[p. 453]
|453| has not itself extracted, distinguished and fixed its limitations, but is entangled in those which, having become firm in general culture, are present as healthy common sense and therefore seem to be taken immediately from experience. Between such a perversity of intuition that has become firm and the abstractions only now fixed, the picture of the conflict is necessarily just as motley as they themselves are; each uses against the other now an abstraction, now a so-called experience, and on both sides it is empiricism that shatters itself against empiricism, and limitedness that shatters itself against limitedness, – now a boasting with principles and laws against philosophy and an exclusion of it as an incompetent judge of such absolute truths, in which the understanding has run itself fast, now a misuse of it for ratiocination and an appeal to it.
This relative right, which has been conceded to empiricism, when intuition is the ruling element in it, against the mixing of the empirical and the reflected, relates, as was recalled, to its unconscious inner; but the middle between the two, between that inner and its outer, – consciousness, is the side towards which its deficiency and therefore its one-sidedness lies, and its driving towards the scientific and the incomplete connection and mere contact with the concept, through which it only contaminates itself in this way, stems from the necessity that multiplicity and finitude absolutely sink themselves into infinity or into universality.
[II]
Cross-reference: The formal manner of treatment (Kant and Fichte). The critique of “empty formalism” returns in the Remark to § 135.
But it is the side of infinity that constitutes the principle of the apriority opposed to the empirical, to the consideration of which we now pass over.
The going of empirical opining and of its mixing

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