[p. 447]
|447| , and already in this form of linking the two sides of the absolute identity it is contained that the totality will present itself just as turbid and impure as that of the original unity. The ground of the being of the one of these unities here separated for the other, or of the transition from the first to the second, is as easily given by empiricism as grounding in general comes easy to it. According to the fiction of the state of nature it is left for the sake of the evils which it carries with it, which means nothing other than: what one wishes to arrive at is presupposed, namely that an accord of what conflicts as chaos is the good or that to which one must come; or into the representation of the original qualities as possibilities such a ground of transition is immediately put as drive of sociability, or the concept-form of a faculty is renounced and one proceeds at once to the wholly particular of the appearance of that second unity, to the historical, as subjugation of the weaker by the more powerful, etc. The unity itself, however, according to the principle of absolute qualitative plurality, as in empirical physics, can do nothing but again [posit], in the place of the many atomic qualities, manifold entanglements of the simple and separated many posited as original, superficial contacts of these qualities, which in themselves in their particularity are indestructible and capable of entering only light, partial combinations and mixtures, hence it can present a plurality of the divided or of relations and, insofar as the unity is posited as a whole, posit the empty name of a formless and external harmony under the name of society and the state. Even if this unity is represented as absolute, whether for itself or, in a more empirical relation, according to its origin, as receiving its immediate origin from God, and if in its subsistence too the centre and inner essence are represented as divine, yet this representation again remains

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