[p. 510]
|510| formally in this, that in the Idea there is immediately the law of the absolute form and of totality, according to which a determinacy is to be cognised and developed further. The real possibility, however, is present through this, that such a determinacy or potency not developed by philosophy is not an abstraction or a truly simple atom, but, like everything in philosophy, reality [is], and a reality is reality for this reason, that it is totality and itself the system of potencies; [to] present the potency as such is the development which belongs to the determinate science.
It follows from this that we could say for the time being that a good part of what is called the positive sciences of right, perhaps the whole of them, would fall within philosophy fully developed and expanded, and that they are therefore, because they constitute themselves as separate sciences, neither excluded from philosophy nor opposed to it; by the being-for-itself and the empirical distinction of this corps of sciences no true distinction of it from philosophy is posited. That they call themselves empirical sciences, which partly have their applicability in the actual world and also wish to make their laws and mode of procedure valid before the common mode of representation, partly relate to individual systems of existing constitutions and legislations and belong to a determinate people as well as a determinate time, determines no difference that would necessarily exclude them from philosophy, for nothing must be so applicable to actuality and so much justified before the general mode of representation, namely the truly general (for there are common modes of representation which are very particular in this), as what comes from philosophy, just as also nothing can [must] be so individual, living and existing as precisely the same. In order to be able to speak of the relation of these sciences to philosophy, a difference must first

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