[p. 444]
|444| as it is for pure empiricism, for which each has equal rights with the other and which prefers to the other no determinacy, one of which is as real as the other, to which we shall return below when comparing pure empiricism with this scientific kind of which we are here speaking.
After this formal totality we must consider how absolute unity appears in the reflex of empirical knowing, both as simple unity, which we can call the original one, and as totality; both unities, which in the absolute are one and whose identity is the absolute, must in that knowing be separated and occur as something different.
As to that unity in the first place, empiricism cannot be concerned with it as the essence of necessity, which for the appearance is an external bond of it; for in the unity which is the essential one the manifold is immediately annihilated and nothing; because manifold being is the principle of empiricism, it is denied it to penetrate to the absolute nothing of its qualities, which for it are absolute and, also through the concept according to which they are absolutely many, are infinitely many. That original unity can therefore signify only a, as far as possible, simple and small multitude of qualities, with which it believes it can suffice for the cognition of the rest. That ideal, in which what roughly counts as arbitrary and contingent is wiped out and the smallest necessary multitude of the manifold is posited, is for empiricism, in the physical as in the ethical, the chaos, which in the latter is represented, now more under the image of being by imagination as the state of nature, now more under the form of possibility and of abstraction, as an enumeration of the faculties found in man by empirical psychology, [as] the nature and vocation of man, and in this way what is asserted on the one hand as absolutely necessary, in itself, absolute, is at the same time on the other hand acknowledged as something

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.