[p. 439]
|439| empiricism distinguishes itself from that pure empiricism not in general by relations being its object more than qualities, but by its fixing these relations in the form of the concept and holding to this negative absoluteness, without however separating this form of unity and its content. We shall call these empirical sciences; on the other hand that form of science in which the opposition is absolute and the pure unity or infinity, the negatively absolute, is separated pure from the content and posited for itself, a purely formal science.
Although a specific difference has hereby been established between the two spurious kinds of the scientific treatment of natural right, according to which the principle of the one is relations and mixtures of empirical intuition and the universal, that of the other, however, absolute opposition and absolute universality, it is nevertheless evident of itself that the ingredients of both, empirical intuition and concept, are the same, and that formalism, as it passes from its pure negation to a content, likewise can arrive at nothing other than relations or relative identities, because the purely ideal or the opposition [is] posited as absolute, so that the absolute Idea and unity cannot be present, and in relation to intuition – since with the principle of absolute opposition or of the absoluteness of the purely ideal the absolute principle of the empirical is posited – the syntheses, insofar as they are to have not merely the negative significance of the sublation of one part of the opposition but also a positive significance of intuition, can represent only empirical intuitions.
These two kinds of the scientific treatment of natural right are first to be characterised more closely: the former with regard to the way in which the absolute Idea appears in it according to the moments of the absolute form; the other, how the infinite or the negatively absolute seeks in vain

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