[p. 438]
|438| of a restricted principle, nevertheless dominate these attempts, – and also to see the empirical state of the world reflected in the ideal mirror of science.
For as to the latter, in the connection of all things the empirical existence and the state of all sciences will indeed likewise express the state of the world, but most immediately the state of natural right, because it relates directly to the ethical, the mover of all human things, and, insofar as the science of it has an existence, belongs to necessity, must be one with the empirical shape of the ethical, which is likewise in necessity, and must as science express the same in the form of universality.
As to the former, the only true difference in the principle of a science that can be recognised is whether it is in the absolute or whether it is outside the absolute unity, in opposition. In the latter case, however, it could not be science at all, if its principle were not some incomplete and relative unity or the concept of a relation, were it only the empty abstraction of relation itself, under the name of attractive force or force of being-one. To sciences whose principle is no concept of relation, or only the empty force of being-one, nothing ideal is left but the first ideal relation according to which the child is different as against the world, the form of representation, into which they put the empirical qualities and whose manifoldness they can recount; they would preeminently be called empirical sciences. But because practical sciences by their nature aim at something really universal or at a unity which is the unity of the different, so in practical empiricism too the feelings must include in themselves not pure qualities but relations, whether negative, like the drive to self-preservation, or positive, as love and hatred, sociability and the like; and the more scientific

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