1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
In "Hegel: The Science of Logic," Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel presents a profound exploration of the structure of thought itself, intricately weaving together metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language. Hegel's literary style is densely packed yet precise, characterized by his dialectical method, which reveals how contradictions play a central role in the development of ideas. This monumental work, written in the early 19th century, situates itself within the German Idealist tradition, engaging critically with predecessors such as Kant and Fichte, while seeking to unify and advance their philosophical inquiries through a unique and systematic approach to logic as a dynamic and evolving process. Hegel, a pivotal figure in German philosophy, was deeply influenced by the tumultuous sociopolitical climate of his time, including the Enlightenment and the aftermath of the French Revolution. His background in theology and his experiences as a professor further shaped his philosophical trajectory, leading him to view logic not merely as a tool for reasoning but as a fundamental component of reality itself. This context elucidates his desire to reconcile the conceptual with the real, making his work a cornerstone in the study of philosophy. Readers seeking to deepen their understanding of the complexities of logic and thought will find "The Science of Logic" indispensable. Hegel's meticulous exposition challenges passive engagement and invites thoughtful reflection, encouraging readers to grapple with the urgent questions surrounding the nature of reality and consciousness. This book is essential for anyone aiming to navigate the intricate pathways of philosophical inquiry. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - An Author Biography reveals milestones in the author's life, illuminating the personal insights behind the text. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Hegel: The Science of Logic
Table of Contents
Introduction
Thought, turning back upon itself, discovers that its own movement is the drama of reality. Hegel’s Science of Logic invites readers into this vertiginous discovery, proposing that logic is not a bare calculus of propositions but the living articulation of concepts in motion. Rather than collecting rules for correct inference, the book charts how the most fundamental categories of thought generate, contest, and transform one another. The result is both stark and exhilarating: a map of pure thinking that claims to show how reason, by following its own immanent path, reveals the structural rhythms of the world. It is demanding, audacious, and endlessly provocative.
Its classic status rests on a double achievement: it redefined logic and reshaped modern philosophy’s horizon. In the wake of Kant, Hegel dared to recover metaphysics while radicalizing critique, arguing that thinking does not merely mirror objects but actively unfolds their intelligible form. The Science of Logic became a keystone for German Idealism and a touchstone for later debates about the limits of reason, the power of contradiction, and the possibility of systematic knowledge. Its influence reaches beyond specialized scholarship, informing discussions in social theory, aesthetics, and critical inquiry. Few works have provoked such sustained engagement or inspired such divergent legacies.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel wrote The Science of Logic in the early nineteenth century, publishing its three books between 1812 and 1816 during his Nuremberg years. Positioned between the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and the later Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, the Logic stands at the center of his system. It presents a rigorous inquiry into pure thought, independent of empirical or psychological presuppositions. Hegel aims to show how concepts articulate themselves through necessity, yielding an ordered progression from indeterminate immediacy to fully articulated intelligibility. Without relying on external examples, he stages the self-development of categories, seeking to exhibit reason’s structure as a coherent whole.
The work’s internal architecture famously moves through three domains: being, essence, and concept. Each domain unfolds a sequence of determinations that demonstrate their own limits and transitions, giving the book its dynamic character. Being considers immediacy, indeterminacy, and the emergence of determinate structures. Essence probes reflection, appearance, and relational depth. Concept explores self-determining thought, judgment, and objectivity. This is not a handbook of formal logic but a speculative logic, concerned with what thought discovers about itself when it proceeds without assumptions. The exposition is immanent: new categories arise from tensions within earlier ones, so that progress appears as the necessity of insight rather than external imposition.
Hegel’s declared purpose is to restore logic to its richest sense as the science of the idea, thereby renewing metaphysics after critical philosophy. He seeks neither to return to pre-critical dogmatism nor to accept a merely negative skepticism. Instead, he proposes that thought can show, by its own activity, how determinations gain and lose validity, how contradictions are not fatal errors but motors of development, and how unity emerges out of difference. The Science of Logic is thus both a critique of one-sidedness and a constructive demonstration of necessity. It aims to provide the conceptual foundation upon which a comprehensive philosophy of nature and spirit can be securely built.
Reading this book can feel like ascending a staircase in the dark: step by careful step, with each footfall revealing just enough to find the next. Hegel writes densely, using familiar words in technical ways and insisting that meaning is earned through transitions rather than assumed at the start. The argument does not rely on illustrative anecdotes; its examples are the categories themselves. Yet the experience rewards patience. Patterns become visible, recurring motifs gain clarity, and the architecture of the whole comes into view. The logic’s difficulty is integral to its ambition, inviting readers to participate in the unfolding of concepts instead of standing outside them as passive spectators.
The Science of Logic has exerted deep and lasting influence on subsequent thinkers. It decisively shaped strands of idealism, provided a methodological horizon for critical social theory, and prompted sustained dialogues about logic’s scope and limits. Its dialectical account of contradiction and mediation helped inspire later reflections on historical change and rational critique. Karl Marx, for example, studied Hegel’s logic and adapted aspects of its dialectical method to his own investigations. In different ways, many nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers wrestled with Hegel’s claims, either developing them or mounting counter-arguments that nonetheless took his challenge seriously. Even debates within formal logic have had to clarify their aims in contrast to Hegel’s vision.
Although a work of philosophy, the book influenced literature indirectly through its impact on criticism and aesthetic theory. Hegel’s dialectical categories informed traditions of Marxist literary analysis and critical theory, shaping how readers understand form, contradiction, and totality in artworks. Thinkers such as Georg Lukács and members of the Frankfurt School drew on Hegelian motifs to interpret narrative structure, realism, and modernity’s tensions. The idea that meaning develops through conflict and mediation offered powerful tools for reading texts as dynamic wholes rather than static containers of themes. In this way, The Science of Logic helped equip later writers and critics to grasp the historical life of forms.
Enduring themes run throughout the work: becoming as the truth of stark immediacy, identity entwined with difference, the force of negation, the passage from appearance to essence, and the reconciliation of necessity with freedom. Hegel does not treat these as optional topics; they are stages in thought’s own itinerary. Each theme clarifies how concepts gain determinacy only by surviving the tests that expose their limits. Rather than eliminating tension, the logic acknowledges it as constitutive of intelligibility. Readers encounter a vision of reason that does not fear contradiction, because it recognizes in contradiction the impulse toward fuller articulation and, ultimately, toward a freedom grounded in understanding.
The book remains relevant because it articulates a mode of thinking equal to complexity. In an age fascinated by systems, emergence, and interdependence, Hegel’s insistence that concepts develop through their internal relations offers a powerful alternative to both rigid formalism and loose eclecticism. The logic speaks to debates about universals and particulars, structure and process, contingency and necessity. It also models a kind of critique that neither dismisses inherited categories nor submits to them unexamined; it reworks them from within. For contemporary readers, this provides an intellectual ethic and a method: move patiently through tensions, let problems disclose their terms, and follow reason where it leads.
Approaching The Science of Logic profitably means attending to transitions, not just to definitions. Hegel’s categories are less static labels than nodes in a movement that shows why each determination must give way to the next. Watch how insufficiencies accumulate, how a concept undermines its own claims, and how a broader unity emerges that preserves what came before in transformed fashion. The book rewards slow reading, revisiting earlier steps in light of later insights. It is helpful to keep in view its autonomy from empirical examples; the drama here is purely conceptual. Accepting that premise allows the text’s method and necessity to become persuasive on their own terms.
Hegel’s Science of Logic endures because it offers a rare combination of scope, rigor, and imaginative courage. It reframes logic as the self-unfolding of thought, turning contradiction into a principle of progress and showing how reason can be both critical and constructive. Its themes resonate widely, illuminating debates in metaphysics, theory, and interpretation. For modern readers, the book’s lasting appeal lies in its promise that clarity is not the erasure of difficulty but its patient comprehension. By following the pathway from being through essence to concept, one encounters a vision of intelligibility attuned to change, capable of embracing complexity, and oriented toward freedom.
Synopsis
Hegel's Science of Logic presents a presuppositionless account of pure thinking, aiming to exhibit how the basic determinations of thought develop from themselves. It differs from formal logic by treating categories as contentful, necessary structures rather than empty forms, and it distinguishes itself from psychology by avoiding empirical descriptions of mental acts. The work unfolds as a systematic derivation, in which each concept generates its successor through internal contradiction and resolution. Its architecture divides into Objective Logic, comprising the Doctrines of Being and Essence, and Subjective Logic, the Doctrine of the Concept. The book seeks to ground philosophy by showing a self-justifying, immanent movement of thought.
Following this plan, the Doctrine of Being begins with the most indeterminate thought: pure Being. Considered absolutely, it lacks distinction and determinacy. In that very indeterminacy, Being is indistinguishable from Nothing, likewise devoid of content. Their unity yields Becoming, the immediate transition in which coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be are inseparable moments. Becoming stabilizes as determinate being, Dasein, where immediacy now has a specific character. Hegel treats these steps as necessary movements generated by the concepts themselves, not by external assumptions. The exposition aims to show that what appears as abstract emptiness is already dynamic, forcing thought from indeterminate immediacy toward determination.
In determinate being, quality first governs. Dasein implies limit, by which something is what it is and distinct from an other. The analysis proceeds through something and other, finitude and the bad infinite, and being-for-self, where the one excludes others and posits itself. Processes of repulsion and attraction depict how the one relates to many, producing a structured plurality. Quality culminates in the transition to quantity, as determinacy becomes less about what something is and more about how much it is. The movement preserves earlier moments while transforming them, illustrating the method of sublation that carries determinations forward.
Quantity introduces indifferent determinacy. Hegel examines pure quantity, discrete and continuous magnitudes, and the quantum as determinate amount. Degree mediates between quality and quantity, preparing their unity. In measure, quality and quantity interpenetrate: quantitative change can precipitate qualitative shifts. Nodal lines of measure signify thresholds where gradual alteration issues in new states. Measure relations expand into complex patterns that unify stability and transition. The unfolding shows how the logic of being, through its own development, passes over into essence, where immediacy is no longer taken at face value but grasped as grounded, reflected, and conditioned by underlying relations.
The Doctrine of Essence treats being as reflected into itself. Here, thought deals with what underlies and mediates appearance. Reflection is analyzed as positing, external, and determining reflection. From identity, the exposition advances to difference, diversity, opposition, and contradiction, with contradiction functioning as an engine of movement rather than a mere error. Ground articulates the relation between basis and what is grounded, accompanied by distinction between formal and real ground. The account emphasizes conditionality and mediation, replacing immediate determinacy with structured dependence. These steps prepare the shift from essence as ground to the sphere of appearance and manifestation.
Within appearance, form and content, law and phenomenon, and force and expression are examined as ways essence shows itself. The path proceeds to actuality, where essence and existence are unified. Substance and accidents, and then cause and effect, are developed into reciprocity, portraying a network of mutual determination. Possibility, contingency, and necessity are treated to clarify how what can be becomes what must be. Through these relations, essence fulfills itself and gives way to the concept, where thought is no longer primarily about conditions and grounds but about self-determining universality that carries its own particularity and individuality.
The Doctrine of the Concept presents the notion as self-determining. Its moments are universality, particularity, and individuality, each implying the others in a living unity. From the pure concept, Hegel moves to judgment, in which the concept articulates itself in subject-predicate form through qualitative, quantitative, and modal types. The syllogism is then presented as the complete mediation, demonstrating how the universal, particular, and individual interconnect in necessary inference. This development shows cognition as an activity structured by the concept's own forms, preparing the transition from subjective configurations of thought to the realm where thought confronts objectivity.
In objectivity, the concept relates to objects as mechanism, chemism, and teleology. Mechanism depicts external connection; chemism introduces interaction based on affinity; teleology treats ends, means, and purposiveness. Their resolution yields the Idea, the unity of concept and objectivity. The Idea appears as life, as theoretical and practical cognition, and as the true and the good. Its culmination is the Absolute Idea, in which method becomes explicit as the self-developing movement of the concept. This conclusion closes the circle of logic and signals the transition to nature, where the Idea freely externalizes itself beyond purely logical determination.
Overall, the Science of Logic presents a continuous sequence from indeterminate immediacy to the self-knowing Idea. It claims to justify each transition by the immanent demands of the categories themselves, avoiding extrinsic premises. The work's message is that logical determinations are not static labels but active structures that develop, negate, and preserve themselves. By organizing Being, Essence, and Concept into a necessary whole, the book offers a foundation for Hegel's system and a map of categories used across sciences and philosophy. The synopsis highlights the intended result: logic as a comprehensive, presuppositionless grounding for knowledge and for subsequent philosophy.
Historical Context
Hegel composed The Science of Logic between 1812 and 1816 while serving as rector of the Aegidien-Gymnasium in Nuremberg, a Free Imperial City recently annexed to the Kingdom of Bavaria (1806). Nuremberg had become an administrative node within a rapidly reorganized German landscape after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. The book therefore emerged amid the legal, fiscal, and educational reforms that followed Napoleonic domination and the rise of modern statecraft. Printed locally and circulated through growing publishing networks, the work sought to articulate a pure science of thought at a time when the political map of Central Europe, its institutions, and its hierarchies were being reconstituted at speed.
The immediate intellectual and institutional setting included the post-Kantian debates of Jena and the reforming school systems of Bavaria. After the collapse of Jena in 1806, Hegel briefly edited the Bamberger Zeitung (1807–1808) before Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer brought him to Nuremberg. There he balanced heavy pedagogical duties with intensive composition, issuing the Doctrine of Being (1812), the Doctrine of Essence (1813), and the Doctrine of the Concept (1816). The practical atmosphere of curricular standardization, examinations, and bureaucratic oversight provided a lived backdrop for questions of method, system, and mediation that The Science of Logic treats in abstract form, yet with palpable urgency born of contemporary upheaval.
The French Revolution (1789–1799) and its Napoleonic aftermath (to 1815) fundamentally reconfigured Europe. The Estates-General convened in May 1789, the Bastille fell on 14 July, a constitutional monarchy took shape in 1791, and a republic was proclaimed in September 1792. The Terror of 1793–1794 was followed by the Directory, then Bonaparte’s coup of 18 Brumaire (1799). Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in 1804, promulgated the Civil Code, defeated Austria and Russia at Austerlitz (1805), shattered Prussia at Jena-Auerstedt (1806), and imposed the Continental System. After disastrous campaigns in Spain and Russia (1812), he was beaten at Leipzig (1813) and Waterloo (1815). Hegel experienced these events closely: as a Tübingen theology student he celebrated revolutionary ideals with fellow students Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling; in 1806 at Jena he witnessed Napoleon’s entry, famously calling him a world-soul on horseback in a letter. The French transformations dissolved feudal privileges, centralized administration, and framed rights in universalistic terms, while also revealing the contradictions of abstract freedom. The Science of Logic bears the mark of this epochal negativity and creation. Its opening movement from being to nothing to becoming reflects historical processes in which established determinations collapse and new orders crystallize. The work’s insistence that determinate forms immanently negate themselves and pass over into more adequate configurations mirrors the revolutionary cycle from the old regime to modern statehood. Writing amid the wars and their administrative sequels, Hegel sought a method adequate to comprehend and justify rational change without sanctifying mere contingency, making the Revolution’s dialectic of destruction and institution an animating background for his pure logic.
German mediatization and secularization, launched by the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803 and culminating in the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, radically reshaped the map. Hundreds of ecclesiastical territories and free cities were absorbed into larger states such as Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden. The Confederation of the Rhine (1806) formalized French hegemony and state consolidation. Nuremberg’s loss of imperial immediacy and annexation to Bavaria in 1806 placed Hegel’s workplace inside a modernizing monarchy. The Science of Logic’s analysis of sublation, universality, and particularity conceptually echoes this subordination of petty sovereignties to broader legal and administrative unities, rendering intelligible how the universal reorganizes the particular.
The battle of Jena-Auerstedt on 14 October 1806 brought Prussia’s collapse and French occupation to the city where Hegel was completing the Phenomenology of Spirit. He fled with the manuscript as troops entered, later recalling seeing Napoleon ride through Jena. The experience impressed upon him the swiftness with which historical worlds are negated. Although the Logic was written a few years later, it consolidates a lesson learned then: that determinations include their own contradictions and pass over into new forms. The famous opening triad being, nothing, becoming is a conceptual counterpart to the rapid transformation Hegel personally witnessed and that framed his move from Jena to Bamberg and Nuremberg.
The Prussian reforms (1807–1812) under Baron vom Stein, Karl August von Hardenberg, and Wilhelm von Humboldt restructured serfdom, municipal governance, the military, and civil administration. The October Edict of 1807 abolished hereditary servitude; the 1808 Municipal Ordinance empowered cities; and the 1812 edict granted Jews civil rights. These measures sought to rationalize state functions after defeat. While Hegel wrote in Bavaria, he followed and later taught within this Prussian reform milieu. The Logic’s emphasis on mediation, necessity, and the transition from abstract to concrete universality resonates with the move from estate privileges to general legal forms, offering a method that legitimates rational institutional change.
Bavaria, under Minister Maximilian von Montgelas (1799–1817), pursued wide reforms: secularization of church lands (from 1803), administrative centralization, a constitutional-administrative act in 1808, and steps toward codification and uniform schooling. Nuremberg, integrated into Bavaria in 1806, served as a laboratory for modern governance. Niethammer’s educational policies shaped Hegel’s daily work as Gymnasium rector and framed the practical horizon within which the Logic’s abstract inquiries were penned. The book’s stress on the concept as an organizing unity of particular functions mirrors the contemporary effort to rationalize the multiplicity of jurisdictions into coherent ministries, codes, and curricula in the Bavarian state.
The German Wars of Liberation (1813–1815) mobilized coalition armies and volunteers against Napoleon, culminating in the Battle of Leipzig (16–19 October 1813), the entry into Paris (1814), and the final defeat at Waterloo (18 June 1815). Corps such as Lützow’s Freikorps symbolized a new patriotic energy. Hegel wrote and published parts of the Logic across this arc, concluding the Doctrine of the Concept in 1816. The book captures, in purely conceptual terms, the passage from contingency to necessity: the way scattered resistances congeal into an order. Its analysis of causal networks and necessity reflects the interconnected diplomatic and military determinations that brought down imperial domination.
The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), led by Klemens von Metternich, Robert Stewart Castlereagh, and Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, restored a balance of power and created the 39-state German Confederation with a Federal Diet in Frankfurt am Main. Restoration sought to stabilize society by reasserting dynastic legitimacy and policing dissent. Hegel’s Logic, though not a treatise on politics, exposes the instability of fixed, merely given determinations. By demonstrating the self-undermining of rigid categories, it offers a conceptual critique of Restoration formalism that attempts to freeze social development, insisting instead on the immanent necessity of further determination and reconciliation at higher levels.
The Carlsbad Decrees (1819), provoked by the assassination of August von Kotzebue by the student Karl Sand, imposed press censorship, dissolved student associations, and subjected universities to surveillance. Hegel had moved to Berlin in 1818 and now navigated this repressive climate under Minister Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein’s educational administration. While the Logic predated these measures, its reception and teaching were shaped by them. The book’s defense of speculative reason against the rigid understanding implicitly contests bureaucratic policing of thought, indicating how a method that internalizes contradiction and movement serves as a subtle protest against the administrative fixation of ideas and institutions.
The founding of the University of Berlin in 1810 under Wilhelm von Humboldt’s guidance created a research university prioritizing Wissenschaft, the free systematic pursuit of knowledge. Hegel joined its faculty in 1818, succeeding Fichte and lecturing on logic in a setting that valorized the unity of research and teaching. The Logic, conceived earlier as a pure science, anticipated and then flourished within this institutional ideal, furnishing the methodological core for Hegel’s entire system. Its internal progression from simple immediacy to the richly mediated concept paralleled Humboldt’s vision of knowledge developing through disciplined inquiry rather than rote transmission.
Napoleon’s Continental System, proclaimed by the Berlin Decree (21 November 1806) and strengthened by the Milan Decree (1807), disrupted trade across German territories, provoking shortages and price volatility. The Year Without a Summer (1816) after Tambora’s eruption intensified distress. Simultaneously, proto-industrialization advanced in Saxony, Silesia, and the Rhineland, and guild constraints weakened under reform. These shifts made quantitative calculation, exchange, and abstract value pervasive social forces. The Logic’s doctrines of quantity, measure, and the transition to quality capture the logic of such processes, where incremental economic changes precipitate qualitative structural transformations in society’s organization.
Secularization and church-state reconfiguration transformed Central Europe. The 1803 secularization dissolved many ecclesiastical principalities and monastic foundations, transferring wealth and educational functions to territorial states. Protestant rationalism vied with restorationist orthodoxy for influence over schooling and public life. Hegel, a Lutheran shaped by Enlightenment theology, worked within state education during these changes. The Logic’s move from immediate being to mediated essence and concept can be read as an abstract counterpart to the transfer of moral and educational authority from traditional confessional bodies to modern, self-legislating institutions oriented to universality rather than local privilege.
Student and civic associations gained visibility after 1815, notably the Urburschenschaft founded at Jena and the Wartburg Festival of 1817, which combined patriotic and reformist demands. The gymnastics movement led by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn cultivated civic discipline. Repression followed, but the emergence of organized public opinion was unmistakable. Although Hegel had left Jena in 1807, he grasped these phenomena as expressions of modern subjectivity seeking institutional form. The Logic’s doctrine of the concept, in which individuality, particularity, and universality cohere, offers a framework for understanding how such associations aim to reconcile personal conviction with overarching communal purposes.
Publishing and communications networks underwrote philosophical production. Hegel’s Logic appeared in Nuremberg in 1812 and 1813 with the printer Johann Leonhard Schrag, and the final part in 1816, while his Encyclopedia was issued at Heidelberg in 1817 by university-connected publishers. Postal routes and book fairs linked Franconia to Jena, Leipzig, and Heidelberg. Censorship regimes varied by territory but grew tighter after 1819. The material conditions of print, distribution, and oversight shaped the work’s form and dissemination. Appropriately, the Logic thematizes mediation: the very infrastructure that moved its pages exemplified the networks and determinate relations the book analyzes in thought.
As a social and political critique, The Science of Logic undermines the ideological comfort of the Restoration by demonstrating that fixed determinations are unstable and that rational freedom arises through mediated development. Its attack on abstract understanding exposes how legalistic formalism and police-state rigidity mask contradictions they cannot resolve. By showing that necessity emerges from the immanent movement of forms, the book denies appeals to mere tradition or authority. This method offers a critique of arbitrary power and inherited privilege, insisting that legitimacy must be grounded in the self-articulation of universal principles rather than in static, historically accidental arrangements.
The work also renders visible the contradictions of early nineteenth-century civil society: expanding markets, bureaucratic administration, and class differentiation. Its analyses of quantity, measure, causality, and concept disclose how quantitative accumulation produces qualitative ruptures, as in economic crises and political revolutions. The insistence that universality, particularity, and individuality must be reconciled indicts social orders that exclude or atomize persons, whether by estate privilege or by market anomie. Without naming classes or policies, the Logic provides tools to critique inequities in property, education, and confession, revealing that a just order demands institutions capable of rational mediation rather than coercive containment.
Author Biography
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) was a German philosopher and a central figure of German Idealism. Writing in the wake of Kant and amid the political upheavals of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, he developed a comprehensive system that sought to grasp reality as a rational, self-developing whole. His influence extends across philosophy, political theory, theology, history, and the arts. Hegel’s ideas about reason, freedom, and historical development shaped later debates in continental and analytic traditions alike. Though often contested and complex, his work continues to frame discussions about modernity, subjectivity, and the structures of social and political life.
Raised in the German southwest, Hegel pursued higher study at the Tübinger Stift, a Protestant seminary with rigorous classical and philosophical training. There he formed lasting intellectual ties with Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. His education immersed him in ancient Greek thought, Reformation theology, and Enlightenment rationalism, which together informed his early reflections on religion and ethics. Like many contemporaries, he followed the French Revolution with intense interest, balancing enthusiasm for emancipation with concerns about political turbulence. After completing his studies, he spent the 1790s as a private tutor, continuing to read widely and refine the outlines of his philosophical ambitions.
In the early 1800s Hegel moved into academic life at Jena, then a center of German philosophy. He collaborated and sometimes competed intellectually with Schelling while developing a distinctive approach to logic and history. Amid the disruptions of the Napoleonic wars, he completed Phenomenology of Spirit, published in the first decade of the nineteenth century, a demanding work that narrates the education of consciousness toward philosophical science. Following Jena’s wartime collapse, he briefly edited a newspaper and then served as headmaster of a gymnasium in Nuremberg. During those years he brought out the multi-part Science of Logic, elaborating his metaphysical and methodological commitments.
After Nuremberg, Hegel accepted a university post at Heidelberg in the late 1810s, issuing the first edition of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, a compact outline of his system. He soon moved to Berlin, where he taught until his death and became a leading voice in German intellectual life. There he published Elements of the Philosophy of Right, analyzing modern civil society, the state, and law. His lecture courses on aesthetics, the philosophy of history, and the philosophy of religion drew large audiences; compiled from student notes after his death, they shaped how generations encountered his positions across multiple domains.
Hegel’s system sought to demonstrate how logic, nature, and spirit form a unified, dynamic totality. His dialectical method tracks determinate concepts as they reveal internal tensions, undergo negation, and are preserved in higher forms through sublation. Central notions include Geist (spirit), recognition, and freedom realized in ethical life. He argued that reason is immanent in the world’s institutions and history, a claim he expressed with the much-discussed formula that the rational and the actual are mutually implicated. Far from a simple schema, his method unfolds through painstaking analyses, tying epistemology, metaphysics, and social theory into a single philosophical science.
Reception of Hegel’s works has been remarkably diverse. Early followers split into so-called Right and Left Hegelians, debating whether his political philosophy endorsed the existing order or opened resources for critique. His influence can be traced in Marxist theory, existential and phenomenological currents, British Idealism, hermeneutics, theology, and critical theory. Critics have challenged his systematic ambitions or readings of history, while admirers emphasize his depth and scope. Translations, editorial projects, and scholarly commentary have repeatedly reframed his writings, ensuring that core debates over subjectivity, social freedom, and modern rationality continue to draw on his conceptual innovations.
Hegel spent his final years in Berlin, teaching and revising his system while engaging public intellectual life. He died there in the early 1830s during a cholera outbreak. After his death, students and editors organized lecture materials and fostered publication of collected works, helping to disseminate his thought widely. His legacy endures in philosophy, political and legal theory, literary studies, and the study of history and religion. Today he is read both as a seminal theorist of modern institutions and as a provocative analyst of conceptual development. The ambition and coherence of his project continue to inspire and challenge readers.
Hegel: The Science of Logic
Chapter I. Introduction
1.] Philosophy[1] misses an advantage enjoyed by the other sciences. It cannot like them rest the existence of its objects on the natural admissions of consciousness, nor can it assume that its method of cognition, either for starting or for continuing, is one already accepted. The objects of philosophy, it is true, are upon the whole the same as those of religion. In both the object is Truth, in that supreme sense in which God and God only is the Truth. Both in like manner go on to treat of the finite worlds of Nature and the human Mind, with their relation to each other and to their truth in God. Some acquaintance with its objects, therefore, philosophy may and even must presume, that and a certain interest in them to boot, were it for no other reason than this: that in point of time the mind makes general images of objects, long before it makes notions of them, and that it is only through these mental images, and by recourse to them, that the thinking mind rises to know and comprehend thinkingly.
But with the rise of this thinking study of things, it soon becomes evident that thought will be satisfied with nothing short of showing the necessity of its facts, of demonstrating the existence of its objects, as well as their nature and qualities. Our original acquaintance with them is thus discovered to be inadequate. We can assume nothing, and assert nothing dogmatically; nor can we accept the assertions and assumptions of others. And yet we must make a beginning: and a beginning, as primary and underived, makes an assumption, or rather is an assumption. It seems as if it were impossible to make a beginning at all.
2.] This thinking study of things may serve, in a general way, as a description of philosophy. But the description is too wide. If it be correct to say, that thought makes the distinction between man and the lower animals, then everything human is human, for the sole and simple reason that it is due to the operation of thought. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a peculiar mode of thinking—a mode in which thinking becomes knowledge, and knowledge through notions. However great therefore may be the identity and essential unity of the two modes of thought, the philosophic mode gets to be different from the more general thought which acts in all that is human, in all that gives humanity its distinctive character. And this difference connects itself with the fact that the strictly human and thought-induced phenomena of consciousness do not originally appear in the form of a thought, but as a feeling, a perception, or mental image—all of which aspects must be distinguished from the form of thought proper.
According to an old preconceived idea, which has passed into a trivial proposition, it is thought which marks the man off from the animals. Yet trivial as this old belief may seem, it must, strangely enough, be recalled to mind in presence of certain preconceived ideas of the present day. These ideas would put feeling and thought so far apart as to make them opposites, and would represent them as so antagonistic, that feeling, particularly religious feeling, is supposed to be contaminated, perverted, and even annihilated by thought. They also emphatically hold that religion and piety grow out of, and rest upon something else, and not on thought. But those who make this separation forget meanwhile that only man has the capacity for religion, and that animals no more have religion than they have law and morality.
Those who insist on this separation of religion from thinking usually have before their minds the sort of thought that may be styled after-thought[4]. They mean 'reflective' thinking, which has to deal with thoughts as thoughts, and brings them into consciousness. Slackness to perceive and keep in view this distinction which philosophy definitely draws in respect of thinking is the source of the crudest objections and reproaches against philosophy. Man,—and that just because it is his nature to think,—is the only being that possesses law, religion, and morality. In these spheres of human life, therefore, thinking, under the guise of feeling, faith, or generalised image, has not been inactive: its action and its productions are there present and therein contained. But it is one thing to have such feelings and generalised images that have been moulded and permeated by thought, and another thing to have thoughts about them. The thoughts, to which after-thought upon those modes of consciousness gives rise, are what is comprised under reflection, general reasoning, and the like, as well as under philosophy itself.
The neglect of this distinction between thought in general and the reflective thought of philosophy has also led to another and more frequent misunderstanding. Reflection of this kind has been often maintained to be the condition, or even the only way, of attaining a consciousness and certitude of the Eternal and True[3]. The (now somewhat antiquated) metaphysical proofs of God's existence, for example, have been treated, as if a knowledge of them and a conviction of their truth were the only and essential means of producing a belief and conviction that there is a God. Such a doctrine would find its parallel, if we said that eating was impossible before we had acquired a knowledge of the chemical, botanical, and zoological characters of our food; and that we must delay digestion till we had finished the study of anatomy and physiology. Were it so, these sciences in their field, like philosophy in its, would gain greatly in point of utility; in fact, their utility would rise to the height of absolute and universal indispensableness. Or rather, instead of being indispensable, they would not exist at all.
3.] The Content, of whatever kind it be, with which our consciousness is taken up, is what constitutes the qualitative character of our feelings, perceptions, fancies, and ideas; of our aims and duties; and of our thoughts and notions. From this point of view, feeling, perception, &c. are the forms assumed by these contents. The contents remain one and the same, whether they are felt, seen, represented, or willed, and whether they are merely felt, or felt with an admixture of thoughts, or merely and simply thought. In any one of these forms, or in the admixture of several, the contents confront consciousness, or are its object. But when they are thus objects of consciousness, the modes of the several forms ally themselves with the contents; and each form of them appears in consequence to give rise to a special object. Thus what is the same at bottom, may look like a different sort of fact.
The several modes of feeling, perception, desire, and will, so far as we are aware of them, are in general called ideas (mental representations): and it may be roughly said, that philosophy puts thoughts, categories, or, in more precise language, adequate notions, in the place of the generalised images we ordinarily call ideas. Mental impressions such as these may be regarded as the metaphors of thoughts and notions. But to have these figurate conceptions does not imply that we appreciate their intellectual significance, the thoughts and rational notions to which they correspond. Conversely, it is one thing to have thoughts and intelligent notions, and another to know what impressions, perceptions, and feelings correspond to them.
This difference will to some extent explain what people call the unintelligibility of philosophy. Their difficulty lies partly in an incapacity—which in itself is nothing but want of habit—for abstract thinking; i.e. in an inability to get hold of pure thoughts and move about in them. In our ordinary state of mind, the thoughts are clothed upon and made one with the sensuous or spiritual material of the hour; and in reflection, meditation, and general reasoning, we introduce a blend of thoughts into feelings, percepts, and mental images. (Thus, in propositions where the subject-matter is due to the senses—e.g. 'This leaf is green'—we have such categories introduced, as being and individuality.) But it is a very different thing to make the thoughts pure and simple our object.
But their complaint that philosophy is unintelligible is as much due to another reason; and that is an impatient wish to have before them as a mental picture that which is in the mind as a thought or notion. When people are asked to apprehend some notion, they often complain that they do not know what they have to think. But the fact is that in a notion there is nothing further to be thought than the notion itself. What the phrase reveals, is a hankering after an image with which we are already familiar. The mind, denied the use of its familiar ideas, feels the ground where it once stood firm and at home taken away from beneath it, and, when transported into the region of pure thought, cannot tell where in the world it is.
One consequence of this weakness is that authors, preachers, and orators are found most intelligible, when they speak of things which their readers or hearers already know by rote,—things which the latter are conversant with, and which require no explanation.
4.] The philosopher then has to reckon with popular modes of thought, and with the objects of religion. In dealing with the ordinary modes of mind, he will first of all, as we saw, have to prove and almost to awaken the need for his peculiar method of knowledge. In dealing with the objects of religion, and with truth as a whole, he will have to show that philosophy is capable of apprehending them from its own resources; and should a difference from religious conceptions come to light, he will have to justify the points in which it diverges.
5.] To give the reader a preliminary explanation of the distinction thus made, and to let him see at the same moment that the real import of our consciousness is retained, and even for the first time put in its proper light, when translated into the form of thought and the notion of reason, it may be well to recall another of these old unreasoned beliefs. And that is the conviction that to get at the truth of any object or event, even of feelings, perceptions, opinions, and mental ideas, we must think it over. Now in any case to think things over is at least to transform feelings, ordinary ideas, &c. into thoughts.
Nature has given every one a faculty of thought. But thought is all that philosophy claims as the form proper to her business: and thus the inadequate view which ignores the distinction stated in § 3, leads to a new delusion, the reverse of the complaint previously mentioned about the unintelligibility of philosophy. In other words, this science must often submit to the slight of hearing even people who have never taken any trouble with it talking as if they thoroughly understood all about it. With no preparation beyond an ordinary education they do not hesitate, especially under the influence of religious sentiment, to philosophise and to criticise philosophy. Everybody allows that to know any other science you must have first studied it, and that you can only claim to express a judgment upon it in virtue of such knowledge. Everybody allows that to make a shoe you must have learned and practised the craft of the shoemaker, though every man has a model in his own foot, and possesses in his hands the natural endowments for the operations required. For philosophy alone, it seems to be imagined, such study, care, and application are not in the least requisite.
This comfortable view of what is required for a philosopher has recently received corroboration through the theory of immediate or intuitive knowledge.
6.] So much for the form of philosophical knowledge. It is no less desirable, on the other hand, that philosophy should understand that its content is no other than actuality, that core of truth which, originally produced and producing itself within the precincts of the mental life, has become the world, the inward and outward world, of consciousness. At first we become aware of these contents in what we call Experience. But even Experience, as it surveys the wide range of inward and outward existence, has sense enough to distinguish the mere appearance, which is transient and meaningless, from what in itself really deserves the name of actuality. As it is only in form that philosophy is distinguished from other modes of attaining an acquaintance with this same sum of being, it must necessarily be in harmony with actuality and experience. In fact, this harmony may be viewed as at least an extrinsic means of testing the truth of a philosophy. Similarly it may be held the highest and final aim of philosophic science to bring about, through the ascertainment of this harmony, a reconciliation of the self-conscious reason with the reason which is in the world,—in other words, with actuality.
In the preface to my Philosophy of Law, p. xix, are found the propositions:
What is reasonable is actual[1q]; and, What is actual is reasonable.
These simple statements have given rise to expressions of surprise and hostility, even in quarters where it would be reckoned an insult to presume absence of philosophy, and still more of religion. Religion at least need not be brought in evidence; its doctrines of the divine government of the world affirm these propositions too decidedly. For their philosophic sense, we must pre-suppose intelligence enough to know, not only that God is actual, that He is the supreme actuality, that He alone is truly actual; but also, as regards the logical bearings of the question, that existence is in part mere appearance, and only in part actuality. In common life, any freak of fancy, any error, evil and everything of the nature of evil, as well as every degenerate and transitory existence whatever, gets in a casual way the name of actuality. But even our ordinary feelings are enough to forbid a casual (fortuitous) existence getting the emphatic name of an actual; for by fortuitous we mean an existence which has no greater value than that of something possible, which may as well not be as be. As for the term Actuality, these critics would have done well to consider the sense in which I employ it. In a detailed Logic I had treated amongst other things of actuality, and accurately distinguished it not only from the fortuitous, which, after all, has existence, but even from the cognate categories of existence and the other modifications of being.
The actuality of the rational stands opposed by the popular fancy that Ideas and ideals are nothing but chimeras, and philosophy a mere system of such phantasms. It is also opposed by the very different fancy that Ideas and ideals are something far too excellent to have actuality, or something too impotent to procure it for themselves. This divorce between idea and reality is especially dear to the analytic understanding which looks upon its own abstractions, dreams though they are, as something true and real, and prides itself on the imperative 'ought,' which it takes especial pleasure in prescribing even on the field of politics. As if the world had waited on it to learn how it ought to be, and was not! For, if it were as it ought to be, what would come of the precocious wisdom of that 'ought'? When understanding turns this 'ought' against trivial external and transitory objects, against social regulations or conditions, which very likely possess a great relative importance for a certain time and special circles, it may often be right. In such a case the intelligent observer may meet much that fails to satisfy the general requirements of right; for who is not acute enough to see a great deal in his own surroundings which is really far from being as it ought to be? But such acuteness is mistaken in the conceit that, when it examines these objects and pronounces what they ought to be, it is dealing with questions of philosophic science. The object of philosophy is the Idea: and the Idea is not so impotent as merely to have a right or an obligation to exist without actually existing. The object of philosophy is an actuality of which those objects, social regulations and conditions, are only the superficial outside.
7.] Thus reflection—thinking things over—in a general way involves the principle (which also means the beginning) of philosophy. And when the reflective spirit arose again in its independence in modern times, after the epoch of the Lutheran Reformation[2], it did not, as in its beginnings among the Greeks, stand merely aloof, in a world of its own, but at once turned its energies also upon the apparently illimitable material of the phenomenal world. In this way the name philosophy came to be applied to all those branches of knowledge, which are engaged in ascertaining the standard and Universal in the ocean of empirical individualities, as well as in ascertaining the Necessary element, or Laws, to be found in the apparent disorder of the endless masses of the fortuitous. It thus appears that modern philosophy derives its materials from our own personal observations and perceptions of the external and internal world, from nature as well as from the mind and heart of man, when both stand in the immediate presence of the observer.
This principle of Experience carries with it the unspeakably important condition that, in order to accept and believe any fact, we must be in contact with it; or, in more exact terms, that we must find the fact united and combined with the certainty of our own selves. We must be in touch with our subject-matter, whether it be by means of our external senses, or, else, by our profounder mind and our intimate self-consciousness.—This principle is the same as that which has in the present day been termed faith, immediate knowledge, the revelation in the outward world, and, above all, in our own heart.
Those sciences, which thus got the name of philosophy, we call empirical sciences, for the reason that they take their departure from experience. Still the essential results which they aim at and provide, are laws, general propositions, a theory—the thoughts of what is found existing. On this ground the Newtonian physics was called Natural Philosophy. Hugo Grotius, again, by putting together and comparing the behaviour of states towards each other as recorded in history, succeeded, with the help of the ordinary methods of general reasoning, in laying down certain general principles, and establishing a theory which may be termed the Philosophy of International Law. In England this is still the usual signification of the term philosophy. Newton continues to be celebrated as the greatest of philosophers: and the name goes down as far as the price-lists of instrument-makers. All instruments, such as the thermometer and barometer, which do not come under the special head of magnetic or electric apparatus, are styled philosophical instruments1. Surely thought, and not a mere combination of wood, iron, &c. ought to be called the instrument of philosophy! The recent science of Political Economy in particular, which in Germany is known as Rational Economy of the State, or intelligent national economy, has in England especially appropriated the name of philosophy.2
8.] In its own field this empirical knowledge may at first give satisfaction; but in two ways it is seen to come short. In the first place there is another circle of objects which it does not embrace. These are Freedom, Spirit, and God. They belong to a different sphere, not because it can be said that they have nothing to do with experience; for though they are certainly not experiences of the senses, it is quite an identical proposition to say that whatever is in consciousness is experienced. The real ground for assigning them to another field of cognition is that in their scope and content these objects evidently show themselves as infinite.
There is an old phrase often wrongly attributed to Aristotle, and supposed to express the general tenor of his philosophy. 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu': there is nothing in thought which has not been in sense and experience. If speculative philosophy refused to admit this maxim, it can only have done so from a misunderstanding. It will, however, on the converse side no less assert: 'Nihil est in sensu quod non fuerit in intellectu.' And this may be taken in two senses. In the general sense it means that νοῦς or spirit (the more profound idea of νοῦς in modern thought) is the cause of the world. In its special meaning (see § 2) it asserts that the sentiment of right, morals, and religion is a sentiment (and in that way an experience) of such scope and such character that it can spring from and rest upon thought alone.
9.] But in the second place in point of form the subjective reason desires a further satisfaction than empirical knowledge gives; and this form, is, in the widest sense of the term, Necessity (§ 1). The method of empirical science exhibits two defects. The first is that the Universal or general principle contained in it, the genus, or kind, &c., is, on its own account, indeterminate and vague, and therefore not on its own account connected with the Particulars or the details. Either is external and accidental to the other; and it is the same with the particular facts which are brought into union: each is external and accidental to the others. The second defect is that the beginnings are in every case data and postulates, neither accounted for nor deduced. In both these points the form of necessity fails to get its due. Hence reflection, whenever it sets itself to remedy these defects, becomes speculative thinking, the thinking proper to philosophy. As a species of reflection, therefore, which, though it has a certain community of nature with the reflection already mentioned, is nevertheless different from it, philosophic thought thus possesses, in addition to the common forms, some forms of its own, of which the Notion may be taken as the type.
The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be stated in the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical facts contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal element in these sciences, their laws and classifications: but besides all this, into the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other categories. The difference, looked at in this way, is only a change of categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and Metaphysics: it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and objects,—while at the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories.
From notion in the speculative sense we should distinguish what is ordinarily called a notion. The phrase, that no notion can ever comprehend the Infinite, a phrase which has been repeated over and over again till it has grown axiomatic, is based upon this narrow estimate of what is meant by notions.
10.] This thought, which is proposed as the instrument of philosophic knowledge, itself calls for further explanation. We must understand in what way it possesses necessity or cogency: and when it claims to be equal to the task of apprehending the absolute objects (God, Spirit, Freedom), that claim must be substantiated. Such an explanation, however, is itself a lesson in philosophy, and properly falls within the scope of the science itself. A preliminary attempt to make matters plain would only be unphilosophical, and consist of a tissue of assumptions, assertions, and inferential pros and cons, i.e. of dogmatism without cogency, as against which there would be an equal right of counter-dogmatism.
A main line of argument in the Critical Philosophy bids us pause before proceeding to inquire into God or into the true being of things, and tells us first of all to examine the faculty of cognition and see whether it is equal to such an effort. We ought, says Kant, to become acquainted with the instrument, before we undertake the work for which it is to be employed; for if the instrument be insufficient, all our trouble will be spent in vain. The plausibility of this suggestion has won for it general assent and admiration; the result of which has been to withdraw cognition from an interest in its objects and absorption in the study of them, and to direct it back upon itself; and so turn it to a question of form. Unless we wish to be deceived bywords, it is easy to see what this amounts to. In the case of other instruments, we can try and criticise them in other ways than by setting about the special work for which they are destined. But the examination of knowledge can only be carried out by an act of knowledge. To examine this so-called instrument is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.
Reinhold saw the confusion with which this style of commencement is chargeable, and tried to get out of the difficulty by starting with a hypothetical and problematical stage of philosophising. In this way he supposed that it would be possible, nobody can tell how, to get along, until we found ourselves, further on, arrived at the primary truth of truths. His method, when closely looked into, will be seen to be identical with a very common practice. It starts from a substratum of experiential fact, or from a provisional assumption which has been brought into a definition; and then proceeds to analyse this starting-point. We can detect in Reinhold's argument a perception of the truth, that the usual course which proceeds by assumptions and anticipations is no better than a hypothetical and problematical mode of procedure. But his perceiving this does not alter the character of this method; it only makes clear its imperfections.
11.] The special conditions which call for the existence of philosophy maybe thus described. The mind or spirit, when it is sentient or perceptive, finds its object in something sensuous; when it imagines, in a picture or image; when it wills, in an aim or end. But in contrast to, or it may be only in distinction from, these forms of its existence and of its objects, the mind has also to gratify the cravings of its highest and most inward life. That innermost self is thought. Thus the mind renders thought its object. In the best meaning of the phrase, it comes to itself; for thought is its principle, and its very unadulterated self. But while thus occupied, thought entangles itself in contradictions, i.e. loses itself in the hard-and-fast non-identity of its thoughts, and so, instead of reaching itself, is caught and held in its counterpart. This result, to which honest but narrow thinking leads the mere understanding, is resisted by the loftier craving of which we have spoken. That craving expresses the perseverance of thought, which continues true to itself, even in this conscious loss of its native rest and independence, 'that it may overcome' and work out in itself the solution of its own contradictions.
To see that thought in its very nature is dialectical, and that, as understanding, it must fall into contradiction,—the negative of itself, will form one of the main lessons of logic. When thought grows hopeless of ever achieving, by its own means, the solution of the contradiction which it has by its own action brought upon itself, it turns back to those solutions of the question with which the mind had learned to pacify itself in some of its other modes and forms. Unfortunately, however, the retreat of thought has led it, as Plato noticed even in his time, to a very uncalled-for hatred of reason (misology); and it then takes up against its own endeavours that hostile attitude of which an example is seen in the doctrine that 'immediate' knowledge, as it is called, is the exclusive form in which we become cognisant of truth.
12.] The rise of philosophy is due to these cravings of thought. Its point of departure is Experience; including under that name both our immediate consciousness and the inductions from it. Awakened, as it were, by this stimulus, thought is vitally characterised by raising itself above the natural state of mind, above the senses and inferences from the senses into its own unadulterated element, and by assuming, accordingly, at first a stand-aloof and negative attitude towards the point from which it started. Through this state of antagonism to the phenomena of sense its first satisfaction is found in itself, in the Idea of the universal essence of these phenomena: an Idea (the Absolute, or God) which may be more or less abstract. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the sciences, based on experience, exert upon the mind a stimulus to overcome the form in which their varied contents are presented, and to elevate these contents to the rank of necessary truth. For the facts of science have the aspect of a vast conglomerate, one thing coming side by side with another, as if they were merely given and presented,—as in short devoid of all essential or necessary connexion. In consequence of this stimulus thought is dragged out of its unrealised universality and its fancied or merely possible satisfaction, and impelled onwards to a development from itself. On one hand this development only means that thought incorporates the contents of science, in all their speciality of detail as submitted. On the other it makes these contents imitate the action of the original creative thought, and present the aspect of a free evolution determined by the logic of the fact alone.
