[p. 468]
|468| recognises itself merely in its contingency and particularity, which recognition is the sentimentality and the unethicality of impotence. Or when the ethical relates to relations of individuals to individuals, then it is the pure intuition and ideality which is, e.g., in the trust of a deposit, which is to be held fast and from which the intrusion of formal unity and of the thought of the possibility of other determinations is to be kept away. The expression of that unity of intuition: a property of another entrusted to me is the property of another entrusted to me and nothing else besides, has an entirely different meaning from the generally expressing tautology of practical legislation: a foreign property entrusted to me is a foreign property entrusted to me; for over against this proposition stands just as well the other: a non-property of the other entrusted to me is non-property of the other; i.e. a determinacy which is raised into the concept is thereby ideal, and the one opposed to it can just as well be posited. On the other hand, the expression of intuition contains a This, a living relation and absolute presence, with which possibility itself is absolutely bound up and a possibility separated from it or an otherness absolutely annihilated, in which possible otherness unethicality lies.
If now the unity of practical reason were not even this positive unity of intuition, but had solely the negative meaning of annihilating the determinate, then it would express purely the essence of negative reason or of infinity, of the absolute concept. But because infinity is fixed and separated from the absolute, it shows itself, in its essence, to be the opposite of itself, and mocks the reflection which wants to hold it fast and grasp an absolute unity in it, in that it absolutely also brings about the opposite of this, a difference and multiplicity, and so between this opposition, which

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