[p. 459]
|459| can be attacked with hostile power by something better only when this too has become a power and has force to fear. As particular against particular, nature in its actual life is the sole attack or refutation of the worse life, and such an attack cannot be the object of an intentional activity. But the limited can be attacked through its own truth that lies in it, and brought into contradiction with this; it does not found its dominion on the force of particulars against particulars, but on universality; this truth, the right which it vindicates for itself, must be taken from it and given to that part of life which is demanded. This dignity of a universality, of a right, is what makes the demand of the suffering drives that come into contradiction with the existing life, clothed with that honour, so timid and as if going against conscience. To the positive of what exists, which is a negation of nature, its truth, that right ought to be, is left.
In the German Empire the universality that holds power, as the source of all right, has vanished, because it has isolated itself, made itself into a particular. Universality is therefore only still present as thought, no longer as actuality. On what public opinion, more brightly or more darkly, through loss of confidence has decided, little is needed to make a clearer consciousness more universal. And all existing rights nevertheless have their ground solely in this connection with the whole, which, because it has long since ceased to be, has let them all become particular ones.
Either, then, one can proceed from the truth which even what exists admits; in that case the partial concepts contained in that of the whole state are grasped as universal in thought, and their universality or particularity in actuality [is] placed beside them; if such a partial unity [shows itself] to be a particular one,
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.