[p. 458]
|458| it is also free in this relative identity, i.e. in its necessity; or because relative identity is not sublated by unity being the first, this second freedom is so determined that the necessary indeed is for ethical nature, but is posited negatively. If we were now to isolate this side of the relative identity of ethical nature and were to recognise as the essence of ethical nature not the absolute unity of indifference and of this relative identity, but the side of the relation or of necessity, we would stand at the same point at which the essence of practical reason is determined as having absolute causality, or that it is indeed free and necessity only negative, but precisely for that reason nonetheless posited, whereby precisely that freedom does not come out of difference, the relation or relative identity is made into the essence, and the absolute is conceived only as negatively absolute or as infinite.
The empirical and popular expression by which this representation, which grasps ethical nature merely from the side of its relative identity, has so greatly recommended itself, is that the real, under the names of sensibility, inclinations, lower faculty of desire etc. (moment of the multiplicity of the relation), does not agree (moment of the opposition of unity and multiplicity) with reason (moment of the pure unity of the relation), and that reason consists in willing out of its own absolute self-activity and autonomy and in restricting and dominating that sensibility (moment of the determinacy of this relation, that in it unity or the negation of multiplicity is the first). The reality of this representation is grounded on the empirical consciousness and the general experience of everyone, of finding both that discord and this pure unity of practical reason or the abstraction of the I in itself. Nor can there be any question of denying this standpoint, but it

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