[p. 442]
|442| unity of opposites, considered in relation to these as real, is their necessity. But because the matter of the formal unity of which we are speaking is not the whole of the opposites but only one of the opposites, a determinacy, the necessity too is only a formal, analytical one and relates merely to the form of an identical or analytical proposition in which the determinacy can be presented, through which absoluteness of the proposition, however, an absoluteness of the content is also obtained by stealth, and thus laws and fundamental principles are constituted.
But since this empirical science finds itself in the manifoldness of such fundamental principles, laws, purposes, duties, rights, none of which is absolute, there must at the same time hover before it the image and the need of the absolute unity of all these unconnected determinacies and of an original simple necessity, and we consider how it will satisfy this demand descending from reason, or how the absolute Idea of reason will be presented in its moments under the dominion of the opposition of the many and the one, which is insurmountable for this empirical knowing. It is partly interesting in itself to behold, in this scientific endeavour and in its turbid medium, even the reflection and the dominion of the absolute, but at the same time its perversity; partly the forms which the moments of the absolute have received therein have become a kind of prejudices and of undoubted, generally valid thoughts, whose nullity critique must show, in order to justify science in taking no regard of them, – which demonstration of their nullity takes place most evidently by pointing out the reality-less ground and soil out of which they have grown and whose taste and nature grow into them.
In the first place, what hovers before empirical science is scientific

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