[p. 198]
|198| concealing it; but the singular as the negative is that which negatively excludes an other, the non-negative, the universal. Both relate themselves to themselves, or are universal, but likewise only one is the universal; both are negatives of the other, but likewise only one is the negative. The one (the singular) is inwardly universal in relation to itself, to itself, for it excludes precisely the other, its being outwardly; – and is negative towards this other; – but the other, the universal, is inwardly negative, it contains negativity in itself, but is universal outwardly.28) Each thus has what it is inwardly outside it at the same time as the other. Or the in-itself of each, that which it is not for the other, is the other, is that which is for it. They are the opposite of themselves; they themselves this movement, this otherness; of relating themselves, precisely relation is the opposite of their indifference, which they have in the judgement.
28) In the margin: memory, positing of necessity in general α) concept, understanding of what is necessarily only opposed – ground is the I, thus it posits itself in the judgement β) judgement, positing of the indifference of the two, not being-related, like determinate concepts γ) syllogism, unity of both such that each is itself this unity of opposition and indifference.
Its being inwardly [is] distinguished from their being outwardly; [they are] thus sundered within themselves, sublating themselves; – that being inwardly is in and for itself, but precisely this (e.g. negativity, universal) is its other. Or the universal is equal to itself, thus it is negativity, for this is its interior; thus singularity, thus it is universality, opposite, inequality, its true being be being outwardly, i.e. only in relationship, not in and for
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.