Logic can be subjective

Online library

second part
The objectivity

[402] In the first book of objective logic this became abstract Be shown as transitioning to the To be there, but also going back to that Essence. In the second the essence shows itself that it becomes Reasons determined thereby in the existence occurs and to substance realized, but again in the term going back. It has now been shown first of all that the concept is to objectivity certainly. It is self-evident that this latter transition is in its determination the same as what is otherwise in the metaphysics as the Enough from Terms, namely from Concepts of God on his existence, or as the so-called ontological proof from Existence of God happened. - It is also known that Descartes' most sublime thought, that God is whose concept includes its beingAfter having sunk into the bad form of the formal inference, namely into the form of that proof, finally the Critique of Reason and the thought that itself not to pluck existence out of the concept let, is inferior. Some of the evidence concerning this has already been illuminated; in the first part, p. 88 ff., by adding the Be in its next opposite, the Not be, disappeared and as the truth of both this Become has shown, the confusion has been made noticeable when in a certain existence not that Be of the same, but to be certain content recorded and therefore meant when this particular content, e.g. one hundred thalers, with another certain content, e.g. compared to the context of my perception, my state of wealth and a difference is found as to whether that content is added to this or not - as if the difference between being and non-being or even the difference between being and the concept is being spoken of. There is also [402] on p. 119 and Part II, p. 78 the determination occurring in the ontological proof an epitome of all realities been illuminated. - The essential subject of that proof, the connection between the concept and existence, but concerns the just closed consideration of the Conceptual and the whole process by which he is to objectivity certainly. As negativity which is absolutely identical with itself, the concept is what determines itself; it has been noticed that by looking at the particulars he has judgment decides to become a Real, being puts; this still abstract reality is completed in the objectivity.

If it would now seem as if the transition of the concept into objectivity was something other than the transition from the concept of God to his existence, then on the one hand we should consider that the definite content, God, made no difference in the logical course and the ontological proof would only be an application of this logical course to that particular content. On the other hand, however, it is essential to remember the remark made above that the subject only receives determinacy and content in its predicate, but before the latter, he may otherwise be what he wants for feeling, intuition and representation comprehending knowledge only one Surname is; in the predicate, however, the determinateness begins at the same time realization at all. - The predicates, however, must be grasped as themselves still included in the concept, thus as something subjective, with which it has not yet come into existence; to this extent, however, on the one hand realization of the concept in the judgment not yet completed. On the other hand, even the mere determination of an object by predicates, without being the realization and objectification of the concept at the same time, remains something so subjective that it does not even represent true knowledge and Determination of the term of the object is - a subjective in the sense of abstract reflection and unfathomed [403] ideas. - God as a living God and even more as an absolute spirit becomes only in his To do recognized. Man was instructed early on to use his Works to recognize; only the Provisions show which his properties to be called, just as to be in it Be is included. This is how comprehending knowledge grasps his Working, d. i. himself, the term Of God in his Be and its being in its conception. The Be for yourself or even that To be there is such a poor and limited definition that the difficulty of finding it in the concept could only have come from the fact that no one considered what that was Be or To be there itself is. - The Bethan the whole abstract, immediate relationship to oneselfis nothing other than the abstract moment of the concept, which is abstract universality, which also achieves what one demands of being, except to be the term; for however much it is a moment of the concept, it is just as much the difference or the abstract judgment of it, in that it places itself opposite itself. The term, even as a formal one, already contains that directly Be in a truer and richer Form by, as related negativity, Detail is.

However, the difficulty becomes insurmountable, in the concept in general and also in the concept of God that Be to find, if it is to be one, that in the context of external experience or in the form of sensory perception how the hundred thalers in my financial condition should only appear as something that is grasped with the hand, not with the spirit, essentially visible to the outer, not to the inner eye - when that being, reality, truth is called what things have as sensual, temporal and transitory. - If a philosophizing does not rise above the senses in being, then it is added that it does not leave the merely abstract thought in the concept either; this stands over against being. [404]

The habit of taking the concept only as something as one-sided as the abstract thought is, will find decency to recognize what was proposed earlier, namely the transition from Concepts of God to his Be as one application from the presented logical course of the objectification of the term. If, however, it is admitted, as is usually the case, that the logical as the formal constitutes the form for the knowledge of any particular content, then at least that relation would have to be granted, if not at all precisely in the case of the opposition of the concept to objectivity, in the case of the untrue Concepts and a reality that is just as untrue as a last is left standing - only at the exposition of the pure concept it has been further indicated that the same is the absolute, divine concept itself, so that in truth it is not the relation of one application would take place, but that logical course would be the direct representation of God's self-determination for being. It should be noted, however, that when the concept is to be represented as the concept of God, it is to be understood as it is already in the idea is recorded. That pure concept runs through the finite forms of judgment and conclusion because it is not yet posited as in and for itself one with objectivity, but is only in the process of becoming it. So this objectivity is not yet the divine existence, not yet the reality that appears in the idea. But objectivity is just that much richer and higher than that To be or to be of ontological proof, as the pure concept is richer and higher than that metaphysical emptiness of Epitome all reality. - However, I will spare another opportunity to shed light on the multiple misunderstandings brought about by the logical formalism in the ontological as well as in the other so-called proofs of the existence of God, as well as the Kantian criticism of the same, and by producing [405] to their true meaning, the underlying thoughts in their worth and dignity.

As has already been pointed out, several forms of immediacy have already occurred, but in different determinations. In the sphere of being it is being itself and Dasein, in the sphere of being it is existence and then reality and substantiality, in the sphere of the concept, besides immediacy as abstract universality, it is now objectivity. - If it is not a question of the accuracy of philosophical conceptual differences, these expressions may be used as synonymous; those determinations arose from the necessity of the concept; - Be is that at all first Immediacy and To be there the same with the first definiteness. The existence with the thing is the immediacy which results from the Reasons emerges - from the neutralizing mediation of the simple reflection of the essence. The reality but and that Substantiality is the immediacy that emerges from the abolished difference between the still unessential existence as appearance and its essentiality. The objectivity finite is the immediacy to which the concept is determined through the abolition of its abstraction and mediation. Philosophy has the right to choose from the language of common life, which is made for the world of ideas, such expressions which correspond to the determinations of the concept seem to come close. It cannot be a question of accepting a word chosen from the language of common life provethat in common life too one associates the same concept with it for which philosophy uses it, for common life has no concepts but representations, and it is philosophy itself to recognize the concept of what is otherwise a mere representation. [ 406] It must therefore suffice if the idea of ​​their expressions which are used for philosophical determinations has something approximate of their differences in mind, as it may be the case with those expressions, that one recognizes in them shades of the idea which are closer to each other refer to the appropriate terms. - It may be harder to admit that something be could without to exist; but at least one becomes uncomfortable with being, for example, as the copula of judgment exist swap and don't say: this product exists expensive, suitable, etc., the money exists Metal or metallic, instead of: this product is expensive, suitable, etc., the money is Metal17; Be but and Appearance, appearance and realityas well as bare Be against reality are also differentiated in other ways, as are all these expressions even more so from the objectivity. But should they be used synonymously, philosophy will in any case have the freedom to use such empty abundance of language for its differences.

It is in the apodictic judgment where, as in the completion of the judgment, the subject loses its determinateness in relation to the predicate, to the double meaning deriving from it subjectivity was remembered, namely of the concept and also of the externality and contingency that otherwise oppose it. This is how the doubled meaning, the independent, appears for objectivity Facing terms, but also the in-and-for-itself to be. Since the object in that sense stands in opposition to the I = I, expressed in subjective idealism as the absolute true, it is the manifold world in its immediate existence with which I or the concept only engages in the infinite struggle to obtain through negation [407 ] this void in itself The first certainty of oneself for others real truth to give his equality with himself. - In a more indefinite sense it means such an object in general for some interest and activity of the subject.

In the opposite sense, however, the objective means that In-and-for-themselvesthat is without limitation and contrast. In this respect, sensible principles, perfect works of art, etc. are called objectivewhen they are free and above all randomness. Although reasonable, theoretical, or moral principles belong only to the subjective, to consciousness, what is in-and-for-itself is nevertheless called objective; the knowledge of truth is set in recognizing the object as it is free from the additive of subjective reflection, and doing justice in compliance with objective laws which, without a subjective origin and no arbitrariness and their necessity, are capable of reversing treatment .

From the present standpoint of our treatise, objectivity has first of all the meaning of in-and-for-itself being of the concept, the term that implies in its self-determination Mediation to the immediate Relationship to itself has broken. This immediacy is itself immediately and completely permeated by the concept, just as its totality is immediately identical with its being. But since, furthermore, the concept has just as much to establish the free being-for-itself of its subjectivity, a relation of it as In order to Objectivity, in which the immediacy of it becomes that which is negative towards Him and which is to be determined by its activity, hereby acquiring the other meaning, which is in and for itself nothing, insofar as it is opposed to the concept of being.

First of all Now objectivity is in its immediacy, its moments for the sake of the totality of all moments in independent indifference as Objects apart exist and in their relationship the subjective unity[408] of the term only as inner or as outer have - the mechanism. - By being in it though

Secondly that unit turns out to be immanent The law of the objects themselves shows that their relationship becomes theirs peculiar, Difference based on their law and a relationship in which their specific independence is canceled out - the Chemism.

ThirdThis essential unity of objects is thus posited as distinct from their independence; it is the subjective concept, but posited as in and for itself related to objectivity, as purpose, - the teleology.

Since the end is the concept which is posited as referring to objectivity in itself and by itself making up for its lack of being subjective, this becomes first outer Expediency through the realization of the purpose for inner and to idea.

17

In a French report, in which the commander states that he expected the wind usually rising off the island towards morning) in order to steer ashore, the expression occurs: "le vent ayant été longtemps sans exister «; here the difference is simply a result of the other idiom, e.g. "il a été longtemps sans m'écrire".