[p. 459]
|459| has been determined above as the side of relative identity, of the being of the infinite in the finite; but this must be maintained, that it is not the absolute standpoint, as in which, as has been shown, the relation proves itself to be only one side and the isolating of it therefore to be something one-sided, and that, because ethical life is something absolute, that standpoint is not the standpoint of ethical life, but that in it there is no ethical life. And as regards the appeal to common consciousness, in that very same consciousness ethical life itself must just as necessarily occur as that standpoint which, since the relation is isolated for itself, posited as being in itself and not as a moment, is the principle of unethicality. Empirical consciousness is empirical because the moments of the absolute appear in it scattered, side by side, successive, fragmented; but it would itself be no common consciousness if ethical life did not just as much occur in it. Among these manifold appearances of the ethical and the unethical that occur in empirical consciousness, that formal philosophy had the choice, and it is not the fault of common consciousness but of philosophy that it chose the appearance of the unethical and supposed itself to have in negative absoluteness or in infinity the true absolute.
The execution of this practical philosophy rests on the presentation of that which this negative absoluteness is capable of, and we must follow the false attempt to show a truly absolute in the negatively absolute through its principal moments.
It follows at once that, since pure unity constitutes the essence of practical reason, there can be so little talk of a system of ethical life that not even a plurality of laws is possible, inasmuch as that which goes beyond the pure concept or – because this, insofar as it is posited as negating the many, i.e. as practical, is duty

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