, Zeit und Raum, oder Entfernung und Geschwindigkeit, nicht an ihnen diesen Ursprung aus Einem aus; sie sind gleichgültig gegeneinander, der Raum wird vorgestellt ohne die Zeit, die Zeit ohne den Raum, und die Entfernung wenigstens ohne die Geschwindigheit seyn zu können, — so wie ihre Gröſsen gleichgültig gegeneinander sind; indem sie sich nicht wie positives und negatives verhalten, hiemit nicht durch ihr Wesen aufeinander beziehen. Die Nothwendigkeit der Theilung ist also hier wohl vorhanden; aber nicht der Theile als solcher füreinander. Darum ist aber auch jene erste selbst nur eine vorgespiegelte falsche 1807 84 Nothwendigkeit; die Bewegung ist nemlich nicht selbst als einfaches oder als reines Wesen vorgestellt; sondern schon als getheilt; Zeit und Raum sind ihre selbststandigen Theile oder Wesen an ihnen selbst, oder Entfernung und Geschwindigkeit Weisen des Seyns oder Vorstellens, deren eine wohl ohne die andere seyn kann, und die Bewegung daher nur ihre oberflächliche Beziehung, nicht ihr Wesen. Als einfaches Wesen, oder als Krafft vorgestellt ist sie wohl die Schwere, welche aber diese Unterschiede überhaupt nicht in ihr enthält.

154 Der Unterschied also ist in beyden Fällen kein Unterschied an sich selbst; entweder ist das Allgemeine, die Krafft, gleichgültig gegen die Theilung, welche im Gesetze ist, oder die Unterschiede, Theile des Gesetzes sind es gegen einander. Der Verstand hat aber den Begriff dieses Unterschiedes an sich, eben darin, daſs das Gesetz einestheils das Innre an sich seyende, aber an ihm zugleich unterschiedne ist; daſs dieser Unterschied hiemit innrer Unterschied sey, ist darin vorhanden, daſs das Gesetz einfache Krafft, oder als Begriff desselben ist, also ein Unterschied des Begriffes. Aber dieser innre Unterschied fällt nur erst noch in den Verstand; und ist noch nicht an der Sache selbst gesetzt. Es ist also nur die eigne Nothwendigkeit, was der Verstand ausspricht; einen Unterschied, den er also nur so macht, daſs er es zugleich ausdrückt, daſs der Unterschied kein Unterschied der Sache selbst sey. Diese Nothwendigkeit, 1807 85 die nur im Worte liegt, ist hiemit die Hererzählung der Momente, die den Kreis derselben ausmachen; sie werden zwar unterschieden, ihr Unterschied aber zugleich, kein Unterschied der Sache selbst zu seyn, ausgedrückt, und daher selbst sogleich wieder aufgehoben; diese Bewegung heiſst Erklaren. Es wird also ein Gesetz ausgesprochen, von diesem wird sein an sich allgemeines, oder der Grund, als die Krafft, unterschieden; aber von diesem Unterschiede wird gesagt, daſs er keiner, sondern vielmehr der Grund ganz so beschaffen sey, wie das Gesetz. Die einzelne Begebenheit des Blitzes zum Beyspiel wird als allgemeines aufgefaſst, und diſs allgemeine als das Gesetz der Electricität ausgesprochen: die Erklärung faſst alsdenn das Gesetz in die Krafft zusammen, als das Wesen des Gesetzes. Diese Krafft ist dann so beschaffen, daſs wenn sie sich äuſsert, entgegengesetzte Electricitäten hervortreten, die wieder ineinander verschwinden, das heiſst, die Krafft ist gerade so beschaffen, wie das Gesetz; es wird gesagt, daſs beyde gar nicht unterschieden seyen. Die Unterschiede sind die reine allgemeine Aeuſserung oder das Gesetz, und die reine Krafft; beyde haben aber denselben Inhalt, dieselbe Beschaffenheit; der Unterschied als Unterschied des Inhalts, d. h. der Sache wird also auch wieder zurückgenommen.

155 In dieser tautologischen Bewegung beharrt, wie sich ergibt, der Verstand bey der ruhigen Einheit seines Gegenstandes und die Bewegung fällt nur 1807 86 in ihn selbst, nicht in den Gegenstand; sie ist ein Erklären, das nicht nur Nichts erklärt, sondern so klar ist, daſs es, indem es Anstalten macht, etwas unterschiedenes von dem schon Gesagten zu sagen, vielmehr nichts sagt, sondern nur dasselbe wiederhohlt. An der Sache selbst entsteht durch diese Bewegung nichts neues, sondern sie kommt als Bewegung des Verstandes in Betracht. In ihr aber erkennen wir nun eben dasjenige, was an dem Gesetze vermiſst wurde, nemlich den absoluten Wechsel selbst, denn diese Bewegung, wenn wir sie näher betrachten, ist unmittelbar das Gegentheil ihrer selbst. Sie setzt nemlich einen Unterschied, welcher nicht nur für uns kein Unterschied ist, sondern welchen sie selbst als Unterschied aufhebt. Es ist diſs derselbe Wechsel, der sich als das Spiel der Kräffte darstellte; es war in ihm der Unterschied des sollicitirenden und sollicitirten, der sich äuſsernden, und der in sich zurückgedrängten Krafft; aber es waren Unterschiede, die in Wahrheit keine waren, und sich darum auch unmittelbar wieder aufhoben. Es ist nicht nur die bloſse Einheit vorhanden, so daſs kein Unterschied gesetzt wäre, sondern es ist diese Bewegung, daſs allerdings ein Unterschied gemacht, aber, weil er keiner ist, wieder aufgehoben wird. — Mit dem Erklären also ist der Wandel und Wechsel, der vorhin auſser dem Innern nur an der Erscheinung war, in das Uebersinnliche selbst eingedrungen; unser Bewuſstseyn ist aber aus dem Innern als Gegenstande auf 1807 87 die andere Seite in den Verstand herübergegangen, und hat in ihm den Wechsel.

156 Dieser Wechsel ist so noch nicht ein Wechsel der Sache selbst, sondern stellt sich vielmehr eben dadurch als reiner Wechsel dar, daſs der Inhalt der Momente des Wechsels derselbe bleibt. Indem aber der Begriff als Begriff des Verstandes dasselbe ist, was das Innre der Dinge, so wird dieser Wechsel als Gesetz des Innern für ihn. Er erfahrt also, daſs es Gesetz der Erscheinung selbst ist, daſs Unterschiede werden, die keine Unterschiede sind; oder daſs das Gleichnamige sich von sich selbst abstöſst; und eben so daſs die Unterschiede nur solche sind, die in Wahrheit keine sind, und sich aufheben; oder daſs das Ungleichnamige sich anzieht. — Ein zweytes Gesetz, dessen Inhalt demjenigen, was vorher Gesetz genannt wurde, nemlich dem sich beständigen gleichbleibenden Unterschiede entgegengesetzt ist; denn diſs neue drückt vielmehr das Ungleichwerden des Gleichen, und das Gleichwerden des Ungleichen aus. Der Begriff muthet der Gedankenlosigkeit zu, beyde Gesetze zusammenzubringen, und ihrer Entgegensetzung bewuſst zu werden. — Gesetz ist das zweyte freylich auch, oder ein inneres sichselbstgleiches Seyn, aber eine Sichselbstgleichheit vielmehr der Ungleichheit, eine Beständigkeit der Unbeständigkeit. — An dem Spiele der Kräffte ergab sich dieses Gesetz als eben dieses absolute Uebergehen, und als reiner Wechsel; das gleichnamige, die Krafft 1807 88 *zersetzt sich in einen Gegensatz, der zunächst als ein selbstständiger Unterschied erscheint, aber welcher sich in der That keiner zu seyn erweist; denn es ist das gleichnamige, was sich von sich selbst abstöſst, und diſs abgestoſsene zieht sich daher wesentlich an, denn es ist dasselbe; der gemachte Unterschied, da er keiner ist, hebt sich also wieder auf. Er stellt sich hiemit als Unterschied der Sache selbst, oder als absoluter Unterschied dar, und dieser Unterschied der Sache ist also nichts anders als das Gleichnamige, das sich von sich abgestoſsen hat, und daher nur einen Gegensatz setzt, der keiner ist.

157 Durch diſs Princip wird das erste Uebersinnliche, das ruhige Reich der Gesetze, das unmittelbare Abbild der wahrgenommenen Welt in sein Gegentheil umgekehrt; das Gesetz war überhaupt das sich gleichbleibende, wie seine Unterschiede; itzt aber ist gesetzt, daſs beydes vielmehr das Gegentheil seiner selbst ist; das sich gleiche stöſst sich vielmehr von sich ab, und das sich ungleiche setzt sich vielmehr als das sich gleiche. In der That ist nur mit dieser Bestimmung der Unterschied der innre, oder Unterschied an sich selbst, indem das gleiche sich ungleich, das ungleiche sich gleich ist. — Diese zweyte übersinnliche Welt ist auf diese Weise die verkehrte Welt; und zwar, indem eine Seite schon an der ersten übersinnlichen Welt vorhanden ist, die verkehrte dieser ersten. Das Innere ist damit als Erscheinung vollendet. Denn die erste übersinnliche Welt war nur die unmittelbare 1807 89 Erhebung der wahrgenommenen Welt in das allgemeine Element; sie hatte ihr nothwendiges Gegenbild an dieser, welche noch für sich das Princip des Wechsels und der Veränderung behielt; das erste Reich der Gesetze entbehrte dessen, erhält es aber als verkehrte Welt.

158 Nach dem Gesetze dieser verkehrten Welt ist also das Gleichnamige der ersten das ungleiche seiner selbst, und das Ungleiche derselben ist eben so ihm selbst ungleich, oder es wird sich gleich. An bestimmten Momenten wird diſs sich so ergeben, daſs was im Gesetze der ersten süſs, in diesem verkehrten Ansich sauer; was in jenem schwartz, in diesem weiſs ist. Was im Gesetz der erstern, am Magnete Nordpol, ist in seinem andern übersinnlichen Ansich, (in der Erde nemlich), Südpol; was aber dort Südpol ist, hier Nordpol. Ebenso was im ersten Gesetze der Electricität Sauerstoffpol ist, wird in seinem andern übersinnlichen Wesen Wasserstoffpol; und umgekehrt, was dort der Wasserstoffpol ist, wird hier der Sauerstoffpol. In einer andern Sphäre, ist nach dem unmittelbaren Gesetze, Rache an dem Feinde, die höchste Befriedigung der verletzten Individualität. Dieses Gesetz aber, dem, der mich nicht als Selbstwesen behandelt, mich als Wesen gegen ihn zu zeigen, und ihn vielmehr als Wesen aufzuheben, verkehrt sich durch das Princip der andern Welt in das entgegengesetzte, die Wiederherstellung meiner als des Wesens durch das Aufheben des fremden Wesens 1807 90 in Selbstzerstörung. Wenn nun diese Verkehrung, welche in der Straffe des Verbrechens dargestellt wird, zum Gesetze gemacht ist, so ist auch sie wieder nur das Gesetz der einen Welt, welche eine verkehrte übersinnliche Welt sich gegenüberstehen hat, in welcher das, was in jener verachtet ist, zu Ehren, was in jener in Ehren steht, in Verachtung kommt. Die nach dem Gesetze der ersten den Menschen schändende und vertilgende Straffe verwandelt sich in ihrer verkehrten Welt in die sein Wesen erhaltende, und ihn zu Ehren bringende Begnadigung.

159 Oberflächlich angesehen ist diese verkehrte Welt so das Gegentheil der ersten, daſs sie dieselbe auſser ihr hat, und jene erste als eine verkehrte Wirklichkeit von sich abstöſst, die eine die Erscheinung, die andere aber das Ansich, die eine sie ist, wie sie für ein anderes, die andere dagegen, wie sie für sich ist; so daſs um die vorigen Beyspiele zu gebrauchen, was süſs schmeckt, eigentlich, oder innerlich am Dinge, sauer, oder was am wirklichen Magnete der Erscheinung Nordpol ist, am innern oder wesentlichen Seyn Südpol wäre; was an der erscheinenden Electricität als Sauerstoffpol sich darstellt, an der nichterscheinenden Wasserstoffpol wäre. Oder eine Handlung, die in der Erscheinung Verbrechen ist, sollte im innern eigentlich gut seyn (eine schlechte Handlung eine gute Absicht haben) können; die Straffe nur in der Erscheinung Straffe, an sich oder in einer 1807 91 andern Welt aber Wohlthat für den Verbrecher seyn. Allein solche Gegensätze von Innerem und Aeuſserem, von Erscheinung und Uebersinnlichem, als von zweyerley Wirklichkeiten, sind hier nicht mehr vorhanden. Die abgestoſsenen Unterschiede vertheilen sich nicht von neuem an zwey solche Substanzen, welche sie trügen und ihnen ein getrenntes Bestehen verliehen; wodurch der Verstand aus dem Innern heraus wieder auf seine vorige Stelle zurückfiele. Die eine Seite oder Substanz wäre wieder die Welt der Wahrnehmung, worin das eine der beyden Gesetze sein Wesen triebe, und ihr gegenüber eine innre Welt, gerade eine solche sinnliche Welt, wie die erste, aber in der Vorstellung; sie könnte nicht als sinnliche Welt aufgezeigt, nicht gesehen, gehört, geschmeckt werden, und doch würde sie vorgestellt, als eine solche sinnliche Welt. Aber in der That, wenn das eine gesetzte ein wahrgenommenes ist, und sein Ansich, als das verkehrte desselben, ebenso ein sinnlich vorgestelltes, so ist das Saure was das Ansich des süſsen Dinges wäre, ein so wirkliches Ding, wie es, ein saures Ding; das Schwarze, welches das Ansich des Weiſsen wäre, ist das wirkliche Schwarze; der Nordpol, welcher das Ansich des Südpols ist, ist der an demselben Magnete vorhandne Nordpol; der Sauerstoffpol, der das Ansich des Wasserstoffpols ist, der vorhandne Sauerstoffpol derselben Säule. Das wirkliche Verbrechen aber hat seine Verkehrung, und sein Ansich als Möglichkeit in der Absicht als 1807 92 solcher, aber nicht in einer guten; denn die Wahrheit der Absicht ist nur die That selbst. Das Verbrechen seinem Inhalte nach aber, hat seine Reflexion in sich oder seine Verkehrung an der wirklichen Straffe; diese ist die Aussöhnung des Gesetzes mit der ihm im Verbrechen entgegengesetzten Wirklichkeit. Die wirkliche Straffe endlich hat so ihre verkehrte Wirklichkeit an ihr, daſs sie eine solche Verwirklichung des Gesetzes ist, wodurch die Thätigkeit, die es als Straffe hat, sich selbst aufhebt, es aus thätigem wieder ruhiges und geltendes Gesetz wird, und die Bewegung der Individualität gegen es, und seiner gegen sie erloschen ist.

160 Aus der Vorstellung also der Verkehrung, die das Wesen der einen Seite der übersinnlichen Welt ausmacht, ist die sinnliche Vorstellung von der Befestigung der Unterschiede in einem verschiedenen Elemente des Bestehens zu entfernen, und dieser absolute Begriff des Unterschieds, als innrer Unterschied, Abstoſsen des Gleichnamigen als gleichnamigen von sich selbst, und Gleichseyn des Ungleichen als ungleichen rein darzustellen und aufzufassen. Es ist der reine Wechsel, oder die Entgegensetzung in sich selbst, der Widerspruch zu denken. Denn in dem Unterschiede, der ein innerer ist, ist das entgegengesetzte nicht nur eines von zweyen; — sonst wäre es ein seyendes, und nicht ein entgegengesetztes; — sondern es ist das ontgegengesetzte eines 1807 93 entgegengesetzten, oder das andere ist in ihm unmittelbar selbst vorhanden. Ich stelle wohl das Gegentheil hieher, und dorthin das andere, wovon es das Gegentheil ist; also das Gegentheil auf eine Seite, an und für sich ohne das andere. Ebendarum aber, indem ich hier das Gegentheil an und für sich habe, ist es das Gegentheil seiner selbst, oder es hat in der That das andere unmittelbar an ihm selbst. — So hat die übersinnliche Welt, welche die verkehrte ist, über die andere zugleich ubergriffen, und sie an sich selbst; sie ist für sich die verkehrte, d. h. die verkehrte ihrer selbst; sie ist sie selbst, und ihre entgegengesetzte in Einer Einheit. Nur so ist sie der Unterschied als innerer, oder Unterschied an sich selbst, oder ist als Unendlichkeit.

161 Durch die Unendlichkeit sehen wir das Gesetz zur Nothwendigkeit an ihm selbst vollendet, und alle Momente der Erscheinung in das Innre aufgenommen. Das einfache des Gesetzes ist die Unendlichkeit, heiſst nach dem, was sich ergeben hat, α) es ist ein sich selbstgleiches, welches aber der Unterschied an sich ist; oder es ist gleichnamiges, welches sich von sich selbst abstöſst, oder sich entzweyt. Dasjenige was die einfache Krafft genannt wurde, verdoppelt sich selbst, und ist durch ihre Unendlichkeit das Gesetz. β) Das entzweyte, welches die in dem Gesetze vorgestellten Theile ausmacht, stellt sich als Bestehendes dar; und sie ohne den Begriff des innern Unterschiedes betrachtet, ist der Raum und die 1807 94 Zeit, oder die Entfernung und die Geschwindigkeit, welche als Momente der Schwere auftreten, sowohl gleichgültig und ohne Nothwendigkeit für einander, als für die Schwere selbst, so wie diese einfache Schwere gegen sie, oder die einfache Electricität gegen das positive und negative ist. γ) Durch den Begriff des innern Unterschiedes aber ist diſs ungleiche und gleichgültige, Raum und Zeit u. s. f. ein Unterschied, welcher kein Unterschied ist, oder nur ein Unterschied des Gleichnamigen, und sein Wesen die Einheit; sie sind als positives und negatives gegeneinander begeistet, und ihr Seyn ist dieses vielmehr, sich als Nichtseyn zu setzen, und in der Einheit aufzuheben. Es bestehen beyde unterschiedne, sie sind an sich, sie sind an sich als entgegengesetzte, d. h. das entgegengesetzte ihrer selbst, sie haben ihr Anderes an ihnen und sind nur Eine Einheit.

162 Diese einfache Unendlichkeit, oder der absolute Begriff ist das einfache Wesen des Lebens, die Seele der Welt, das allgemeine Blut zu nennen, welches allgegenwärtig durch keinen Unterschied getrübt noch unterbrochen wird, das vielmehr selbst alle Unterschiede ist, sowie ihr Aufgehobenseyn, also in sich pulsirt, ohne sich zu bewegen, in sich erzittert, ohne unruhig zu seyn. Sie ist sich selbstgleich, denn die Unterschiede sind tavtologisch, es sind Unterschiede, die keine sind. Dieses sichselbstgleiche Wesen bezieht sich daher nur auf sich selbst; auf sich selbst, so ist diſs ein anderes, worauf die Beziehung geht, und das beziehen 1807 95 auf sich selbst ist vielmehr das Entzweyen, oder eben jene Sichselbstgleichheit ist innerer Unterschied Diese Entzweyten sind somit an und für sich selbst, jedes ein Gegentheil — eines andern, so ist darin schon das Andere mit ihm zugleich ausgesprochen; oder es ist nicht das Gegentheil eines andern sondern nur das reine Gegentheil, so ist es also an ihm selbst das Gegentheil seiner; oder es ist überhaupt nicht ein Gegentheil, sondern rein für sich, ein reines sich selbst gleiches Wesen, das keinen Unterschied an ihm hat, so brauchen wir nicht zu fragen, noch weniger das Gequäle mit solcher Frage für die Philosophie anzusehen, oder gar sie ihr für unbeantwortlich halten — wie aus diesem reinen Wesen, wie aus ihm heraus der Unterschied oder das Andersseyn komme; denn es ist schon die Entzweyung geschehen, der Unterschied ist aus dem sich selbst gleichen ausgeschlossen, und ihm zur Seite gestellt worden; was das sich selbst gleiche seyn sollte, ist also schon eins der entzweyten vielmehr, als daſs es das absolute Wesen wäre. Das sich selbst gleiche entzweyt sich, heiſst darum eben so sehr, es hebt sich als schon entzweytes, es hebt sich als Andersseyn auf. Die Einheit, von welcher gesagt zu werden pflegt, daſs der Unterschied nicht aus ihr herauskommen könne, ist in der That selbst nur das Eine Moment der Entzweyung; sie ist die die Abstraction der Einfachheit, welche dem Unterschiede gegenüber ist. Aber indem sie die 1807 96 Abstraction, nur das eine der entgegengesetzten ist, so ist es schon gesagt, daſs sie das Entzweyen ist; denn ist die Einheit ein negatives, ein entgegengesetztes, so ist sie eben gesetzt als das, welches die Entgegensetzung an ihm hat. Die Unterschiede von Entzweyung, und sichselbstgleich werden sind darum eben so nur diese Bewegung des sich Aufhebens; denn indem das sichselbstgleiche, welches sich erst entzweyen oder zu seinem Gegentheile werden soll, eine Abstraction oder schon selbst ein entzweytes ist, so ist sein Entzweyen hiemit ein Aufheben dessen, was es ist, und also das Aufheben seines Entzweytseyns. Das sichselbstgleich werden ist ebenso ein Entzweyen; wassichselbst gleich wird, tritt damit der Entzweyung gegenüber; das heiſst, es stellt selbst sich damit auf die Seite, oder es wird vielmehr ein Entzweytes.

163 Die Unendlichkeit oder diese absolute Unruhe des reinen sich selbst Bewegens, daſs, was auf irgend eine Weise, zum Beyspiel als Seyn, bestimmt ist, vielmehr das Gegentheil dieser Bestimmtheit ist, ist zwar schon die Seele alles bisherigen gewesen, aber im Innern erst ist sie selbst frey hervorgetreten. Die Erscheinung oder das Spiel der Kräffte stellt sie selbst schon dar, aber als Erklären tritt sie zunächst frey hervor; und indem sie endlich für das Bewuſstseyn Gegenstand ist, als das, was sie ist, so ist das Bewuſstseyn Selbstbewuſstseyn. Das Erklären des Verstandes macht zunächst nur die Beschreibung dessen, 1807 97 was das Selbstbewuſstseyn ist. Er hebt die im Gesetze vorhandenen schon reingewordenen, aber noch gleichgültigen Unterschiede auf, und setzt sie in Einer Einheit, der Krafft. Diſs gleichwerden ist aber ebenso unmittelbar ein Entzweyen, denn er hebt die Unterschiede nur dadurch auf, und setzt dadurch das Eins der Krafft, daſs er einen neuen Unterschied macht, von Gesetz und Krafft, der aber zugleich kein Unterschied ist; und hiezu daſs dieser Unterschied ebenso kein Unterschied ist, geht er selbst darin fort, daſs er diesen Unterschied wieder aufhebt, indem er die Krafft eben so beschaffen seyn läſst, als das Gesetz. — Diese Bewegung oder Nothwendigkeit ist aber so noch Nothwendigkeit, und Bewegung des Verstandes, oder sie als solche ist nicht sein Gegenstand, sondern er hat in ihr positive und negative Electricität, Entfernung, Geschwindigkeit, Anziehungskrafft, und tausend andere Dinge zu Gegenständen, welche den Inhalt der Momente der Bewegung ausmachen. In dem Erklären ist eben darum so viele Selbstbefriedigung, weil das Bewuſstseyn dabey, es so auszudrücken, in unmittelbarem Selbstgespräche mit sich, nur sich selbst genieſst, dabey zwar etwas anderes zu treiben scheint, aber in der That sich nur mit sich selbst herumtreibt.

164 In dem entgegengesetzten Gesetze als der Verkehrung des ersten Gesetzes, oder in dem innern Unterschiede wird zwar die Unendlichkeit selbst Gegenstand des Verstandes, aber er verfehlt sie als 1807 98 solche wieder, indem er den Unterschied an sich, das sich selbst abstoſsen des Gleichnamigen, und die Ungleichen, die sich anziehen, wieder an zwey Welten, oder an zwey substantielle Elemente vertheilt; die Bewegung, wie sie in der Erfahrung ist, ist ihm hier ein Geschehen, und das gleichnamige und das ungleiche Prädicate, deren Wesen ein seyendes Substrat ist. Dasselbe, was ihm in sinnlicher Hülle Gegenstand ist, ist es uns in seiner wesentlichen Gestalt, als reiner Begriff. Diſs Auffassen des Unterschieds, wie er in Wahrheit ist, oder das Auffassen der Unendlichkeit als solcher, ist für uns, oder an sich. Die Exposition ihres Begriffs gehört der Wissenschaft an; das Bewuſstseyn aber, wie es ihn unmittelbar hat, tritt wieder als eigne Form oder neue Gestalt des Bewuſstseyns auf, welche in dem vorhergehenden ihr Wesen nicht erkennt, sondern es für etwas ganz anderes ansieht. — Indem ihm dieser Begriff der Unendlichkeit Gegenstand ist, ist es also Bewuſstseyn des Unterschieds als eines unmittelbar ebenso sehr aufgehobenen; es ist für sich selbst, es ist Unterscheiden des Ununterschiedenen, oder Selbstbewuſstseyn. Ich unterscheide mich von mir selbst, und es ist derin unmittelbar für mich, daſs diſs unterschiedene nicht unterschieden ist. Ich, das Gleichnamige stoſse mich von mir selbst ab; aber diſs unterschiedne, ungleichgesetzte, ist unmittelbar, indem es unterschieden ist, kein Unterschied für mich. Das Bewuſstseyn eines Andern, eines Gegenstandes 1807 99 überhaupt, ist zwar selbst nothwendig Selbstbewuſstseyn, reflectirt seyn in sich, Bewuſstseyn seiner selbst, in seinem Andersseyn. Der nothwendige Fortgang von den bisherigen Gestalten des Bewuſstseyns, welchen ihr Wahres ein Ding, ein anderes war, als sie selbst, drückt eben diſs aus, daſs nicht allein das Bewuſstseyn vom Dinge nur für ein Selbstbewuſstseyn möglich ist, sondern daſs diſs allein die Wahrheit jener Gestalten ist. Aber für uns nur ist diese Wahrheit vorhanden, noch nicht für das Bewuſstseyn. Das Selbstbewuſstseyn aber ist erst für sich geworden, noch nicht als Einheit mit dem Bewuſstseyn überhaupt.

165 Wir sehen, daſs im Innern der Erscheinung der Verstand in Wahrheit nicht etwas anders, als die Erscheinung selbst, aber nicht wie sie als Spiel der Kräffte ist, sondern dasselbe in seinen absolut-allgemeinen Momenten und deren Bewegung, und in der That nur sich selbst erfahrt. Erhoben über die Wahrnehmung stellt sich das Bewuſstseyn mit dem Uebersinnlichen durch die Mitte der Erscheinung zusammengeschlossen dar, durch welche es in diesen Hintergrund schaut. Die beyden Extreme, das eine, des reinen Innern, das andere, des in diſs reine Innre schauenden Innern, sind nun zusammengefallen, und wie sie als Extreme, so ist auch die Mitte als etwas anders als sie, verschwunden. Dieser Vorhang ist also vor dem Innern weggezogen, und das Schauen des Innern in das Innere vorhanden; das Schauen des ununterschiedenen Gleichnamigen, 1807 100 welches sich selbst abstöſst, als unterschiedenes Innres setzt, aber für welches ebenso unmittelbar die Ununterschiedenheit beyder ist, das Selbstbewuſstseyn. Es zeigt sich, daſs hinter dem sogenannten Vorhange, welcher das Innre verdecken soll, nichts zu sehen ist, wenn wir nicht selbst dahintergehen, ebensosehr damit gesehen werde, als daſs etwas dahinter sey, das gesehen werden kann. Aber es ergibt sich zugleich, daſs nicht ohne alle Umstände geradezu dahinter gegangen werden könne; denn diſs Wissen, was die Wahrheit der Vorstellung der Erscheinung und ihres Innern ist, ist selbst nur Resultat einer umständlichen Bewegung, wodurch die Weisen des Bewuſstseyns, Meynen, Wahrnehmen und der Verstand verschwinden; und es wird sich ebenso ergeben, daſs das Erkennen dessen, was das Bewuſstseyn weiſs, indem es sich selbst weiſs, noch weiterer Umstände bedarf, deren Auseinanderlegung das Folgende ist.

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 59

III. Force and Understanding, Appearance and the Supersensible World.

132 In the dialectic of sense-certainty, consciousness has lost its hearing and seeing, and so forth; and as perception it has arrived at thoughts, which, however, it first brings together in the unconditionally universal. Now this unconditioned would itself again be nothing other than the extreme of being-for-itself, taking its stand on one side, if it were taken as a resting, simple essence; for nonessence would then stand opposite it. But related to this, it would itself be inessential, and consciousness would not have emerged from the deception of perception. Yet it has proved to be something that has returned into itself out of such conditioned being-for-itself. This unconditioned universal, which is now consciousness's true object, is still its object; consciousness has not yet grasped its concept as concept. The two must be essentially distinguished: for consciousness the object has returned into itself from its relation to another 1807 60 and thereby in itself become concept; but consciousness is not yet for itself the concept, and therefore does not recognize itself in that reflected object. For us, this object has come to be through the movement of consciousness in such a way that consciousness is interwoven with its becoming, and reflection on both sides is the same, or only one. But because consciousness had in this movement only objective essence, not consciousness as such, for its content, the result must be posited for it in an objective significance, and consciousness as still withdrawing from what has come to be, so that this, as objective, is essence for it.

133 Understanding has thereby indeed sublated its own untruth and the untruth of the object; and what has come to be for it through this is the concept of the true: as a true that is in itself, that is not yet concept, or lacks the being-for-itself of consciousness, and that understanding lets take its course without knowing itself in it. This true pursues its essence for itself, so that consciousness has no part in its free realization, but merely watches it and purely apprehends it. We must therefore initially still take consciousness's place and be the concept that develops what is contained in the result; only in this developed object, which offers itself to 1807 61 consciousness as something that is, will consciousness become for itself comprehending consciousness.

134 The result was the unconditionally universal, initially in the negative, abstract sense that consciousness negated its one-sided concepts and abstracted them away, namely relinquished them. But in itself the result has the positive meaning that in it the unity of being-for-itself and being-for-another, or absolute opposition, is immediately posited as the same essence. At first this seems to concern only the form of the moments in relation to one another; but being-for-itself and being-for-another are equally the content itself, because opposition in its truth can have no nature other than what has emerged in the result: namely, that the content held true in perception in fact belongs only to form and dissolves into its unity. This content is at the same time universal; there can be no other content that, through its particular character, would escape returning into this unconditioned universality. Such a content would be some determinate manner of being for itself and relating to another. Yet being-for-itself and relating-to-another in general constitute its nature and essence, whose truth is to be unconditionally universal; and the result is utterly universal.

1807 62

135 But because this unconditioned universal is an object for consciousness, the difference of form and content emerges within it, and in the shape of content the moments have the appearance in which they first offered themselves: on the one hand, a universal medium of many subsisting matters; on the other, a one reflected into itself, in which their independence is extinguished. The former is the dissolution of the thing's independence, or the passivity that is a being-for-another; the latter, however, is being-for-itself. We must see how these moments present themselves in the unconditioned universality that is their essence. It is initially clear that, because they are only in this universality, they no longer lie apart at all, but are essentially sides sublating themselves in themselves, and only their passing over into one another is posited.

136 The one moment thus appears as essence that has taken its stand on one side, as universal medium, or as the subsistence of independent matters. But the independence of these matters is nothing other than this medium; or this universal is entirely the multiplicity of such diverse universals. That the universal is in itself in undivided unity with this multiplicity means, however, that these matters are each where the other is: they interpenetrate reciprocally—yet without touching, since conversely the many differentiated elements are just as independent. Their pure 1807 63 porosity, or their being-sublated, is thereby also posited. This being-sublated in turn, or the reduction of this diversity to pure being-for-itself, is nothing other than the medium itself, and this is the independence of the differences. Or the elements posited as independent pass over immediately into their unity, and their unity immediately into unfolding, and this back again into reduction. This movement, however, is what is called force. One moment of it, namely force as the spreading-out of the independent matters in their being, is its expression; but force as their having-vanished is force driven back into itself out of its expression, or force proper. But first, force driven back into itself must express itself; and second, in expression it is just as much force being within itself as, in this being-within-itself, it is expression. In thus preserving both moments in their immediate unity, it is properly understanding, to which the concept of force belongs, that is the concept sustaining the differentiated moments as differentiated; for in force itself they are supposed not to be differentiated. The difference is thus only in thought. Or, in the foregoing, only the concept of force, not its reality, has as yet been posited. But in fact force is the unconditionally universal, which is in itself just what it is for another, or which has difference—for difference is nothing other than 1807 64 being for another—within itself. Thus, for force to be in its truth, it must be released entirely from thought and posited as the substance of these differences: that is, first, force as this whole force essentially remaining in and for itself, and then its differences as substantial, or as moments subsisting for themselves. Force as such, or as driven back into itself, is thus for itself an excluding one, for which the unfolding of matters is another subsisting essence, and two differentiated, independent sides are thereby posited. Yet force is also the whole, or remains what it is according to its concept: namely, these differences remain pure forms, superficial, vanishing moments. The differences between force proper driven back into itself and the unfolding of independent matters would at the same time not exist at all unless they had a subsistence, or force would not be unless it existed in this opposed manner; but that it exists in this opposed manner means nothing other than that both moments are themselves at the same time independent. Thus what must be considered is this movement of the two moments constantly making themselves independent and sublating themselves again. In general it is clear that this movement is nothing other than the movement of perception, in which both sides, the perceiving and the perceived, 1807 65 are at the same time, on the one hand, one and undifferentiated as the apprehension of the true, yet equally each side is reflected into itself, or for itself. Here these two sides are moments of force; they are in a unity just as much as this unity, appearing as the middle against the extremes that are for themselves, continually divides itself into precisely these extremes, which are only through this division. Thus the movement that previously presented itself as the self-annihilation of contradictory concepts here has objective form, and is the movement of force, from which the unconditionally universal emerges as result as something nonobjective, or as the inner of things.

137 Force, as it has been determined, when represented as such, or as reflected into itself, is one side of its concept, but as a substantialized extreme, namely the one posited under the determinateness of the one. Thus the subsistence of the unfolded matters is excluded from force and is another than it. Since it is necessary that force itself be this subsistence, or that it express itself, its expression is represented as that other approaching force and soliciting it. But in fact, since force necessarily expresses itself, it has within itself what was posited as another essence. The positing of force as a one, and of its essence, expressing itself, as something other approaching it from outside, must be taken back; rather, force is itself this universal 1807 66 medium of the subsistence of the moments as matters; or it has expressed itself, and what was supposed to be the other that solicits is rather force itself. It thus now exists as the medium of the unfolded matters. But it has just as essentially the form of the being-sublated of the subsisting matters, or is essentially one. This being-one is thus now, since force is posited as the medium of matters, something other than force, and force has this essence of its own outside it. But since force must necessarily be what it is not yet posited as being, this other approaches and solicits force to reflection into itself, or sublates its expression. In fact, however, force itself is this being-reflected-into-itself, or this being-sublated of expression; being-one vanishes as it appeared, namely as an other: force is itself this; it is force driven back into itself.

138 What appears as another, soliciting force both to expression and to return into itself, is, as is immediately evident, itself force; for the other shows itself as universal medium no less than as one, and in such a way that each of these shapes at the same time appears only as a vanishing moment. Thus through another being for it, and its being for another, force has not yet gone beyond its concept at all. But at the same time two forces are present; the concept of both is indeed the same, but it has gone out of its unity into duality. Instead of 1807 67 opposition remaining essentially only a moment throughout, it seems to have escaped the dominion of unity by splitting into entirely independent forces. We must examine more closely what this independence amounts to. Initially, the second force appears as what solicits, and, in its content, as universal medium, over against the force determined as solicited. But since the former is essentially an alternation of these two moments and is itself force, it is in fact likewise universal medium only insofar as it is solicited to be so, and equally negative unity, or what solicits the return of force, only through being solicited. Thus this difference between the two—that one was to be soliciting, the other solicited—also transforms into the same interchange of determinatenesses with one another.

139 The play of the two forces thus consists in this opposed determination of both, their being-for-one-another in this determination, and the absolute, immediate exchange of the determinations—a transition through which alone these determinations are, in which the forces seem to appear independently. What solicits is posited, for example, as universal medium, and what is solicited, by contrast, as force driven back into itself; but the former is itself universal medium only because the other is force driven back into itself. 1807 68 Or rather, the latter is what solicits the former and first makes it a medium. The former has its determinateness only through the other, and is soliciting only insofar as it is solicited by the other to be soliciting; and it just as immediately loses this determinateness given to it, for the determinateness passes over to the other, or rather has already passed over to it. The alien element soliciting force appears as universal medium, but only because it has been solicited by force to do so; this means, however, that force posits it in this way and is rather itself essentially universal medium. Force posits what solicits in this way because this other determination is essential to force, that is, because force is rather itself this determination.

140 To complete the insight into the concept of this movement, we may also note that the differences themselves show themselves in a twofold difference: first as differences of content, insofar as one extreme is force reflected into itself, while the other is the medium of matters; second as differences of form, insofar as one solicits and the other is solicited, the former active, the latter passive. According to the difference of content, they are differentiated in general, or for us; according to the difference of form, however, they are independent, separating themselves from and opposing one another in their relation. That the extremes in 1807 69 these two respects are thus nothing in themselves, but that these aspects, in which their differentiated essence was supposed to consist, are only vanishing moments, an immediate passing-over of each into its opposite—this becomes present for consciousness in perceiving the movement of force. But for us, as recalled above, there was also this: in themselves the differences vanished as differences of content and form, and on the side of form, the active, soliciting, or being-for-itself was essentially the same as what presented itself on the side of content as force driven back into itself; the passive, solicited, or being-for-another on the side of form was the same as what presented itself on the side of content as the universal medium of many matters.

141 From this it emerges that the concept of force becomes actual through duplication into two forces, and how it does so. These two forces exist as essences that are for themselves; but their existence is such a movement toward one another that their being is rather a pure being-posited by another—that is, their being has rather the pure meaning of vanishing. They are not extremes that retain something fixed for themselves and send only an external property toward one another into the middle and into their contact; rather, what they are, they are only in this middle and contact. In this there is immediately just as much force's being-driven-back-into-itself, or being-for-itself, as 1807 70 expression, soliciting as being-solicited. These moments are thus not distributed between two independent extremes that offer one another only an opposed tip; rather, their essence is simply this: each is only through the other, and what each thus is through the other, it immediately no longer is in being it. Thus they in fact have no substances of their own that would bear and preserve them. Rather, the concept of force maintains itself as essence in its actuality itself; force as actual is simply only in its expression, which is at the same time nothing other than a sublating of itself. If this actual force is represented as free from its expression and as being for itself, it is force driven back into itself; but this determinateness is in fact, as has emerged, itself only a moment of expression. Thus only the thought of force remains as its truth; and, without support, the moments of its actuality, its substances and its movement, collapse into an undifferentiated unity that is not force driven back into itself, for this is itself only such a moment. Rather, this unity is its concept as concept. The realization of force is thus at the same time the loss of reality; in it force has rather become something entirely different, namely this universality, which understanding first or immediately recognizes as force's essence, and which also proves itself its essence in 1807 71 its supposed reality, in the actual substances.

142 Insofar as we regard the first universal as the concept of understanding, in which force is not yet for itself, the second is now force's essence as it presents itself in and for itself. Or conversely, if we regard the first universal as the immediate, which was to be an actual object for consciousness, this second is determined as the negative of sensuously objective force; it is force as, in its true essence, it is only an object of understanding. That first would be force driven back into itself, or force as substance; but this second is the inner of things, as inner, which is the same as the concept as concept.

143 This true essence of things has now determined itself in such a way that it is not immediately for consciousness; instead, consciousness has a mediated relation to the inner and, as understanding, looks through this middle of the play of forces into the true background of things. The middle joining the two extremes, understanding and the inner, is the developed being of force, which is now for understanding itself a vanishing. It is therefore called appearance, for we call semblance a being that is immediately in itself a nonbeing. But it is not merely a semblance, but appearance, a whole of semblance. This whole as whole, or universal, is what constitutes the 1807 72 inner: the play of forces as its reflection into itself. In it, the essences of perception are objectively posited for consciousness as they are in themselves: namely, as moments immediately transforming themselves into their opposite without rest or being, the one immediately into the universal, the essential immediately into the inessential, and conversely. This play of forces is therefore the developed negative; but its truth is the positive, namely the universal, the object that is in itself. Its being for consciousness is mediated by the movement of appearance, in which the being of perception and the sensuously objective in general have only a negative meaning. Consciousness thus reflects itself out of this into itself as into the true, but as consciousness again makes this true into an objective inner, and distinguishes this reflection of things from its own reflection into itself, just as the mediating movement is likewise still objective for it. This inner is therefore for consciousness an extreme opposed to it; but it is the true for consciousness because, in this inner as the in-itself, consciousness at the same time has its self-certainty, or the moment of its being-for-itself. Yet it is not conscious of this ground, for the being-for-itself that the inner was supposed to have in itself would be nothing other than negative movement; but for consciousness this is still the 1807 73 objective, vanishing appearance, not yet its own being-for-itself. Thus the inner is indeed concept for consciousness, but consciousness does not yet know the nature of the concept.

144 In this inner true, as the absolutely universal, purified of the opposition between universal and singular and come to be for understanding, a supersensible world as the true world now first opens above the sensuous world as the appearing world; above the vanishing here-and-now, the enduring beyond: an in-itself that is the first and therefore itself imperfect appearance of reason, or only the pure element in which truth has its essence.

145 Our object is thus now the syllogism whose extremes are the inner of things and understanding, and whose middle is appearance; but the movement of this syllogism yields the further determination of what understanding beholds in the inner through the middle, and the experience it undergoes concerning this relation of being joined together.

146 The inner is still a pure beyond for consciousness, for consciousness does not yet find itself in it; it is empty, for it is only the nothing of appearance, and positively the simple universal. This mode of being of the inner immediately agrees with those who say that the inner of things cannot be cognized; but the ground would have to be grasped differently. Of this inner, 1807 74 as it immediately is here, there is indeed no knowledge; but not because reason is too shortsighted, limited, or whatever else one wishes to call it—about which nothing is yet known here, for we have not yet penetrated so deeply—but because of the simple nature of the matter itself: namely, because nothing is cognized in the empty, or, expressed from the other side, because the inner is determined precisely as the beyond of consciousness. The result is certainly the same whether a blind person is placed amid the wealth of the supersensible world—if it has any, whether as its own distinctive content or as consciousness itself—or a sighted person is placed in pure darkness, or, if one prefers, in pure light, if the supersensible world is only this. In pure light the sighted person sees as little as in pure darkness, and just as much as the blind person amid the fullness of wealth lying before them. If there were nothing more to the inner and to being joined with it through appearance, nothing would remain but to hold to appearance—that is, take something as true that we know is not true—or to fill the empty with daydreams, appearances that consciousness produces for itself, so that there might yet be something in it. For although this empty first came to be as emptiness of objective things, as emptiness in itself it must also be taken as the emptiness of all spiritual relations and of the differences of consciousness as 1807 75 consciousness. This utterly empty element, also called the holy, would have to submit to such poor treatment, for it would deserve no better, since even daydreams are better than its emptiness.

147 But the inner, or the supersensible beyond, has arisen; it comes from appearance, and appearance is its mediation. Or appearance is its essence, and in fact its fulfillment. The supersensible is the sensuous and perceived posited as it is in truth; but the truth of the sensuous and perceived is to be appearance. The supersensible is thus appearance as appearance. If this is taken to mean that the supersensible is therefore the sensuous world, or the world as it is for immediate sense-certainty and perception, this is a perverted understanding. For appearance is rather not the world of sensuous knowing and perceiving as being, but that world posited as sublated, or in truth as inner. It is customary to say that the supersensible is not appearance; but by appearance one then understands not appearance, but rather the sensuous world as itself real actuality.

1807 76

148 Understanding, which is our object, stands precisely at this point: the inner has become for it only the universal, still unfulfilled in-itself. The play of forces has only this negative meaning, not to be in itself, and only this positive meaning, to be what mediates, but outside the inner. Yet understanding's relation to the inner through mediation is its movement, through which the inner will acquire fulfillment for it. The play of forces is immediate for understanding; but the true for it is the simple inner. Thus the movement of force is likewise the true only as simple in general. But we have seen that this play of forces has this character: the force solicited by another force is equally what solicits that other, which itself becomes soliciting only through this. Here, too, there is only immediate alternation, or the absolute interchange of the determinateness that constitutes the sole content of what appears: to be either universal medium or negative unity. In its determinate appearance it itself immediately ceases to be what it appears as; through its determinate appearance it solicits the other side, which thereby expresses itself—that is, this side is now immediately what the first was supposed to be. Each of these two sides, the relation of soliciting and the relation of determinate, opposed content, is for itself absolute 1807 77 inversion and interchange. Yet these two relations are themselves again the same, and the difference of form, being solicited and soliciting, is the same as the difference of content: the solicited as such is namely the passive medium, while the soliciting is the active, negative unity, or the one. Through this, all difference of particular forces supposedly present in this movement vanishes in relation to one another altogether; for they rested solely on those differences, and the difference between the forces likewise collapses with those two into only one. Thus neither force, nor soliciting and being solicited, nor the determinateness of being a subsisting medium and a unity reflected into itself is anything singly for itself, nor are they different oppositions. Rather, what is in this absolute alternation is only difference as universal, or as that into which the many oppositions have been reduced. This difference as universal is therefore the simple element in the play of force itself, and its truth; it is the law of force.

149 Absolutely changing appearance becomes simple difference through its relation to the simplicity of the inner, or of understanding. The inner is initially only the universal in itself; but this universal, simple in itself, is essentially just as absolutely universal difference, for it is 1807 78 the result of change itself, or change is its essence. Yet change, as posited in the inner as it is in truth, is thereby taken up into the inner as equally absolutely universal difference, brought to rest and remaining equal to itself. Or negation is an essential moment of the universal, and negation, or mediation, in the universal is thus universal difference. It is expressed in law, as the enduring image of unstable appearance. The supersensible world is thereby a tranquil realm of laws, admittedly beyond the perceived world, for the latter presents law only through constant change, yet equally present in it, and its immediate, still image.

150 This realm of laws is indeed the truth of understanding, which has its content in the difference present in law; but at the same time it is only understanding's first truth and does not fill out appearance. Law is present in appearance, but is not its entire presence; under ever different circumstances it has an ever different actuality. A side of appearance thus remains for itself, which is not in the inner; or appearance is in truth not yet posited as appearance, as sublated being-for-itself. This deficiency of law must likewise emerge within law itself. What it seems to lack is that, although it has difference itself within it, it has difference as universal, indeterminate. 1807 79 But insofar as it is not the law in general but a law, it has determinateness within it; and indefinitely many laws are thereby present. Yet this multiplicity is rather itself a deficiency, for it contradicts the principle of understanding, for which, as consciousness of the simple inner, unity universal in itself is the true. Understanding must therefore rather let the many laws collapse into one law, as, for example, the law according to which the stone falls and the law according to which the heavenly spheres move have been comprehended as one law. But in this collapse into one another the laws lose their determinateness; the law becomes ever more superficial, and what has in fact been found is not the unity of these determinate laws, but a law omitting their determinateness—just as the one law uniting within it the laws of bodies falling on earth and of heavenly motion in fact expresses neither. The unification of all laws in universal attraction expresses no further content than the mere concept of law itself, posited in it as being. Universal attraction says only that everything has an enduring difference from another. Understanding supposes it has thereby found a universal law expressing universal actuality as such; but in fact it has found only the concept of 1807 80 law itself, though in such a way that it at the same time says: all actuality is lawful in itself. The expression universal attraction is therefore of great importance insofar as it is directed against thoughtless representation, to which everything presents itself in the shape of contingency and for which determinateness has the form of sensuous independence.

151 Thus universal attraction, or the pure concept of law, stands opposed to determinate laws. Insofar as this pure concept is regarded as essence, or as the true inner, the determinateness of determinate law itself still belongs to appearance, or rather to sensuous being. Yet the pure concept of law goes not only beyond the law that, itself determinate, stands opposed to other determinate laws, but also beyond law as such. The determinateness in question is itself properly only a vanishing moment, which can no longer occur here as essentiality; for only law is present as the true. But the concept of law is turned against law itself. In law, namely, difference itself is apprehended immediately and taken up into the universal, but thereby also a subsistence of the moments whose relation the law expresses, as indifferent essentialities that are in themselves. Yet these parts of the 1807 81 difference within law are themselves at the same time determinate sides; the pure concept of law as universal attraction must be grasped in its true meaning in such a way that, in it as absolutely simple, the differences present in law as such themselves return again into the inner as simple unity. This unity is the inner necessity of law.

152 Law is thereby present in a twofold way: once as law, in which the differences are expressed as independent moments; the other time in the form of simple having-returned-into-itself, which may again be called force, but in such a way that it is not force driven back into itself, but force in general, or as the concept of force—an abstraction drawing into itself the very differences of what attracts and what is attracted. Thus, for example, simple electricity is force; the expression of difference, however, falls within law: this difference is positive and negative electricity. In falling motion, force is the simple element, gravity, which has the law that the magnitudes of the differentiated moments of motion, elapsed time and traversed space, relate to one another as root and square. Electricity itself is not difference in itself, or in its essence the dual essence of positive and negative 1807 82 electricity; hence one customarily says that it has the law of being in this way, or even that it has the property of expressing itself so. This property is indeed the essential and sole property of this force, or is necessary to it. But necessity here is an empty word: force simply must duplicate itself in this way because it must. If, admittedly, positive electricity is posited, negative electricity is also necessary in itself; for the positive is only as relation to a negative, or the positive is in itself difference from itself, as is equally the negative. But that electricity as such divides itself in this way is not what is necessary in itself; as simple force, electricity is indifferent to its law of being positive and negative. And if we call the former its concept, the latter its being, its concept is indifferent to its being; it merely has this property—that is precisely to say, the property is not necessary to it in itself. This indifference takes another shape when it is said that being positive and negative belongs to the definition of electricity, or that this is simply its concept and essence. Then its being would mean its existence in general; but that definition does not contain the necessity of its existence. It exists either because one finds it—that is, it is not necessary at all—or its existence is through other forces, that is, its necessity is external. But in placing 1807 83 necessity in the determinateness of being through another, we fall back into the multiplicity of determinate laws we have just left in order to consider law as law. Only with this is its concept as concept, or its necessity, to be compared; but in all these forms necessity has so far shown itself only an empty word.

153 The indifference of law and force, or of concept and being, is present in another way besides the one indicated. In the law of motion, for example, it is necessary that motion divide into time and space, or again into distance and velocity. Since motion is only the relation of those moments, it, the universal, is here indeed divided in itself; but these parts, time and space, or distance and velocity, do not express within themselves this origin from one. They are indifferent to one another: space is represented as capable of being without time, time without space, and distance at least without velocity—just as their magnitudes are indifferent to one another, since they do not relate as positive and negative, and hence do not relate to one another through their essence. Thus the necessity of division is indeed present here, but not the necessity of the parts as such for one another. For this reason, however, that first necessity is itself only a falsely projected 1807 84 necessity; for motion is not itself represented as simple, or as pure essence, but already as divided. Time and space are its independent parts, or essences in themselves; or distance and velocity are modes of being or representing, one of which can well be without the other, and motion is therefore only their superficial relation, not their essence. Represented as simple essence or as force, motion is indeed gravity, which, however, does not contain these differences within it at all.

154 Thus in both cases difference is no difference in itself: either the universal, force, is indifferent to the division present in law, or the differences, the parts of law, are indifferent to one another. Yet understanding has the concept of this difference in itself, precisely because law is, on the one hand, the inner that is in itself, but is at the same time differentiated within itself. That this difference is thus inner difference is present in law's being simple force, or as its concept, and hence a difference of the concept. But this inner difference still falls only within understanding, and is not yet posited in the matter itself. Thus what understanding expresses is only its own necessity: a difference it makes only in such a way as at the same time to express that the difference is no difference of the matter itself. This necessity, 1807 85 lying only in words, is thus the recounting of the moments that constitute its circle. They are indeed differentiated, but their difference is at the same time expressed as no difference of the matter itself, and is therefore itself immediately sublated again. This movement is called explanation. Thus a law is pronounced; from it, its universal in itself, or its ground, is distinguished as force; but of this difference it is said that it is none, that rather the ground is constituted in exactly the same way as the law. The singular occurrence of lightning, for example, is grasped as a universal, and this universal expressed as the law of electricity; explanation then gathers the law into force as the law's essence. This force is then so constituted that, when it expresses itself, opposed electricities emerge and vanish again into one another; that is, force is constituted exactly like law. It is said that the two are not differentiated at all. The differences are pure universal expression, or law, and pure force; but both have the same content, the same constitution. Thus difference as difference of content, that is, of the matter, is also taken back again.

155 In this tautological movement, as becomes apparent, understanding persists in the tranquil unity of its object, and the movement falls only 1807 86 within understanding itself, not within the object. It is an explanation that not only explains nothing, but is so clear that, while making preparations to say something different from what has already been said, it rather says nothing, but merely repeats the same thing. Nothing new arises in the matter itself through this movement; rather, the movement comes into consideration as a movement of understanding. But in it we now recognize precisely what was missing in law: absolute change itself, for this movement, when we examine it more closely, is immediately its own opposite. It posits a difference that is not merely no difference for us, but that the movement itself sublates as difference. This is the same change that presented itself as the play of forces; in that play there was the difference between soliciting and solicited force, between force expressing itself and force driven back into itself. But these were differences that in truth were none, and hence also immediately sublated themselves again. There is not merely bare unity present, so that no difference would be posited; rather, there is this movement, that a difference is indeed made, but, because it is none, is sublated again. Thus with explanation, the alteration and change that previously lay outside the inner, only in appearance, has penetrated the supersensible itself; but our consciousness has passed over from the inner as object to 1807 87 the other side, into understanding, and has the change within it.

156 This change is thus not yet a change of the matter itself, but presents itself as pure change precisely because the content of the moments of change remains the same. But since the concept, as the concept of understanding, is the same as the inner of things, this change becomes for understanding a law of the inner. Understanding thus experiences that it is a law of appearance itself that differences arise which are no differences; or that like repels itself from itself; and equally that the differences are only such as are in truth none, and sublate themselves; or that unlike attracts itself. This is a second law, whose content is opposed to what was previously called law, namely difference enduringly equal to itself; for this new law expresses rather the becoming-unequal of the equal and the becoming-equal of the unequal. The concept asks thoughtlessness to bring both laws together and become conscious of their opposition. The second is admittedly also law, or an inner, self-equal being, but rather a self-equality of inequality, a constancy of inconstancy. In the play of forces this law emerged as precisely this absolute passing-over and as pure change: the like, force, 1807 88 divides itself into an opposition that initially appears as an independent difference, but in fact proves to be none. For it is the like that repels itself from itself, and what is thus repelled therefore essentially attracts itself, since it is the same. The difference made, since it is none, thus sublates itself again. It thereby presents itself as a difference of the matter itself, or as absolute difference; and this difference of the matter is thus nothing other than the like that has repelled itself from itself, and hence posits only an opposition that is none.

157 Through this principle, the first supersensible world, the tranquil realm of laws, the immediate image of the perceived world, is inverted into its opposite. Law was in general what remained equal to itself, as did its differences; but now it is posited that both are rather their own opposite: the self-equal rather repels itself from itself, and the self-unequal rather posits itself as self-equal. In fact only with this determination is difference inner, or difference in itself, since the equal is unequal to itself and the unequal equal to itself. This second supersensible world is in this way the inverted world, and indeed, since one side is already present in the first supersensible world, the inversion of this first. The inner is thereby completed as appearance. For the first supersensible world was only the immediate 1807 89 elevation of the perceived world into the universal element; it had its necessary counterpart in the perceived world, which still retained for itself the principle of change and alteration. The first realm of laws lacked that principle, but receives it as inverted world.

158 According to the law of this inverted world, then, the like of the first is what is unequal to itself, and the unequal of the first is likewise unequal to itself, or becomes equal to itself. In determinate moments this will appear as follows: what is sweet in the law of the first is sour in this inverted in-itself; what is black there is white here. What in the law of the first is north pole in the magnet is, in its other supersensible in-itself—namely in the earth—south pole; but what is south pole there is north pole here. Likewise, what in the first law of electricity is the oxygen pole becomes in its other supersensible essence the hydrogen pole; and conversely, what is the hydrogen pole there becomes the oxygen pole here. In another sphere, according to immediate law, revenge upon the enemy is the highest satisfaction of injured individuality. But this law—to show myself as essence against someone who does not treat me as a self-being, and rather to sublate that person as essence—is inverted through the principle of the other world into its opposite: the restoration of myself as essence through the sublation of the alien essence 1807 90 turns into self-destruction. Now if this inversion, presented in the punishment of crime, is made into law, it too is again only the law of one world, which has an inverted supersensible world standing opposite it, in which what is despised in the former comes to honor, and what is honored there comes into contempt. Punishment that, according to the law of the first world, dishonors and destroys the human being is transformed in its inverted world into the pardon that preserves that person's essence and brings honor.

159 Viewed superficially, this inverted world is the opposite of the first in such a way that it has the first outside it and repels that first world from itself as an inverted actuality: one is appearance, the other the in-itself; one is the world as it is for another, the other, by contrast, as it is for itself. Thus, to use the previous examples, what tastes sweet would be properly, or inwardly in the thing, sour; or what is north pole in the actual magnet of appearance would be south pole in its inner or essential being; what presents itself as oxygen pole in appearing electricity would be hydrogen pole in nonappearing electricity. Or an action that is a crime in appearance could supposedly be properly good inwardly—a bad action could have a good intention; punishment would be punishment only in appearance, but in itself, or in 1807 91 another world, a benefit to the criminal. Yet such oppositions of inner and outer, appearance and supersensible, as two kinds of actualities, are no longer present here. The repelled differences are not distributed anew between two such substances that would bear them and lend them a separate subsistence, through which understanding would fall back out of the inner into its former position. One side or substance would again be the world of perception, in which one of the two laws pursued its essence; and opposite it would be an inner world, just such a sensuous world as the first, but in representation. It could not be pointed out as a sensuous world, not seen, heard, or tasted, and yet it would be represented as such a sensuous world. But in fact, if one of the elements posited is something perceived, and its in-itself, as its inversion, is likewise something sensuously represented, then the sour that would be the in-itself of the sweet thing is just as actual a thing as the sweet, a sour thing; the black that would be the in-itself of the white is actual black; the north pole that is the in-itself of the south pole is the north pole present in the same magnet; the oxygen pole that is the in-itself of the hydrogen pole is the present oxygen pole of the same pile. But the actual crime has its inversion and its in-itself as possibility in intention as 1807 92 such, though not in a good intention; for the truth of intention is only the deed itself. As regards its content, however, crime has its reflection into itself, or its inversion, in actual punishment; this is the reconciliation of law with the actuality opposed to it in crime. Finally, actual punishment has its inverted actuality within it in such a way that it is a realization of law through which the activity law has as punishment sublates itself: from active, law becomes again tranquil and valid law, and the movement of individuality against law, and of law against individuality, has died away.

160 Thus from the representation of inversion, which constitutes the essence of one side of the supersensible world, the sensuous representation of fixing differences in a diverse element of subsistence must be removed; and this absolute concept of difference must be purely presented and apprehended as inner difference, the repulsion of like as like from itself and the equality of the unequal as unequal. Pure change, or opposition within itself, contradiction, must be thought. For in difference that is inner, the opposed is not merely one of two—otherwise it would be something that is, not something opposed—but is the opposite of an 1807 93 opposite, or the other is itself immediately present within it. I do indeed place the opposite here, and there the other of which it is the opposite; thus the opposite on one side, in and for itself without the other. Yet precisely because I have here the opposite in and for itself, it is the opposite of itself, or in fact has the other immediately within itself. Thus the supersensible world that is the inverted world has at the same time reached over the other world and has it within itself; it is for itself the inverted world, that is, the inversion of itself; it is itself and its opposite in one unity. Only thus is it difference as inner, or difference in itself, or is it as infinity.

161 Through infinity we see law completed into necessity within itself, and all moments of appearance taken up into the inner. To say that the simple element of law is infinity means, according to what has emerged: α) it is something self-equal that is nevertheless difference in itself; or it is like that repels itself from itself, or divides itself in two. What was called simple force duplicates itself and through its infinity is law. β) What is divided, constituting the parts represented in law, presents itself as subsisting; and considered without the concept of inner difference, space and 1807 94 time, or distance and velocity, which appear as moments of gravity, are indifferent and without necessity both for one another and for gravity itself, just as this simple gravity is indifferent to them, or simple electricity to positive and negative. γ) Through the concept of inner difference, however, this unequal and indifferent element—space and time, and so forth—is a difference that is no difference, or only a difference of the like, and its essence is unity. As positive and negative they are animated toward one another, and their being is rather this: to posit themselves as nonbeing and sublate themselves in unity. Both differentiated elements subsist; they are in themselves; they are in themselves as opposites, that is, the opposite of themselves; they have their other within them and are only one unity.

162 This simple infinity, or absolute concept, is the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, to be called the universal blood which, omnipresent, is neither clouded nor interrupted by any difference, but is itself rather all differences and their being-sublated. It thus pulses within itself without moving, trembles within itself without unrest. It is self-equal, for the differences are tautological: differences that are none. This self-equal essence therefore relates only to itself; to itself: then this is another to which the relation goes, and relating 1807 95 to itself is rather division in two, or precisely that self-equality is inner difference. These divided elements are thus in and for themselves, each an opposite—of another: then the other is already expressed together with it; or it is not the opposite of another but only the pure opposite: then it is thus in itself its own opposite. Or it is not an opposite at all but purely for itself, a pure self-equal essence with no difference within it: then we need not ask, still less regard the torment of such a question as philosophy, or even consider it unanswerable for philosophy, how difference or otherness comes from this pure essence, out of it. For division has already occurred: difference has been excluded from the self-equal and set beside it; what was to be the self-equal is thus already one of the divided elements rather than absolute essence. That the self-equal divides itself therefore equally means that it sublates itself as already divided, sublates itself as otherness. The unity of which it is commonly said that difference cannot emerge from it is in fact itself only one moment of division; it is the abstraction of simplicity opposed to difference. But since it is 1807 96 abstraction, only one of the opposites, it is already said that it is division; for if unity is something negative, something opposed, it is posited precisely as what has opposition within it. The differences between dividing in two and becoming-self-equal are therefore equally only this movement of self-sublation; for since the self-equal, which is first supposed to divide itself or become its opposite, is an abstraction, or itself already something divided, its dividing is thereby a sublation of what it is, and hence the sublation of its being-divided. Becoming-self-equal is equally a dividing; what becomes equal to itself thereby takes its stand opposite division—that is, it thereby places itself on one side, or rather becomes something divided.

163 Infinity, or this absolute unrest of pure self-movement, in which what is determined in any way—for example, as being—is rather the opposite of this determinateness, has indeed already been the soul of everything so far; but only in the inner has it itself first emerged freely. Appearance, or the play of forces, already presents infinity itself, but as explanation it first emerges freely; and when, finally, it is an object for consciousness as what it is, consciousness is self-consciousness. Understanding's explanation initially constitutes only the description of what 1807 97 self-consciousness is. Understanding sublates the differences present in law, already purified but still indifferent, and posits them in one unity, force. But this becoming-equal is equally immediately a dividing, for understanding sublates the differences and thereby posits the one of force only by making a new difference, that of law and force, which, however, is at the same time no difference. And toward this, that the difference is equally no difference, understanding itself advances by again sublating this difference, letting force be constituted just as law is. Yet this movement or necessity is thus still the necessity and movement of understanding; or, as such, it is not understanding's object. Rather, in it understanding has as objects positive and negative electricity, distance, velocity, attractive force, and a thousand other things constituting the content of the moments of the movement. Precisely for this reason there is so much self-satisfaction in explanation: in it consciousness, to put it this way, is in immediate conversation with itself and enjoys only itself; though it seems to be pursuing something else, in fact it is only occupied with itself.

164 In the opposed law as the inversion of the first law, or in inner difference, infinity itself does indeed become the object of understanding; but understanding again misses it as 1807 98 such by distributing difference in itself, the self-repulsion of like and the unlikes that attract one another, between two worlds again, or two substantial elements. The movement as it is in experience is here for understanding a happening, and the like and the unlike are predicates whose essence is an existent substrate. What is an object for understanding in sensuous covering is for us an object in its essential shape, as pure concept. This apprehension of difference as it is in truth, or apprehension of infinity as such, is for us, or in itself. The exposition of its concept belongs to science; but consciousness, as it has this concept immediately, appears again as a form of its own, or a new shape of consciousness, which does not recognize its essence in what preceded, but regards that essence as something entirely different. Since this concept of infinity is its object, consciousness is thus consciousness of difference as something immediately just as much sublated; it is for itself, it is differentiation of the undifferentiated, or self-consciousness. I distinguish myself from myself, and in this it is immediately for me that what is distinguished is not distinguished. I, the like, repel myself from myself; but this differentiated element, posited as unequal, is immediately, in being differentiated, no difference for me. Consciousness of another, of an object 1807 99 in general, is indeed itself necessarily self-consciousness, being-reflected into itself, consciousness of itself in its otherness. The necessary progression from the previous shapes of consciousness, for which their true was a thing, something other than themselves, expresses precisely this: not only is consciousness of the thing possible only for a self-consciousness, but self-consciousness alone is the truth of those shapes. Yet this truth is present only for us, not yet for consciousness. Self-consciousness, however, has only become for itself, not yet as unity with consciousness in general.

165 We see that, in the inner of appearance, understanding in truth experiences nothing other than appearance itself, though not as it is as the play of forces, but that same play in its absolutely universal moments and their movement; in fact it experiences only itself. Raised above perception, consciousness presents itself as joined with the supersensible through the middle of appearance, through which it looks into this background. The two extremes, one of the pure inner, the other of the inner looking into this pure inner, have now coincided; and just as they have vanished as extremes, so too the middle has vanished as something other than them. This curtain has thus been drawn away from before the inner, and the looking of the inner into the inner is present: the looking of the undifferentiated like, 1807 100 which repels itself, posits itself as a differentiated inner, but for which the nondifferentiation of both is equally immediate—self-consciousness. It becomes apparent that behind the so-called curtain supposedly concealing the inner there is nothing to see unless we ourselves go behind it, just as much in order that there may be seeing as that there may be something behind it that can be seen. Yet it emerges at the same time that we cannot simply go straight behind it without further ado; for this knowing, which is the truth of the representation of appearance and its inner, is itself only the result of an elaborate movement through which the modes of consciousness—meaning, perception, and understanding—vanish. And it will equally emerge that cognition of what consciousness knows in knowing itself requires further elaboration, the unfolding of which follows.

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 59

III. Force and Understanding, Appearance and the Supersensible World.

132 In the dialectic of sensory certainty, consciousness has lost its hearing and seeing, and so on. As perception, it has reached thoughts, but only in the unconditionally universal does it bring them together. If this unconditioned were taken as a resting, simple essence, it would itself again be only the extreme of being-for-itself stepping to one side. For nonessence would then stand opposite it. Related to nonessence, it would itself be inessential, and consciousness would not have escaped perception's deception. But the unconditioned has emerged as something that has returned into itself from just such a conditioned being-for-itself. This unconditioned universal, now the true object of consciousness, is still consciousness's object. Consciousness has not yet grasped its concept as concept. The two must be carefully distinguished. For consciousness, the object has returned 1807 60 into itself from its relation to another and has thereby become concept in itself. But consciousness is not yet the concept for its own self, and therefore does not recognize itself in that reflected object. For us, this object has come to be through consciousness's movement in such a way that consciousness is woven into the object's becoming, and the reflection on both sides is the same, or only one. But in this movement consciousness had only objective essence as its content, not consciousness as such. So for consciousness the result must be posited with an objective meaning. Consciousness still withdraws from what has come to be, so that this is essence for it as something objective.

133 Understanding has thereby sublated both its own untruth and the object's untruth. What has come to be for it through this is the concept of truth, as truth existing in itself, not yet concept, or lacking consciousness's being-for-itself. Understanding lets this truth go its way without knowing itself within it. This truth carries on its essential activity for itself. Consciousness takes no part in its free realization, but merely watches and purely apprehends it. So for the time being we must still take its place and be the concept that develops what the result contains. Only at this developed object, which presents itself to 1807 61 consciousness as something that is, does consciousness become comprehending consciousness for itself.

134 The result was the unconditionally universal, initially in the negative and abstract sense that consciousness negated its one-sided concepts and abstracted from them, that is, gave them up. But in itself the result has the positive meaning that in it the unity of being-for-itself and being-for-another, or the absolute opposition, is immediately posited as the same essence. At first this seems to concern only the form of the moments in relation to one another. But being-for-itself and being-for-another are equally the content itself. For the opposition in its truth can have no nature other than what has emerged in the result: the content held true in perception in fact belongs only to form and dissolves into its unity. This content is also universal. There can be no other content whose particular constitution exempts it from returning into this unconditioned universality. Such a content would be some determinate way of being for itself and relating to another. But being for itself and relating to another in general constitute its nature and essence, whose truth is to be unconditionally universal. The result is universal without qualification.

1807 62

135 But because this unconditionally universal is an object for consciousness, the difference between form and content emerges in it. In the shape of content, the moments look as they first appeared: on one side, a universal medium of many subsisting matters; on the other, a one reflected into itself, in which their independence is extinguished. The former is the dissolution of the thing's independence, or passivity, which is a being-for-another; the latter is being-for-itself. We must see how these moments present themselves in the unconditioned universality that is their essence. It is immediately clear that, because they are only within this universality, they no longer lie apart at all. Instead, they are essentially sides that sublate themselves within themselves. Only their passage into one another is posited.

136 So one moment appears as essence stepped to one side, as universal medium, or as the subsistence of independent matters. But the independence of these matters is nothing other than this medium. Or, this universal is altogether the multiplicity of such different universals. To say that the universal is within itself in undivided unity with this multiplicity means that each of these matters is where the other is. They interpenetrate, but without touching, because conversely the many differentiated matters are equally independent. Their pure 1807 63 porosity, or their being-sublated, is thereby also posited. This being-sublated, in turn, or the reduction of this diversity to pure being-for-itself, is nothing other than the medium itself, and this is the independence of the differences. Or, the differences posited as independent pass immediately into their unity, their unity immediately into unfolding, and this again back into reduction. But this movement is what is called force. One of its moments, force as the spread of independent matters in their being, is its expression. Force as their having-disappeared is force driven back into itself out of its expression, or force proper. But first, force driven back into itself must express itself. Second, in its expression it is just as much force being within itself as, in this being-within-itself, it is expression. If we thus hold both moments in their immediate unity, understanding, to which the concept of force belongs, is properly the concept that carries the differentiated moments as differentiated. For within force itself they are supposed not to be differentiated. So the difference is only in thought. Or, what has been posited above is only the concept of force, not its reality. But in fact force is the unconditionally universal, which is within itself just what it is for another, or which has difference within itself—for difference is nothing other than 1807 64 being-for-another. So for force to be in its truth, it must be released entirely from thought and posited as the substance of these differences. That means, first, force as this whole force must remain essentially in and for itself, and then its differences must be posited as substantial, or as moments subsisting for themselves. Thus force as such, or as driven back into itself, is for itself as an excluding one, for which the unfolding of matters is another subsisting essence. Two different, independent sides are thus posited. But force is also the whole, or remains what it is according to its concept. These differences, then, remain pure forms, superficial disappearing moments. The differences between force proper, driven back into itself, and the unfolding of independent matters would not exist at all unless they had a subsistence. Or force would not be unless it existed in this opposed way. But saying that it exists in this opposed way means nothing other than that both moments are themselves also independent. We must therefore consider this movement in which the two moments constantly make themselves independent and sublate themselves again. In general, it is clear that this movement is nothing other than the movement of perceiving. In that movement, both sides, the perceiving and the perceived, 1807 65 are at one time one and undifferentiated as the apprehension of truth, yet each side is also reflected into itself, or for itself. Here these two sides are moments of force. They are in a unity, but this unity, which appears as the middle against the extremes existing for themselves, constantly breaks apart into these very extremes, which exist only through this. The movement that previously appeared as the self-destruction of contradictory concepts thus has objective form here. It is the movement of force, from which the unconditionally universal emerges as its result, as something nonobjective, or as the inner being of things.

137 Force, as defined, when represented as such or as reflected into itself, is one side of its concept, but as an extreme made substantial, specifically the extreme posited under the determination of the one. The subsistence of unfolded matters is thereby excluded from force and is something other than it. Since it is necessary that force itself be this subsistence, or express itself, its expression appears in this way: that other approaches force and solicits it. But in fact, since force necessarily expresses itself, it has within itself what was posited as another essence. We must take back the positing of force as a one and its essence, expressing itself, as something other that approaches it from outside. Instead, force is itself this universal 1807 66 medium of the subsistence of moments as matters. Or, it has expressed itself, and what was supposed to be the other, soliciting term is instead force itself. Thus it now exists as the medium of unfolded matters. But just as essentially, it has the form of the subsisting matters' being-sublated, or is essentially one. Now, therefore, when force is posited as the medium of matters, this being-one is something other than force, and force has this essence of its own outside itself. But since force must necessarily be what it is not yet posited as, this other approaches and solicits it to reflect into itself, or sublates its expression. In fact, however, force itself is this being-reflected into itself, or this being-sublated of expression. Being-one disappears as it appeared, namely as another. Force itself is it: force is driven back into itself.

138 What appears as another and solicits force both to expression and to return into itself is, as immediately follows, itself force. For the other shows itself equally as universal medium and as one, and each of these forms appears only as a disappearing moment. So by having another for it and being for another, force has not yet stepped outside its concept at all. But at the same time two forces are present. The concept of both is indeed the same, but it has passed out of its unity into duality. Instead of 1807 67 opposition remaining essentially only a moment throughout, it seems, through splitting into wholly independent forces, to have escaped the rule of unity. We must look more closely at this independence. First, the second force confronts the force determined as solicited as the soliciting force, specifically, in its content, as universal medium. But since the second force is essentially the alternation of these two moments and is itself force, it is in fact likewise a universal medium only when solicited to be so. It is also negative unity, or what solicits force to return into itself, only through being solicited. Thus this difference between the two—that one was supposed to be soliciting, the other solicited—also changes into the same interchange of determinations.

139 The play of the two forces therefore consists in both being determined in these opposed ways, in their being for one another in this determination, and in the absolute, immediate interchange of determinations. Only through this transition do the determinations exist in which the forces seem to appear independently. For example, the soliciting force is posited as universal medium, and the solicited force, by contrast, as driven back into itself. But the former is itself a universal medium only because the other is force driven back into itself. 1807 68 Or rather, the latter is what solicits the former and first makes it a medium. The former has its determinacy only through the other, and is soliciting only insofar as it is solicited by the other to be soliciting. It just as immediately loses this determinacy given to it, for this passes to the other, or rather has already passed to it. The alien term soliciting force appears as universal medium, but only because force has solicited it to do so. But this means that force posits it in this way and is essentially universal medium itself. Force posits the soliciting term in this way because this other determination is essential to force—that is, because force is instead this determination itself.

140 To complete our insight into the concept of this movement, we can also note that the differences themselves appear in a double distinction. First, they appear as differences of content: one extreme is force reflected into itself, the other the medium of matters. Second, they appear as differences of form: one is soliciting, the other solicited, the former active, the latter passive. By the difference of content, they are different in general, or different for us. By the difference of form, however, they are independent, separating themselves from one another in their relation and standing opposed. In perceiving the movement of force, consciousness comes to see that in 1807 69 both respects the extremes are nothing in themselves. These sides, in which their distinct essence was supposed to consist, are only disappearing moments, each immediately passing into its opposite. But for us, as noted above, there was also this: in themselves, the differences vanished as differences of content and form. On the side of form, what was active, soliciting, or being-for-itself was essentially the same as what appeared on the side of content as force driven back into itself. The passive, solicited, or being-for-another on the side of form was the same as what appeared on the side of content as the universal medium of many matters.

141 From this it follows that the concept of force becomes actual by doubling into two forces, and we see how this happens. These two forces exist as essences that are for themselves. But their existence is such a movement toward one another that their being is instead a pure being-posited through another. That is, their being has instead the pure meaning of disappearing. They are not extremes that retain something fixed for themselves and send only an external property into the middle, into their contact with one another. Rather, what they are, they are only in this middle and contact. Here are immediately both force's being-driven-back-into-itself, or being-for-itself, and 1807 70 its expression, both soliciting and being-solicited. These moments are therefore not divided between two independent extremes that merely offer opposite tips to one another. Instead, their essence is simply this: each is only through the other, and what each is through the other it immediately no longer is in being it. Thus they in fact have no substances of their own that would carry and preserve them. Instead, the concept of force preserves itself as essence in force's actuality itself. Actual force is simply only in its expression, which is itself nothing other than a self-sublation. Represented as free of its expression and existing for itself, this actual force is force driven back into itself. But as we have found, this determinacy is in fact itself only a moment of expression. So only the thought of force remains as its truth. Without any support, the moments of its actuality, its substances and its movement, collapse into an undifferentiated unity. This is not force driven back into itself, since that is itself only one such moment. Rather, this unity is its concept as concept. The realization of force is therefore at the same time a loss of reality. In this realization, force has instead become something quite different: this universality that understanding initially or immediately recognizes as force's essence, and that also proves to be its essence in 1807 71 its supposed reality, in the actual substances.

142 If we consider the first universal as the concept of understanding, in which force is not yet for itself, then the second is now force's essence as it presents itself in and for itself. Or conversely, if we consider the first universal as the immediate that was supposed to be an actual object for consciousness, then this second is determined as the negative of sensuously objective force. It is force as, in its true essence, it is only an object of understanding. The first would be force driven back into itself, or force as substance. The second, however, is the inner being of things as inner, which is the same as the concept as concept.

143 This true essence of things has now been determined as not immediately present for consciousness. Instead, consciousness has a mediated relation to the inner and, as understanding, looks through this middle of the play of forces into the true background of things. The middle joining the two extremes, understanding and the inner, is force's developed being, which for understanding itself is now a disappearing. It is therefore called appearance. For we call a being that immediately within itself is a nonbeing a seeming. But this is not merely a seeming; it is appearance, a whole of seeming. This whole as whole, or as universal, is what constitutes the 1807 72 inner: the play of forces as its reflection into itself. In it, the essences of perception are objectively posited for consciousness as they are in themselves: as moments immediately turning into their opposite without rest or being. The one turns immediately into the universal, the essential immediately into the inessential, and conversely. This play of forces is therefore the developed negative. But its truth is the positive, namely the universal, the object that is in itself. Its being for consciousness is mediated by the movement of appearance. In this movement, the being of perception, and sensory objectivity in general, has only negative meaning. Consciousness thus reflects out of it into itself as into truth. But as consciousness, it again makes this truth into an objective inner and distinguishes this reflection of things from its own reflection into itself. The mediating movement likewise remains an objective movement for it. So this inner is an extreme standing over against consciousness. Yet it is truth for consciousness because in it, as in the in-itself, consciousness also has certainty of itself, or the moment of its being-for-itself. But it is not yet conscious of this ground. For the being-for-itself that the inner was supposed to have within itself would be nothing other than negative movement. But for consciousness this is still 1807 73 objective, disappearing appearance, not yet its own being-for-itself. The inner is therefore indeed concept for consciousness, but consciousness does not yet know the nature of the concept.

144 In this inner truth, as the absolutely universal purified of the opposition of universal and individual and having come to be for understanding, a supersensible world as the true world now first opens above the sensory world as the appearing world. Above the disappearing here-and-now opens the enduring beyond: an in-itself that is the first and therefore itself imperfect appearance of reason, or only the pure element in which truth has its essence.

145 Thus our object is now the syllogism whose extremes are the inner being of things and understanding, and whose middle is appearance. The movement of this syllogism gives the further determination of what understanding sees in the inner through the middle, and the experience understanding undergoes concerning this relation of being joined together.

146 The inner is still a pure beyond for consciousness, since consciousness does not yet find itself in it. It is empty, for it is only the nothing of appearance and, positively, the simple universal. This way of being of the inner immediately agrees with those who say that the inner being of things cannot be known. But the ground would have to be understood differently. There is certainly no knowledge of this inner 1807 74 as it immediately is here. But this is not because reason is too shortsighted or limited, or whatever else we might call it. Nothing is yet known about that, since we have not penetrated so deeply. It is because of the simple nature of the subject itself: nothing is known in the empty. Or, expressed from the other side, it is because the inner is defined precisely as the beyond of consciousness. The result is certainly the same if a blind person is placed amid the riches of the supersensible world—if it has any, whether as its own distinctive content or as consciousness itself as this content—and if a sighted person is placed in pure darkness, or, if we like, in pure light, provided it is only this. The sighted person sees as little in his pure light as in his pure darkness, and exactly as much as the blind person amid the fullness of the riches that would lie before him. If there were nothing more to the inner and to being joined to it through appearance, nothing would remain but to stick to appearance: to take as true something we know is not true. Or, so that there might still be something in this emptiness—which has admittedly first come to be as emptiness of objective things, but as emptiness in itself must also be taken as the emptiness of all spiritual relations and of the distinctions of consciousness as 1807 75 consciousness—we would fill this complete emptiness, also called the holy, with daydreams, appearances consciousness produces for itself. It would have to put up with being treated so badly, for it would deserve no better, since even daydreams are better than its emptiness.

147 But the inner, or the supersensible beyond, has arisen. It comes from appearance, and appearance is its mediation. Or, appearance is its essence and in fact its fulfillment. The supersensible is the sensory and perceived posited as they are in truth. But the truth of the sensory and perceived is to be appearance. Thus the supersensible is appearance as appearance. If this is taken to mean that the supersensible is therefore the sensory world, or the world as it is for immediate sensory certainty and perception, this is a mistaken understanding. For appearance is not the world of sensory knowing and perceiving as existing, but that world posited as sublated, or in truth as inner. People commonly say that the supersensible is not appearance. But by appearance they then mean not appearance, but rather the sensory world as itself real actuality.

1807 76

148 Understanding, which is our object, stands at precisely this point: the inner has come to be for it only as the universal in-itself, still unfilled. The play of forces has only this negative meaning, not to be in itself, and only this positive meaning, to be what mediates, but to be outside the inner. Yet understanding's relation to the inner through mediation is its movement, through which the inner will fill itself for understanding. What is immediately for understanding is the play of forces. But truth for it is the simple inner. The movement of force is therefore likewise true only as something simple in general. But we have seen that this play of forces is constituted as follows. The force solicited by another force is equally what solicits this other, which becomes soliciting only through this. Here too there is only immediate change, or the absolute interchange of the determinacy that forms the sole content of what appears: being either universal medium or negative unity. In its determinate appearance, it itself immediately ceases to be what it appears as. Through its determinate appearance it solicits the other side, which thereby expresses itself. That is, the other side is now immediately what the first was supposed to be. Each of these two sides—the relation of soliciting and the relation of determinate, opposed content—is for itself absolute 1807 77 reversal and interchange. But these two relations are themselves again the same. The difference of form, being solicited and being soliciting, is the same as the difference of content: the solicited as such is the passive medium; the soliciting, by contrast, is the active, the negative unity or the one. Through this, every mutual difference between particular forces that were supposed to be present in this movement disappears altogether. For they rested only on those differences. The difference of forces, together with those other two differences, likewise collapses into just one. Thus neither force, nor soliciting and being solicited, nor the determinacy of being a subsisting medium and a unity reflected into itself is individually something for itself. Nor are they different oppositions. What exists in this absolute interchange is only difference as universal, or difference into which the many oppositions have been reduced. This difference as universal is therefore the simple element in the play of force itself, and its truth. It is the law of force.

149 Absolutely changing appearance becomes simple difference through its relation to the simplicity of the inner, or of understanding. The inner is initially only the universal in itself. But this universal, simple in itself, is essentially just as absolutely universal difference. For it is 1807 78 the result of change itself, or change is its essence. Yet change, posited in the inner as it truly is, is thereby taken into the inner as equally absolutely universal difference, at rest and remaining equal to itself. Or, negation is an essential moment of the universal. Negation, or mediation, in the universal is therefore universal difference. This is expressed in the law as the enduring image of unstable appearance. The supersensible world is thus a quiet realm of laws: beyond the perceived world, since the latter presents law only through constant change, yet equally present in that world and its immediate, still image.

150 This realm of laws is indeed understanding's truth, with its content in the difference within the law. But it is also only understanding's first truth and does not fill out appearance. Law is present in appearance, but is not its whole presence. Under continually different circumstances, it has a continually different actuality. Appearance thus retains a side for itself that is not in the inner. Or, appearance is not yet truly posited as appearance, as sublated being-for-itself. This deficiency of law must likewise reveal itself in law itself. What seems to be lacking is that law indeed has difference within itself, but as universal, indeterminate difference. 1807 79 Yet insofar as it is not law in general but a law, it has determinacy within it, and there are therefore indefinitely many laws. But this multiplicity is itself instead a deficiency. It contradicts the principle of understanding, for which, as consciousness of the simple inner, unity universal in itself is truth. So understanding must instead let the many laws collapse into one law. For example, the law by which a stone falls and the law by which the heavenly spheres move have been comprehended as one law. But in this collapse into one another, the laws lose their determinacy. The law becomes ever more superficial. In fact, what has been found is not the unity of these determinate laws but a law that leaves out their determinacy. Thus the one law uniting within itself the laws of falling bodies on earth and of heavenly motion in fact expresses neither. The union of all laws in universal attraction expresses no further content than the mere concept of law itself, posited there as being. Universal attraction says only that everything has an enduring difference from another. Understanding thinks it has found a universal law expressing universal actuality as such. But in fact it has found only the concept of 1807 80 law itself, though in such a way that it also says this: all actuality is within itself governed by law. Expressing universal attraction is therefore very important insofar as it opposes thoughtless representation, for which everything appears in the shape of accident and determinacy has the form of sensory independence.

151 Thus universal attraction, or the pure concept of law, stands opposite determinate laws. Insofar as this pure concept is considered essence, or the true inner, the determinacy of the determinate law itself still belongs to appearance, or rather to sensory being. But the pure concept of law goes beyond not only the law that, itself determinate, stands opposite other determinate laws. It also goes beyond law as such. The determinacy discussed was itself really only a disappearing moment that can no longer appear here as essentiality. For only law is present as truth. But the concept of law is turned against law itself. In law, difference itself is grasped immediately and taken into the universal. This also means a subsistence of the moments whose relation law expresses, as indifferent essences existing in themselves. Yet these parts of 1807 81 the difference in law are themselves determinate sides. In its true meaning, the pure concept of law as universal attraction must be grasped as follows: in it, as absolutely simple, the differences present in law as such themselves return into the inner as simple unity. This unity is the law's inner necessity.

152 Law is thereby present in a double way. At one time it is law in which differences are expressed as independent moments. At the other it is in the form of simple having-returned-into-itself, which can again be called force. But this is not force driven back into itself. It is force in general, or the concept of force: an abstraction that draws into itself the differences of what attracts and what is attracted. Thus, for example, simple electricity is force, while the expression of difference falls within law. This difference is positive and negative electricity. In falling motion, force is the simple term, gravity, which has the law that the magnitudes of the different moments of motion, elapsed time and traversed space, relate as root and square. Electricity itself is not difference in itself, or in its essence the double essence of positive and negative 1807 82 electricity. So people commonly say that it has the law of being in this way, or that it has the property of expressing itself in this way. This property is indeed the essential and sole property of this force, or is necessary to it. But necessity here is an empty word. Force simply must double itself in this way because it must. If positive electricity is posited, then negative electricity is of course also necessary in itself. For the positive is only as relation to a negative, or the positive is within itself difference from itself, as is the negative. But electricity as such dividing in this way is not what is necessary in itself. As simple force, electricity is indifferent to its law of being positive and negative. If we call the former its concept and the latter its being, its concept is indifferent to its being. It merely has this property. That means precisely that the property is not necessary to it in itself. This indifference takes another shape when we say that being positive and negative belongs to electricity's definition, or that this is simply its concept and essence. Then its being would mean its existence in general. But that definition does not contain the necessity of its existence. Electricity either is because we find it—that is, it is not necessary at all—or its existence is through other forces, meaning that its necessity is external. But by placing 1807 83 necessity in the determination of being through another, we fall back into the multiplicity of determinate laws that we just left behind to consider law as law. Only with law as law must its concept as concept, or its necessity, be compared. Yet in all these forms necessity has so far shown itself only as an empty word.

153 The indifference of law and force, or of concept and being, is present in another way besides the one indicated. In the law of motion, for example, it is necessary that motion divide itself into time and space, or again into distance and velocity. Since motion is only the relation of those moments, motion, the universal, is here indeed divided within itself. But these parts, time and space, or distance and velocity, do not express in themselves this origin from one. They are indifferent to one another. Space is represented as capable of being without time, time without space, and at least distance without velocity. Their magnitudes are likewise indifferent to one another, since they do not relate as positive and negative, and therefore do not relate to one another through their essence. So the necessity of the division is indeed present here, but not the necessity of the parts as such for one another. For this reason, however, that first necessity is itself only an illusory, false 1807 84 necessity. For motion is not itself represented as simple, or as pure essence, but already as divided. Time and space are its independent parts, or essences in themselves. Or distance and velocity are ways of being or representing, one of which can certainly be without the other. Motion is therefore only their superficial relation, not their essence. Represented as simple essence or as force, motion is indeed gravity, but gravity does not contain these differences within it at all.

154 Thus in both cases difference is no difference within itself. Either the universal, force, is indifferent to the division in law, or the differences, the parts of law, are indifferent to one another. But understanding has the concept of this difference in itself, precisely because law is on one side the inner existing in itself, while also differentiated within itself. That this difference is an inner difference is present in law's being simple force, or its own concept: thus a difference of the concept. But this inner difference still falls only within understanding. It is not yet posited in the subject matter itself. So understanding expresses only its own necessity. It makes a difference only in such a way as also to express that the difference is not a difference of the subject matter itself. This necessity, 1807 85 which lies only in the word, is therefore a recounting of the moments making up its circle. They are indeed distinguished, but their difference is also expressed as not being a difference of the subject matter itself, and is therefore itself immediately sublated again. This movement is called explanation. Thus a law is stated. From it, its universal in-itself, or ground, is distinguished as force. But this difference is said not to be a difference: instead, the ground is constituted exactly as the law is. For example, the individual event of lightning is grasped as universal, and this universal is expressed as the law of electricity. Explanation then gathers law into force as law's essence. This force is then so constituted that when it expresses itself, opposite electricities emerge and disappear into one another again. That is, force is constituted exactly as law is: the two are said not to differ at all. The differences are pure universal expression, or law, and pure force. But both have the same content, the same constitution. So the difference as a difference of content, that is, of the subject matter, is taken back again as well.

155 In this tautological movement, as we find, understanding persists in the quiet unity of its object. The movement falls only 1807 86 within understanding itself, not within the object. It is an explanation that not only explains nothing but is so clear that, while preparing to say something different from what has already been said, it instead says nothing, merely repeating the same thing. This movement produces nothing new in the subject matter itself, but comes into consideration as a movement of understanding. Yet in it we now recognize precisely what was missing in law: absolute change itself. For if we consider this movement more closely, it is immediately its own opposite. It posits a difference that is not only no difference for us, but that it itself sublates as difference. This is the same change that appeared as the play of forces. In that play there was the difference of soliciting and solicited, of force expressing itself and force driven back into itself. But these were differences that were in truth no differences, and so immediately sublated themselves again. What is present is not merely unity, as though no difference were posited. It is this movement: a difference is indeed made, but, because it is no difference, is sublated again. With explanation, then, alteration and change, which previously were outside the inner only in appearance, have penetrated the supersensible itself. But our consciousness has passed from the inner as object 1807 87 to the other side, into understanding, and has change within it.

156 Thus this change is not yet a change of the subject matter itself. Rather, it shows itself as pure change precisely because the content of the changing moments stays the same. But since the concept, as understanding's concept, is the same as the inner being of things, this change becomes for understanding the law of the inner. Understanding therefore experiences that it is the law of appearance itself that differences arise which are no differences, or that like repels itself from itself. Equally, the differences are only differences that in truth are none and sublate themselves, or unlike attracts itself. This is a second law, whose content is opposed to what was previously called law, the difference that constantly remains equal to itself. For the new law instead expresses like becoming unlike and unlike becoming like. The concept requires thoughtlessness to bring the two laws together and become conscious of their opposition. The second is certainly law too, or an inner being equal to itself. But it is instead a self-sameness of inequality, a constancy of inconstancy. In the play of forces, this law emerged as precisely this absolute passing-over and pure change. The like, force, 1807 88 splits into an opposition that initially appears as an independent difference, but in fact proves not to be one. For it is the like that repels itself from itself, and what is repelled therefore essentially attracts itself, since it is the same. So the difference made, since it is no difference, sublates itself again. It thereby presents itself as a difference of the subject matter itself, or as absolute difference. This difference of the subject matter is therefore nothing other than the like that has repelled itself from itself and thus posits only an opposition that is none.

157 Through this principle, the first supersensible world, the quiet realm of laws, the immediate image of the perceived world, is reversed into its opposite. Law in general was what remained equal to itself, as were its differences. But now it is posited that both are instead their own opposite. What is equal to itself instead repels itself from itself, and what is unequal to itself instead posits itself as equal to itself. In fact, only with this determination is difference inner, or difference within itself, since the like is unlike itself and the unlike is like itself. In this way, this second supersensible world is the inverted world. Since one side is already present in the first supersensible world, it is specifically the inversion of this first world. The inner is thereby completed as appearance. For the first supersensible world was only the immediate 1807 89 raising of the perceived world into the universal element. It had its necessary counterpart in the perceived world, which still kept for itself the principle of change and alteration. The first realm of laws lacked this principle, but receives it as the inverted world.

158 According to the law of this inverted world, then, the like of the first world is unlike itself, and that world's unlike is equally unlike itself, or becomes like itself. In determinate moments this will appear as follows: what is sweet in the first world's law is sour in this inverted in-itself; what is black there is white here. What, in the first world's law, is the north pole of a magnet is, in its other supersensible in-itself—namely in the earth—the south pole. What is south pole there is north pole here. Likewise, what in the first law of electricity is the oxygen pole becomes the hydrogen pole in its other supersensible essence. Conversely, what is the hydrogen pole there becomes the oxygen pole here. In another sphere, according to immediate law, revenge on an enemy is the highest satisfaction of injured individuality. But this law—to show myself as essence against someone who does not treat me as a selflike essence, and instead to sublate him as essence—is reversed into its opposite through the principle of the other world. Restoring myself as essence by sublating the alien essence 1807 90 turns into self-destruction. Now, if this inversion, presented in the punishment of crime, is made into law, it too is again only the law of one world. Opposite it stands an inverted supersensible world, in which what is despised in the first world is honored, and what is honored there is despised. Punishment, which according to the first world's law dishonors and destroys the person, changes in its inverted world into the pardon that preserves his essence and brings him honor.

159 Viewed superficially, this inverted world is the opposite of the first in such a way that it has the first outside itself and repels it as an inverted actuality. One would be appearance, the other the in-itself; one would be the world as it is for another, the other as it is for itself. To use the earlier examples, what tastes sweet would really, or inwardly in the thing, be sour. What is north pole in the actual magnet of appearance would be south pole in its inner or essential being. What appears as oxygen pole in appearing electricity would be hydrogen pole in nonappearing electricity. Or an action that is a crime in appearance could supposedly be really good inwardly—a bad action could have a good intention. Punishment would be punishment only in appearance, but in itself, or in 1807 91 another world, a benefit for the criminal. But such oppositions of inner and outer, appearance and supersensible, as two kinds of actuality, are no longer present here. The repelled differences are not distributed anew between two substances that would carry them and give them a separate subsistence. That would make understanding fall out of the inner and back to its previous position. One side or substance would again be the world of perception, in which one of the two laws carried on its activity. Opposite it would be an inner world, just such a sensory world as the first, but in representation. It could not be pointed out as a sensory world, or seen, heard, or tasted, yet it would be represented as such a sensory world. But in fact, if the one posited is something perceived and its in-itself, as its inversion, is likewise something sensuously represented, then the sour that would be the sweet thing's in-itself is as actual a thing as the sweet thing: a sour thing. The black that would be the white's in-itself is actual black. The north pole that is the south pole's in-itself is the north pole present in the same magnet. The oxygen pole that is the hydrogen pole's in-itself is the oxygen pole present in the same battery. But actual crime has its inversion and its in-itself as possibility in intention as 1807 92 such, not in a good intention. For the truth of intention is only the deed itself. Crime in its content, however, has its reflection into itself, or its inversion, in actual punishment. Punishment is the reconciliation of law with the actuality opposed to it in crime. Finally, actual punishment has its inverted actuality within it in this way: it is an actualization of law through which law's activity as punishment sublates itself. From being active, law becomes once again quiet and valid law, and both individuality's movement against law and law's movement against individuality are extinguished.

160 Thus we must remove from the idea of inversion, which constitutes the essence of one side of the supersensible world, the sensory idea of differences fixed in a different element of subsistence. We must purely present and grasp this absolute concept of difference as inner difference: the repulsion of like as like from itself, and the likeness of unlike as unlike. Pure change, or opposition within itself, contradiction, must be thought. For in difference that is inner, the opposed is not merely one of two. Otherwise it would be something that is, not something opposed. Instead, it is the opposite of an 1807 93 opposite, or the other is itself immediately present within it. I may place the opposite here and the other, whose opposite it is, there: thus the opposite on one side, in and for itself without the other. But precisely because I have the opposite in and for itself here, it is its own opposite, or in fact has the other immediately within itself. Thus the supersensible world that is inverted has at the same time reached over the other world and has it within itself. It is for itself the inverted world: that is, the inversion of itself. It is itself and its opposite in one unity. Only in this way is it difference as inner, or difference within itself, or is it as infinity.

161 Through infinity, we see law completed into necessity within itself, and all moments of appearance taken into the inner. To say that law's simple element is infinity means, according to what has emerged: α) It is something equal to itself that is, however, difference in itself. Or it is like that repels itself from itself, or splits itself in two. What was called simple force doubles itself and through its infinity is law. β) What has split, and constitutes the parts represented in law, presents itself as subsisting. Considered without the concept of inner difference, these parts—space and 1807 94 time, or distance and velocity, appearing as moments of gravity—are indifferent and without necessity both for one another and for gravity itself. Simple gravity is likewise indifferent to them, as simple electricity is to positive and negative. γ) Through the concept of inner difference, however, this unlike and indifferent content—space and time, and so on—is a difference that is no difference, or only a difference of like, whose essence is unity. They are animated toward one another as positive and negative. Their being is instead this: to posit themselves as nonbeing and sublate themselves in unity. Both differentiated terms subsist; they are in themselves. They are in themselves as opposed: that is, the opposite of themselves. They have their other within them and are only one unity.

162 This simple infinity, or the absolute concept, should be called the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, the universal blood. Present everywhere, it is neither clouded nor interrupted by any difference. Instead, it is itself all differences as well as their being-sublated. So it pulses within itself without moving, trembles within itself without being restless. It is equal to itself, for the differences are tautological: differences that are none. This self-identical essence therefore relates only to itself. To itself: then this is another to which the relation goes, and 1807 95 relating to itself is instead splitting in two. Or that very self-sameness is inner difference. These divided terms are thus in and for themselves, each an opposite. If we say the opposite of another, the other is already expressed together with it. Or if it is not the opposite of another but only pure opposition, it is within itself its own opposite. Or suppose it is not an opposite at all, but purely for itself, a pure, self-identical essence without any difference within it. Then we need not ask—still less take tormenting oneself with the question as philosophy, or even regard philosophy as unable to answer—how difference or otherness comes from this pure essence, how it comes out of it. For the splitting has already happened: difference has been excluded from what is equal to itself and placed beside it. What was supposed to be equal to itself is therefore already one of the divided terms rather than absolute essence. To say that what is equal to itself splits in two therefore means just as much that it sublates itself as already divided, sublates itself as otherness. The unity out of which difference is commonly said to be unable to emerge is in fact itself only one moment of the division. It is the abstraction of simplicity standing opposite difference. But insofar as it is 1807 96 abstraction, only one of the opposites, it has already been said that it is the splitting. For if unity is something negative, something opposed, then it is posited precisely as what has opposition within it. The differences of splitting in two and becoming equal to itself are therefore likewise only this movement of self-sublation. What is equal to itself, which is supposed first to split or become its opposite, is an abstraction, or already itself something divided. So its splitting is a sublation of what it is, and thus a sublation of its being-divided. Becoming equal to itself is likewise a splitting. What becomes equal to itself thereby stands opposite division. That is, it thereby places itself on one side, or rather becomes something divided.

163 Infinity, or this absolute restlessness of pure self-movement, means that what is determined in any way—for example, as being—is instead the opposite of this determinacy. It has indeed already been the soul of everything so far, but only in the inner has it itself emerged freely. Appearance, or the play of forces, already presents it, but it first emerges freely as explanation. Finally, when it is an object for consciousness as what it is, consciousness is self-consciousness. Understanding's explanation initially gives only the description of what 1807 97 self-consciousness is. Understanding sublates the differences present in law, already purified but still indifferent, and posits them in one unity, force. But this becoming-equal is just as immediately a splitting. For understanding sublates the differences, and thereby posits the one of force, only by making a new difference between law and force, which is nevertheless also no difference. And understanding itself advances to this difference's also being no difference by sublating it again, letting force be constituted in just the same way as law. But this movement or necessity is still necessity and movement of understanding. It as such is not understanding's object. Instead, in this movement understanding has as its objects positive and negative electricity, distance, velocity, attractive force, and a thousand other things that constitute the content of the movement's moments. Explanation contains so much self-satisfaction precisely because in it consciousness, so to speak, is in immediate conversation with itself and enjoys only itself. It seems to be doing something else, but in fact only busies itself with itself.

164 In the opposed law as the inversion of the first law, or in inner difference, infinity itself does indeed become understanding's object. But understanding again misses infinity as 1807 98 such, by once again distributing difference in itself—the self-repulsion of like, and the unlike terms that attract one another—between two worlds, or two substantial elements. Movement as it is in experience is here an event for understanding. Like and unlike are predicates whose essence is an existing substrate. What is an object for understanding in a sensory covering is for us an object in its essential shape, as pure concept. This grasping of difference as it is in truth, or grasping of infinity as such, is for us, or in itself. The exposition of its concept belongs to science. But consciousness, as it has the concept immediately, again appears as a form of its own, a new shape of consciousness. It does not recognize its essence in what preceded, but regards that as something entirely different. Since this concept of infinity is its object, consciousness is therefore consciousness of difference as something just as immediately sublated. It is for itself; it is distinguishing the undistinguished, or self-consciousness. I distinguish myself from myself, and in this it is immediately present for me that what is distinguished is not distinguished. I, the like, repel myself from myself. But this distinguished term, posited as unlike, is immediately, in being distinguished, no difference for me. Consciousness of another, of an object 1807 99 in general, is itself necessarily self-consciousness: being reflected into itself, consciousness of itself in its otherness. The necessary advance from the previous forms of consciousness, for which their truth was a thing, something other than themselves, expresses precisely this. Not only is consciousness of a thing possible only for a self-consciousness, but self-consciousness alone is the truth of those forms. Yet this truth is present only for us, not yet for consciousness. Self-consciousness has, however, come to be only for itself, not yet as unity with consciousness in general.

165 We see that in the inner being of appearance, understanding in truth experiences nothing other than appearance itself. But it experiences appearance not as the play of forces, but in its absolutely universal moments and their movement—and in fact experiences only itself. Raised above perception, consciousness presents itself as joined with the supersensible through the middle of appearance, through which it looks into this background. The two extremes—the one of the pure inner, the other of the inner looking into this pure inner—have now coincided. Just as they have disappeared as extremes, so the middle has disappeared as something other than them. This curtain has therefore been drawn away from the inner. What is present is the inner looking into the inner: the looking of undifferentiated like, 1807 100 which repels itself, posits itself as a differentiated inner, but for which the lack of difference between both is just as immediate—self-consciousness. It turns out that behind the so-called curtain meant to conceal the inner, there is nothing to see unless we go behind it ourselves, both so that there may be seeing and so that there may be something behind it to be seen. But it also turns out that we cannot go straight behind it without any further work. For this knowing, which is the truth of the representation of appearance and its inner, is itself only the result of a detailed movement through which the modes of consciousness—meaning, perceiving, and understanding—disappear. It will likewise turn out that knowing what consciousness knows when it knows itself requires further work, which the following account will unfold.

About this section

III. Force and understanding 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 5 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