II.1.3. Ground

Essence determines itself as Ground.

In the beginning Nothing was in simple immediate unity with Being; similarly here too the simple identity of Essence is in immediate unity with its absolute negativity. Essence is no more than this its negativity, which is pure Reflection. It is this pure negativity because it is the return of Being into itself; and accordingly it is determined in itself or for us, as Ground in which Being dissolves itself. But this determinateness is not posited through Essence itself; in other words, it is not Ground except in so far as it has itself posited this its determinateness. But its Reflection consists in this,, that it posits and determines itself as that which it is in itself—as Negative. Positive and Negative constitute the essential determination in which, as in its negation, it lies lost. These independent Determinations of Reflection cancel themselves, and the determination which has perished is the true determination of Essence.

Consequently Ground is itself one of the Determinations of Reflection of Essence; but it is the last of these, or rather it is that determination which determines that it is transcended determination. As it perishes, the Determination of Reflection attains its true significance—namely, that it is in itself its own absolute repulsion: that positedness which is proper to Essence is only transcended positedness, and, conversely, only self-transcending positedness is the positedness of Essence. Essence in determining itself as Ground determines itself as the nondeterminate, and only the transcendence of its determinateness is its determining.—In this determinateness, which is here self-transcendent, it is Essence which does not come from elsewhere but in its negativity is self-identical.

From this determination, which is supposed to be the first or immediate entity, the movement goes to Ground (through the nature of the determination itself, which perishes through itself); and thus at this point Ground is something which is determined by this first entity. But this determining, as transcendence of determining, is firstly just restored, purified or manifested identity of Essence, which is the Determination of Reflection in itself;—and further this negating movement, as process of determination, is only the positing of that determinateness of Reflection which appeared as immediate, but which in fact was posited by the self-exclusive Reflection of Ground, and here is posited only as posited or transcended entity.—Thus Essence, when it determines itself as Ground, merely arrives from out of itself. As Ground, then, it posits itself as Essence, and its determining consists in the fact that it posits itself as Essence. This positing is the Reflection of Essence, and this Reflection transcends itself in its determining: in its former aspect it is positing and in its latter the positing of Essence—and consequently it is both in one single activity.

Reflection is pure mediation in general, Ground is the real self-mediation of Essence. The former—the movement of Nothing through nothing back to itself—is the showing of itself in an Other; but, in this Reflection, Opposition as yet has no independence, and therefore it is neither that first, showing entity—which is a Positive, nor that other in which it shows—which is a Negative. Both are substrata, and really only substrata of imaginative force: they are not yet self-relating entities. Pure mediation is only pure relation without related terms. It is true that Determining Reflection posits such terms, which are self-identical, but also are only determinate relations. On the other hand, Ground is real mediation because it contains Reflection as transcended Reflection: it is Essence which returns upon itself through its Not-being, and posits itself. According to this moment of transcended Reflection, that which is posited acquires the determination of immediacy—an entity which, apart from its relation or Show, is self-identical. This immediate is Being which has been restored through Essence, the Not-being of Reflection through which Essence mediates itself. Essence returns into itself as negating Essence: thus it gives itself determinateness in its return to itself; and this determinateness for that very reason is the self-identical Negative, transcended positedness, which therefore is existent just as much as it is the self-identity of Essence as Ground.

Ground is, first, Absolute Ground in which here Essence is the foundation in general for the relation of Ground; but more closely it determines itself as Form and Matter and gives itself a Content.

Secondly, it is Determined Ground as Ground of a determinate Content; and since the Ground-relation becomes external to itself in its realization, it passes over into Conditioning Mediation.

Thirdly, Ground presupposes a Condition; but equally the Condition presupposes Ground. That which is Unconditioned is their unity—the Fact in itself which, through the mediation of the conditioning relation, passes over into Existence.

Ground, like the other Determinations of Reflection, was expressed in a proposition: Everything has its sufficient Ground (reason).—Ordinarily this just means that what is must be considered not as an existent immediate but as a posited entity. We must not remain at immediate Determinate Being or at determinateness in general, but must pass back to its Ground, in which Reflection it exists as transcended and in its Being-in-and-for-Self. Thus the Law of Ground asserts the essentiality of intro-Reflection as against bare Being.—It is really quite superfluous to add that the Ground is sufficient, because it is self-evident: that for which the Ground is insufficient would have no Ground; but everything is supposed to have a Ground. But Leibniz—who was especially devoted to the principle of sufficient reason (or Ground), and in fact made it the foundation of his whole philosophy—connected with it a profounder meaning and a more important concept than is generally connected with it when no step is taken beyond the immediate expression; although the law must be regarded as important even in this meaning, where Being as such in its immediacy is declared to be invalid and essentially to be something posited, and Ground to be the true immediate. But Leibniz especially opposed the sufficiency of Ground to causality in its strict meaning of mechanical efficacy. The latter is an external activity, restricted in content to one determinateness, and consequently the determinations which it posits become connected externally and contingently; partial determinations are comprehended by their causes, but their relation—and this it is which constitutes the essential part of an existence—is not contained among the causes with which mechanism operates. This relation—the whole as essential unity—is found only in the Notion, in End. Mechanical causes are not sufficient for this unity, because the End as the unity of the determinations is not their basis. Accordingly Leibniz understood by “sufficient reason” a Ground which was sufficient for this unity too, and therefore comprehended not only causes, but final causes. But this is not yet the place for this determination of Ground; Teleological Ground is peculiar to the Notion and to that mediation by means of it which is Reason.

Determination of Reflection, in so far as it passes back into Ground, is a primary and immediate Determinate Being in general, from which a beginning is made. But now Determinate Being has the significance only of positedness, and essentially presupposes a Ground,—in this meaning, that it really does not posit it, that this positing is a self-transcendence, and the immediate rather is what is posited and Ground that which is not posited. It was seen that this presupposing is positing which recoils upon that which posits; Ground, as transcended determinateness, is not the indeterminate,—it is self-determined Essence, but determined as indeterminate or as transcended positedness. It is Essence which, in its negativity, is self-identical.

Here then the determinateness of Essence as Ground becomes twofold—it is determined both as Ground and as Grounded. It is, first, Essence as Ground, determined as Essence (or not-positedness) against positedness. Secondly, it is that which is Grounded—the immediate which, however, is not in and for itself, or positedness as such. Consequently this too is self- ‘ identical; but it is the self-identity of the Negative. The self-identical Negative and the self-identical Positive are now one and the same identity. For Ground is self-identity of Positive or even of positedness, while that which is Grounded is positedness as positedness; now, this its intro-Reflection is the identity of Ground.—Thus this simple identity is not itself Ground, for Ground is Essence posited as the not-posited in opposition to positedness. As the unity of this determinate identity (Ground) and of negative identity (the Grounded), it is Essence in general as distinguished from its mediation.

If this mediation is compared with the Reflections which precede it and are its origins, it is found, first, not to be Pure Reflection, since it is not distinguished from Essence and does not yet contain the Negative, which alone could give stability to its determinations; whereas in Ground, which is Reflection transcended, these determinations have persistence.—Nor is it Determining Reflection, the determinations of which have essential stability; for this has perished in Ground, and in its unity they are only posited entities.—This mediation of Ground is, consequently, the unity of Pure and of Determining Reflection; its determinations (or, the posited) have persistence, and, conversely, their persistence is something posited. And, because this their persistence is itself something posited or has determinateness, they are in so far distinguished from their simple identity, and constitute Form as against Essence.

Essence has a Form and determinations of this Form. It has a fixed immediacy, or is substratum only as Ground. Essence as such is one with its Reflection, and the movement of these two itself is not differentiated. That which passes through Reflection therefore is not Essence; nor is Essence that first element from which Reflection begins. This circumstance makes the exposition of Reflection in general more difficult; for really it is impossible to say that Essence passes back into itself, or that Essence shows in itself, because it is neither before nor in its movement, and the latter has no basis upon which it takes its course. A related term emerges only in Ground after the moment of transcended Reflection. But Essence as related substratum is determinate Essence; it is by virtue of this positedness that Form essentially belongs to it.—The determinations of Form on the other hand are now determinations as applied to Essence: Essence is their foundation, as being that indeterminate which in its determination is indifferent to them; and in it they have their intro-Reflection. The Determinations of Reflection were supposed to contain their own persistence and to be independent; but their independence is their dissolution, and therefore they have their independence in an Other; but this dissolution itself is this self-identity, or the Ground of persistence which they give to themselves.

Everything determinate belongs to Form, and is a determination of Form in so far as it is posited and therefore distinct from an entity of which it is the Form; determinateness as Quality is one with its substratum, Being; Being is the immediately determinate which is not yet distinct from its determinateness, or is not yet intro-reflected in the latter; and the determinateness consequently is an existent but not yet a posited entity. Further, the Form-determinations of Essence, as determinatenesses of Reflection, are, according to their closer determinateness, the moments of Reflection considered above, Identity and Difference,—the latter partly as Variety and partly as Opposition. But further the Ground-relation belongs to Form, in so far as it is transcended Determination of Reflection, but also and at the same time Essence is taken as posited. On the other hand, the identity which Ground contains does not belong to Form, for here positedness as transcended and positedness as such (or Ground and Grounded) are one Reflection constituting Essence as simple foundation, which is the persistence of Form. But this persistence is posited in Ground, or again essentially this Essence itself exists as determinate; and now it has once more become the moment of Ground-relation and Form.—This is the absolute reciprocal relation of Form and Essence: the latter is simple unity of Ground and Grounded, and here precisely it is determinate, or Negative, and is distinct from Form because it is foundation; but at the same time it thus becomes Ground and moment of Form.

Form therefore is the perfected whole of Reflection; it also contains the determination of Reflection whereby it is transcended; and consequently it is related to its transcendedness, or to an Other, as much as it is a unity of its determining. This Other is not itself Form, but Form is applied to it. As essential self-relating negativity in contrast with this simple Negative, it is the positing and determining element, while simple Essence is the indeterminate and inactive foundation on which the determinations of Form have persistence or intro-Reflection.—External reflection usually does not pass beyond this distinction between Essence and Form; the distinction is necessary, but this distinguishing itself is their unity, as also Essence, self-repellent and making itself into positedness, is this fundamental unity. Form is absolute negativity itself or negative absolute self-identity, by virtue of which precisely Essence is not Being but Essence. This identity, taken abstractly, is Essence as against Form; just as negativity, taken abstractly as positedness, is the individual determination of Form. But the determination, as it has shown itself, is in its truth total and self-relating negativity, which, consequently, as being this identity, is, in itself, simple Essence. Form therefore has Essence in its own identity, and Essence in its negative nature has absolute Form. The question cannot therefore be asked, how Form is added to Essence; for Form is only the showing of Essence in itself—it is its own immanent Reflection. Similarly Form in itself is Reflection returning to itself, or identical Essence; in its determining it makes determination to be positedness as such.—Form then does not determine Essence as though it were in truth presupposed and separate from Essence, for in this view it is the unessential Determination of Reflection, which presses to destruction without stop; rather it is thus itself the Ground of its transcendence or the identical relation of its determinations. The assertion that Form determines Essence means, then, that Form in its distinguishing itself transcends this distinguishing and is self-identity, which is Essence as the persistence of determination; it is Contradiction in that in its positedness it is transcended and in this transcendedness has its persistence; accordingly it is Ground as Essence which is self-identical in determinateness or negatedness.

These different terms, Form and Essence, are, therefore, only moments of the simple Form-relation itself. But they must be more closely considered and fixed. Determining Form relates itself to itself as transcended positedness, and therefore it is related to its identity as to an Other. It posits itself as transcended, and therefore presupposes its identity; according to this moment Essence is the indeterminate to which Form is an Other. Thus it is not Essence—which is absolute Reflection, in itself—but it is determined as formless identity: it is Matter.

Essence becomes Matter when its Reflection determines itself to be related to Essence as to the formless indeterminate. Matter then is the simple undifferentiated identity—which Essence also is—with this determination, that it is Other to Form. Consequently it is the real foundation or substratum of Form because it constitutes the intro-Reflection of the determinations of Form, or that stability to which they are related as to their positive persistence.

1. If abstraction is made from every determination and Form of a Something, indeterminate Matter remains. Matter is a pure abstract. (—Matter cannot be seen or felt—what is seen or felt is a determinate Matter, that is, a unity of Matter and Form.) But this abstraction, out of which Matter proceeds, is not a mere external subtraction or cancellation of Form; but Form by itself reduces itself, as was seen, to this simple identity.

Further, Form presupposes a Matter to which it relates itself. But the two do not just happen to be face to face externally and contingently; neither Matter nor Form has arisen out of itself, or—in another terminology—is eternal. Matter is that which is indifferent to Form, but this indifference is the determinateness of self-identity, into which, as into its foundation, Form passes back. Form presupposes Matter in the very fact that it posits itself as transcended and thereby relates itself to this its identity as to an Other. Conversely, Matter presupposes Form; for the former is not simple Essence which is immediately itself absolute Reflection: it is Essence determined as the Positive—that is, as that which is only as transcended negation.—But, from the other aspect, Form posits itself as Matter only in so far as it transcends itself and therefore presupposes Matter; hence Matter is determined also as groundless persistence. Similarly Matter is not determined as Ground of Form; but, since Matter posits itself as abstract identity of the transcended determination of Form, it is not identity as Ground; and in so far, Form is groundless as against it. Form and Matter are thus determined, the one as much as the other, not to be mutually posited and not to be Ground each of the other. Rather, Matter is the identity of Ground and Grounded, as foundation which stands opposed to this Form-relation. This their common determination of indifference is the determination of Matter as such, and also constitutes the mutual relation of the two. And similarly the determination of Form—to be the relation of the two as distinct terms—is the other moment of their attitude to each other.—Matter is determined as indifferent: it is the passive as against Form as active. Form is the self-relating Negative; it is therefore Contradiction in itself, self-resolvent, self-repellent, and self-determining. It relates itself to Matter, and it is posited as relating itself to this its persistence as to an Other. Matter on the other hand is posited as relating itself only to itself and as being indifferent to Other; but it relates itself in itself to Form; for it contains transcended negativity, and is Matter only by virtue of this determination. And it relates itself to Form as to an Other only because Form is not posited in it, and because it is Form only in itself. It contains Form locked in itself, and is absolute susceptibility to Form only because it absolutely holds it and because this is its self-existent determination. Therefore, Matter must be formed, and Form must materialize itself—must in Matter give itself self-identity or persistence.

2. Hence Form determines Matter, and Matter is determined by Form.—Form itself is absolute self-identity, and thus contains Matter: Matter in its pure abstraction or absolute negativity has in itself Form: and thus the operation of Form upon Matter and the passive determination of Matter by Form, are really only the cancellation of the Show of their indifference and distinctness. Thus this relation of determining is the mediation of each with itself through its own Not-being;—but these two mediations are one movement and the reconstruction of their original identity—the internalization of their externalization.

First, Matter and Form presuppose one the other. This means, as was seen, that the one essential unity is negative self-relation; it then splits asunder into essential Identity, determined as indifferent foundation, and essential Difference or negativity, as determining Form. The unity of Essence and Form, which stand opposed as Form and Matter, is Absolute Ground which determines itself. The unity becomes a Various, and consequently the relation, by virtue of the fundamental identity of the Various terms, becomes reciprocal presupposition.

Secondly, Form, as independent, is in any case self-transcending contradiction; but it is also posited as such, for it is at one and the same time independent and essentially related to an Other;—and thus it transcends itself. It is itself two-sided, and therefore this transcendence has its double side: first, it transcends its independence and becomes a posited entity, something which is in an Other; and this its Other is Matter. Secondly, it transcends its determinateness against Matter, its relation to it, and therewith its positedness, and thus gives itself persistence. As it transcends its positedness, this its Reflection is its own identity, into which it passes; but, since at the same time it casts off this identity and opposes it to itself as Matter, this Reflection of positedness in itself exists as union with a Matter in which it achieves persistence. Accordingly, in the union it coalesces with Matter as with an Other—according to that first aspect in which it makes itself into something posited—and also with its own identity.

The activity of Form, then, by which Matter is determined, consists in a negative attitude of Form towards itself. But conversely it thereby is in a negative attitude to Matter too. However, this process of determination of Matter is also the proper movement of Form itself. Form is free from Matter, but it transcends this its independence; but its independence is Matter itself, for in this it has its essential identity. When in this manner Form makes itself a posited entity, this is identical with the fact that it makes Matter determinate.—But, considered from the other side, the proper identity of Form is also externalized, and Matter is its Other; and in so far Matter is not determined, since Form transcends its own independence. But Matter is independent only as against Form: the Positive transcends itself in the same measure as the Negative. Thus, as Form transcends itself, the determinateness of Matter, which it has as against Form, vanishes; and this determinateness was indeterminate persistence.

Now this, which appears as the activity of Form, is equally the proper movement of Matter itself. The self-existent determination of Matter, or its Ought, is its absolute negativity. By virtue of this, Matter relates itself absolutely not only to Form as to an Other, but this external something is that Form which it contains locked within itself. Matter is that same inner contradiction which Form contains, and this contradiction, like its solution, is one only. But Matter is contradictory in itself, for as indeterminate self-identity it is also absolute negativity; it therefore transcends itself in itself, and its identity disintegrates in its negativity; the latter achieves its persistence in the former. Thus, when Matter is determined by Form as by something external, it reaches its determination; and externality of attitude both for Form and for Matter consists in this, that each unity, or rather their original unity, in its positing also presupposes; and hereby self-relation becomes relation to self as transcended, or relation to Other.

Thirdly, their original unity is on the one side restored by this movement of Form and Matter, and on the other it has now become posited. Matter determines itself, and equally this determining is, for it, only an external activity of Form. Conversely Form determines only itself, or has in itself that Matter which it determines, just as much as it is related to an Other in its determining; and both—the activity of Form and the movement of Matter—are the same; only the former is an activity, that is, negativity as posited determination, and the latter is movement or becoming, negativity as self-existent determination. Consequently the result is the unity of Being-in-Self and of positedness. Matter is determined as such or necessarily has a Form; and Form is simply material, or persistent, Form.

Form, in so far as it presupposes a Matter as its Other, is finite. It is not Ground, but only the active principle. Similarly Matter, in so far as it presupposes Form as its Not-being, is finite Matter; nor is it the Ground of its unity with Form, but only the foundation for Form. But this finite Matter as well as this finite Form has no truth; each relates itself to the other, or only their unity is their truth. These two determinations pass back into this unity and there transcend their independence: the unity thus proves itself their Ground. Consequently Matter is Ground of its determination of Form only in so far as it is not Matter as Matter, but the absolute unity of Essence and Form; and similarly Form is Ground of the persistence of its determinations only in so far as it is such a unity. But this one unity as absolute negativity, or, more closely determined, as exclusive unity, is in its Reflection a presupposing principle; in other words, it is one activity, in positing to preserve itself in unity as posited, and also to repel itself from itself,—to relate itself to itself as itself and also to itself as to an Other. Or again, the process of determination of Matter by Form is the mediation of Essence as Ground with itself in a unity, through itself and through the negation of itself.

Formed Matter, or persisting Form, is now not only this absolute self-unity of Ground, but is also posited unity. It is that movement which has been considered, in which Absolute Ground has exhibited its moments simultaneously as self-transcending and hence as posited. Or again, restored unity in its coincidence with itself has equally repelled itself from itself and determined itself; for its unity, since negation created it, is also negative unity. It is therefore the unity of Form and Matter as their foundation, which however is determinate; and this is Formed Matter, which nevertheless is indifferent to both Form and Matter, since they are transcended and unessential. It is Content.

Form at first stands opposed to Essence, and is then Ground-relation in general; its determinations are Ground and Grounded. It further stands opposed to Matter, and then is Determining Reflection; and its determinations are Determination of Reflection itself and its persistence. Finally it stands opposed to Content, where its determinations again are itself and Matter. What before was the self-identical—first Ground, then persistence in general, and lastly Matter—passes beneath the domination of Form, and is once more one of its determinations.

Content, first, has one Form and one Matter which belong to it and are essential to it; it is their unity. But this unity also is determinate or posited unity, and thus it stands opposed to Form; Form constitutes positedness, and, as against Content, is the unessential. Content is therefore indifferent to it; Form includes both Form as such and Matter; and thus Content has a Form and a Matter of which it constitutes the foundation, while they are to it mere positedness.

Secondly, Content is that which is identical in Form and Matter, which would make these into merely indifferent external determinations. They are positedness in general, which however in Content has passed back into its unity or Ground. Thus the self-identity of Content is, in the one instance, that identity which is indifferent to Form; but in the other it is the identity of Ground. At first Ground has vanished in Content; but at the same time Content is the negative intro-Reflection of the determinations of Form; its unity—which so far is that unity only which is indifferent to Form—hence is also formal unity or the Ground-relation as such. Content therefore has this for essential Form, and conversely Ground has a Content.

The Content of Ground then is Ground which has returned into its unity with itself; Ground first is Essence, which is self-identical in its positedness; in so far as it is various and indifferent to its positedness, it is indeterminate Matter; but being Content it is also Formed identity, and this Form becomes Ground-relation because the determinations of its opposite are posited as also negated in Content.—Further, Content is determinate in itself; not only—as is Matter—as the indifferent in general, but as Formed Matter, so that the determinations of Form have a material and indifferent persistence. Content is on the one hand the essential self-identity of Ground in its positedness; on the other it is posited identity as against the Ground-relation. This positedness, which is in this identity in the shape of determination of Form, is opposed to free positedness, that is, to Form as complete relation of Ground and Grounded; this Form is total positedness, which returns into itself, and therefore the former is only positedness as immediate, or determinateness as such.

Hereby Ground has constituted itself Determined Ground, and the determinateness it has here is twofold: determinateness first of Form and secondly of Content. The former is that determinateness whereby it is altogether external to Content, which is indifferent to this relation. The latter is the determinateness of the Content which is Content of Ground.

Ground has a determinate Content. It appeared that the determinateness of Content was the foundation of Form, the simple immediate as against the mediation of Form. Ground is identity which is negatively related to itself, and thus constitutes itself as positedness. It is negatively related to itself in that it is self-identical in this its negativity; this identity is foundation or Content, which in this manner constitutes the indifferent or positive unity of the Ground-relation and is its mediator.

At this point the determinateness of Ground and Grounded against each other is not present in this Content. But, further, mediation is negative unity. In this indifferent foundation the Negative is its immediate determinateness, by virtue of which Ground has a determinate Content. But also the Negative is the negative self-relation of Form. On the one hand what is posited cancels itself and passes back into its Ground; but Ground—which is essential independence—relates itself negatively to itself and makes itself a posited entity. This negative mediation of Ground and Grounded is the peculiar mediation of Form as such, or formal mediation. Now the two sides of Form, since one passes over into the other, jointly posit themselves in one identity as transcended, and this identity therefore they also presuppose. It is determinate Content, and formal mediation relates itself thus to it as to the positive mediator, and through itself. Content is the element of identity in both; they are distinct, but each in its distinctness is the relation to the other, and so Content is their persistence, and the persistence of each as of the whole itself.

From this it results that Determined Ground contains what follows. First, a determinate Content is considered from two sides, in so far as it is posited (a) as Ground or (b) as Grounded. Content itself is indifferent to this Form: in both it is one determination only. Secondly, Ground itself is moment of Form quite as much as is that which it posits: this is their formal identity. It is indifferent which of the two determinations is given priority; whether the transition is made from Posited to Other (as to Ground) or from Ground to Other (as to Posited). Grounded, considered by itself, is its own transcendence, and thereby it makes itself on the one hand Posited and also is positing of Ground. Ground as such is the same movement: it makes itself Posited, and thus becomes Ground of something, and so is present in this something both as Posited and also only as Ground. Posited is the ground why there is Ground, and conversely Ground hence is Posited. Mediation begins interchangeably with either term; each side is Ground as much as Posited, and each is the whole mediation or the whole Form.—This whole Form further is self-identical, and thus is itself the foundation of the determinations which are these two sides of Ground and Grounded; and so Form and Content are one and the same identity.

This identity of Ground and Grounded, with respect to both Content and Form, makes Ground sufficient (sufficiency being restricted to this relation): there is nothing in Ground which is not in Grounded, and nothing in Grounded which is not in Ground. If a Ground is asked for, it is desired to see in duplicate the same determination (namely Content), first in the form of Posited, and next in the form of intro-reflected Determinate Being, or Essentiality.

Now in Determined Ground, Ground and Grounded are the whole Form, and their Content, though determinate, is one and the same; and, in so far, Ground is not determined really in its two sides: as yet, the Content of each is the same. Determinateness here is simple, and has not yet passed into the sides; and Determined Ground is here present only in its pure Form as Formal Ground.—Content is only this simple determinateness, which does not contain in itself the Form of Ground-relation; the latter therefore is self-identical Content, and indifferent to Form as Form is external to it. It is Other than Form.

If in reflecting upon definite grounds no departure is made from that form of Ground which has here appeared, then the indication of a ground remains mere formalism and empty tautology, which expresses in the form of intro-Reflection or Essentiality the same content that is present already in the form of immediate Determinate Being considered as posited. Hence such a statement of grounds is attended with the same emptiness as speech in the terms of the Law of Identity. Every science, and especially physical science, is full of tautologies of this kind, which in a manner constitute a prerogative of science.—For instance, the ground of the planets’ motion round the sun is sometimes declared to be the attractive force between earth and sun. Nothing is here stated with regard to Content except what the phenomenon contains, namely the relation of these bodies to one another in their movement; only it is expressed in the form of intro-reflected determination, or force. If it is asked what kind of force attractive force is, then it is replied that it is the force which causes the earth to revolve around the sun; that is, it has precisely the same Content as that Determinate Being of which it is supposed to be the Ground; the relation of earth and sun with respect to movement is the identical foundation of Ground and Grounded.—If a certain form of crystallization is explained as having its ground in the particular arrangement with regard to one another into which the molecules enter, then the existing crystallization is this arrangement itself which is given as the ground. In ordinary life these aetiologies, which are the privilege of the sciences, are reckoned to be what they are—empty and tautological talk. If the question why somebody goes to town is answered by the ground that there is an attractive force in the town which draws him there, this style of answer, sanctioned in the sciences, is counted absurd.—Leibniz charged Newton’s attractive force with being just such a hidden quality as was used by the schoolmen for purposes of explanation. But it ought rather to be charged with the opposite, namely that it is a quality known too well; for it has no other content than the phenomenon itself.—This manner of explaining is favoured because it is easy to see and understand; nothing is easier to see and understand, for instance, than that a plant has its ground in vegetative—that is, in plant-productive—force.—It could be called an occult quality only in this meaning, that the ground is supposed to have a content different from that which is to be explained; but no such content is given. In so far as a ground, such as is demanded, is not given, this force which is used in the explanation is indeed an occult ground. But this formalism serves to furnish an explanation no more than the nature of a plant is understood when I say that it is a plant or that it has its ground in a plant-productive force; and, clear as this proposition is, it may yet for this reason be called an exceedingly occult manner of explanation.

Secondly, and formally, this mode of explanation contains the two opposite directions of the Ground-relation, but their determinate relation is not understood. Ground on the one hand is Ground as being the intro-reflected Content-determination of the existence which it grounds; on the other hand it is that which is posited. It is meant to make this existence intelligible; but conversely it is deduced from the existence and understood by its help. For the main business of this reflection is, beginning from the existent, to discover grounds; that is, to transform immediate existence into the form of reflectedness; and Ground, instead of being in and for itself and independent, thus becomes posited and derivative. This procedure fits it to the phenomenon and its determinations rest upon the latter, so that this naturally flows from its ground smoothly and with a fair wind. But knowledge has not been advanced; it drifts in a distinction of form which this very procedure reverses and cancels. One of the greatest difficulties in becoming familiar with the sciences in which this method prevails is due, therefore, to this perversion of premising as ground what is in fact derived, of passing to the consequences and calling them in fact only the ground of those other so-called grounds. The exposition begins with grounds, and they are suspended in mid-air as principles and primary concepts; they are simple determinations, having no necessary existence in and for themselves; and what follows is supposed to be grounded on them. Who would therefore penetrate into this sort of science must begin by acquiring these grounds,—a grievous task for Reason, which is asked to count what is groundless as ground-work. Those fare best who, without much thought, accept these principles as given, and thenceforward use them as fundamental rules of their understanding. Without this method the point of departure cannot be reached, nor can any progress be made without it. But this progress soon checks itself; for the obstruction in the method becomes apparent when in its course it attempts to exhibit the derivative, which in fact contains the grounds of the primary assumptions. It is seen that the deductions are that existence from which the ground was derived; and therefore this relation in which the phenomenon is represented leads to suspicions of the manner of its exposition; for it does not show itself as expressed in its immediacy, but as a voucher for the ground. But the ground is again derived from it, and therefore one requires to see it in its immediacy, in order that it may be made the standard for judging the ground. Hence, in such an exposition, where what really is fundamental appears as derivative, one cannot tell how to take either ground or phenomenon. This uncertainty is increased—especially if the exposition is not rigorously consistent, but rather honest—by the fact that traces and emanations of the phenomenon everywhere betray themselves, suggesting that the phenomenon contains more and quite other things than the principles do. Confusion becomes still greater when reflected and merely hypothetical determinations are mingled with immediate determinations of the phenomenon itself, and the former are enunciated as though they belonged to immediate experience. Many who approach these sciences with honest credulity may believe that molecules, void interstices, centrifugal force, aether, the single ray of light, electrical and magnetic matter, and many other such things, are things or relations which in fact are present in perception in the manner in which they are spoken of—as immediate determinations of existence. They serve as first grounds for other matter, they are pronounced as actualities and are applied with all confidence; and they are allowed to count as such on trust before it is realized that in truth they are determinations deduced from that of which they are meant to be the grounds—hypotheses and figments derived by an uncritical reflection. And indeed we are here in a kind of witches’ circle, where determinations of existence and of reflection, Ground and Grounded, phenomena and phantoms, form a pullulating and indiscriminate mass and enjoy equality of rank.

In the course of this formal business of explaining from grounds, we also hear it repeated (in spite of all explanations based on well-known forces and classes of matter) that we do not know the inner nature itself of these agents. Clearly this is no more than a confession that this process of finding grounds is in itself quite inadequate, and that something quite different from such grounds is required. But then it does not appear why all this explanatory trouble has been taken, and why this different something has not been sought for; or why at least such explanations were not left on one side and no more departures made from the simple facts.

It appeared that the determinateness of Ground is (a) determinateness of foundation or Content-determination, and (b) otherness in the Ground-relation itself—namely, the distinctness between its Content and Form; the relation between Ground and Grounded exhausts itself as an external Form upon Content, which is indifferent to these determinations.—But in fact these two are not external to each other; for Content is this, to be the self-identity of Ground in Grounded and of Grounded in Ground. The side of Ground has turned out to be itself posited, and the side of Grounded, to be Ground: each in itself is this identity which is the whole. But they also belong to Form, and constitute its determinate distinctness; and therefore each in its determinateness is the self-identity of the whole. Thus each has a Content different as against the other.—Or, considered from the side of Content, and because Content is self-identity as of the Ground-relation, it essentially has this difference of Form in itself, and is different as Ground from what it is as Grounded.

Ground and Grounded have a different Content: and herein the Ground-relation has ceased to be formal; the regress into Ground, and the progress out of Ground to the Posited, are no longer tautology: Ground is realized. Accordingly, when a ground is asked for, some other determination of Content is really required for Ground than that the ground of which is demanded.

This relation now determines itself further. For in so far as its two sides are different Content, they are indifferent to each other; each is an immediate and self-identical determination. Further, when they are related to each other as Ground and Grounded, Ground is that which is reflected into itself in the Other as in its positedness; that Content, accordingly, which belongs to the side of Ground, is also in Grounded; and this, as Posited, has its self-identity and persistence only in Ground. But apart from this Content of Ground, Grounded now also has its peculiar Content, and is therefore the unity of a twofold Content. This unity, being a unity of distincts, is their negative unity; but these are determinations of Content indifferent to each other, and therefore it is an empty relation lacking Content in itself, and not their mediation,—a One or Something which is their external link.

The Real Ground-relation, then, has this double implication. (a) The determination of Content, which is Ground, is continued with itself in positedness, so that it constitutes the simple identical element in Ground and Grounded; Grounded thus contains Ground completely in itself; their relation is undifferentiated and essential solidity. Hence what in Grounded is added to this simple Essence is only an unessential Form or external determinations of Content; and these, as such, are free from Ground and are an immediate manifold. Therefore the former Essential is not the Ground of this latter Unessential, nor is it Ground of the relation of the two in Grounded. It is a positively identical entity which is immanent in Grounded, but does not there posit itself in the shape of formal difference; but, as self-relating Content, it is indifferent positive foundation. (b) That which is connected with this foundation in the Something is an indifferent Content; but it is so as the unessential side. The main matter is the relation between foundation and unessential manifold. But this relation too is not Ground, since the related determinations are indifferent Content; one of these is, indeed, determined as essential, and the other only as unessential or posited Content; but as self-relating Content this Form is external to both. The One of the Something, which constitutes their relation, is therefore not Form-relation, but only an external nexus which does not contain unessential manifold Content as posited; it too consequently is only foundation.

Ground now, determining itself, as it does, as Real Ground, falls apart into external determinations by reason of the variety of Content which constitutes its reality. The two relations, (a) essential Content as the simple immediate identity of Ground and Grounded, and (b) the Something as the relation of differentiated Content, are two different foundations; the self-identical form of Ground, which makes the same entity first essential and then posited, has vanished: the Ground-relation has thus become external to itself.

It is therefore now an external Ground which connects differentiated Content and determines what is Ground and what that which is posited by it: this determination is not included in the Content itself of either term. Real Ground consequently is relation to other,—(a) of Content to other Content, and (b) of the Ground-relation itself (Form) to other, namely to an immediate entity not posited by it.

The formal Ground-relation contains only one Content for Ground and Grounded; in this identity consists its necessity, but also its tautology. Real Ground contains a differentiated Content; but here the contingent and external nature of the Ground-relation enters in. On the one hand, that which is considered as essential, and hence as Ground-determination, is not Ground of the other determinations which are connected with it. On the other hand, it is also undetermined which of several Content-determinations of a concrete thing is to be taken as essential and as Ground; hence the choice between them is free. In the first respect, for instance, the ground of a house is its foundation; and this is ground by reason of the weight inherent in sensible matter; and this weight is simply identical in the ground and in the grounded house. Now it is quite indifferent to the heavy itself that there is such a distinction in heavy matter as that between a foundation and a modification which is to be distinguished from it and makes it into a dwelling; its relation to the other content-determinations—purpose, furnishing of house, and so on—is external to it; thus although it is foundation, it is not ground of these. Weight is the ground for a house standing and also the ground for a stone falling; the stone has in itself this ground—weight; but it is external to weight that the stone has a further content-determination, which makes it stone and not merely heavy. And further it is posited through something Other that the stone has first been removed from the body upon which it falls; and time and space and their relation, movement, are also a content different from weight, and can be imagined (as the saying is) without it, whence it follows that they are not essentially posited by it.—Weight is equally the ground which makes a projectile describe the trajectory opposite to falling.—This variety of determinations of which it is the ground makes it clear that an Other is also demanded which shall make it ground of this or of some other determination.—

If it is said of Nature that it is the ground of the world, then what is called Nature is, first, identical with the world, and the world is nothing but Nature itself. But secondly they are distinct, so that Nature is rather the indeterminate, or at least is determinate only in those general distinctions which are laws, or is the self-identical essence of the world; and if Nature is to be the world, a manifold of determinations is added externally. But these are not grounded in Nature as such; Nature indeed is indifferent to them, for they are contingent.—The same relation subsists when God is determined as the ground of Nature. As ground he is its essence; Nature contains this essence and is identical with it; but it has a further manifold, which is distinct from the ground itself, and is that third term in which these two distinct terms are connected; while the ground is ground neither of the manifold which is distinct from it, nor of its connexion with this manifold. Nature is therefore not understood through God as ground, for then God would be only its general essence, which does not contain it as it is, as determinate essence and Nature.

Thus it is a formalism, as much as is Formal Ground itself, to assign Real Grounds: this is due to the difference of content in Ground (or properly foundation) and in that which is connected with it in Grounded. In Formal Ground the self-identical Content is indifferent to Form; and this is also the case in Real Ground. It results from this that it does not contain in itself which of the manifold determinations is to be taken as essential. A Something is a concretion of such a manifold of determinations, each of which manifests itself in it in equal permanence and persistence. Each, therefore, as much as any other, can be determined as Ground, that is, as essential, the other consequently in comparison with it being merely posited. Connected with this is what was mentioned before, that if there is a determination which in one case is regarded as Ground of another, it does not follow that this other will also be posited with it in another case or at all.—Punishment for example has manifold determinations—it is retributive, a deterrent example, a threat used by the law as a deterrent, and also it brings the criminal to himself and to a better frame of mind. Each of these different determinations has been considered the Ground of punishment, because each is an essential determination, and consequently the others in distinction from it are determined as merely contingent in contrast with it. But that determination which is taken as Ground is not yet the whole of punishment; for this concretion also contains those others, which are only attached to it here, but do not find their Ground in it.—Again, an official has a certain aptitude for his office, has certain relationships as an individual, has such and such acquaintances, and a particular character; he could show himself in such and such circumstances and occasions, and so on. Each of these characteristics may be, or be regarded as, the Ground of his holding his office; they are a various Content connected in a third term; the Form (namely the fact that they are determined as essential and as posited relatively to one another) is external to it. Each of these characteristics is essential to the official because he is the determinate individual that he is, by virtue of them; in so far as the office can be considered as an external and posited determination, each may be determined as Ground against it; but also and conversely they may be regarded as posited, and the office as their Ground. Their actual relation—that is, their relation in the individual instance—is a determination external to the Ground-relation and to the Content itself; that which imparts to them the form of Ground and Grounded is a third factor.

And indeed any Determinate Being may have a variety of Grounds; each of its content-determinations penetrates the concrete whole in its self-identity and therefore allows itself to be considered as essential; and there are infinite opportunities for admitting the many respects—that is, determinations which lie outside the matter itself—in the contingent nature of the connexion.—For this reason it is also contingent whether a Ground has this or that consequence. Moral motives, for example, are essential determinations of the ethical being; but that which follows from them is also an externality foreign to them, which both follows and does not follow from them; it is added to them only through a third term. More exactly this must be taken in the following manner: it is not contingent to the moral determination, if it is Ground, that it has a consequence (or Grounded); but it is contingent whether it is made Ground or not. But again the content which is its consequence, if it has been made Ground, is of external nature, and consequently it can be cancelled immediately by some other externality. Hence an action may, or may not, proceed from a moral motive. Conversely an action may have more Grounds than one; as a concrete, it contains manifold essential determinations, each of which for this reason may be called Ground. Accordingly argumentation—which chiefly consists in the search for and indication of Grounds—is an endless meandering, which contains no ultimate determination. For any and every thing one and more good Grounds can be given, and they can also be given for its opposite; and there may be present any number of Grounds from which nothing follows. What Sokrates and Plato call sophistry is just argumentation from Grounds, to which Plato opposes the contemplation of the Idea, that is, the Thing in and for itself or in its Notion. Grounds are taken only of essential content-determinations, relations, and respects, and of these each thing, as well as its opposite, contains several; and in their form of essentiality one is as valid as another; it does not contain the whole volume of the thing, and therefore is a one-sided Ground, and each of the other particular sides has again its group of Grounds; but not one exhausts the thing itself, which constitutes their connexion and contains them all. Not one is sufficient Ground, that is, the Notion.

1. In Real Ground, Ground as content and Ground as relation are only foundations. The former is only posited as essential and as Ground; the relation is the Something of Grounded as the indeterminate substratum of a varied content, a connexion of it which is not its own Reflection but a Reflection external and therefore only posited. Hence the Real Ground-relation is rather Ground as transcended; consequently this relation constitutes rather the side of Grounded or of positedness. But as positedness Ground itself has now passed back into its Ground; it is now a Grounded, and has another Ground. Hereby the latter determines itself in such a manner that, first, it is that which is identical with Real Ground as its Grounded; in this determination both sides have one and the same content; and the two content-determinations and their connexion in the Something are also within the new Ground. But, secondly, the new Ground into which that merely posited external connexion has transcended itself is, as its intro-Reflection, the absolute relation of the two content-determinations.

Real Ground itself has passed back into its Ground; hence in it the identity of Ground and Grounded, or Formal Ground, is restored. The resulting Ground-relation is therefore complete containing both Formal and Real Ground, and mediating the content-determinations, which in the latter were immediate to each other.

2. The Ground-relation has now determined itself more closely, in the following manner. First, something has a Ground; it contains the content-determination (which is Ground) and a second content-determination which is posited by Ground. But each is an indifferent content, and therefore the one is not in itself Ground, nor is the other grounded by the first: this relation exists as transcended or posited in the immediacy of content, and as such it has its Ground in an other. This second relation is distinct only formally and has the same content as the first (namely, the two determinations of content), but it is their immediate connexion. But the connected terms are various content in general, and therefore determinations indifferent to each other; the relation therefore is not their truly absolute relation, where one of the determinations would be that which is self-identical in its positedness, and the other the positedness of this same identity. In fact, however, they are supported by a Something which constitutes their merely immediate (and not reflected) relation; hence this relation is only relative Ground as against the connexion in the other Something. The two Somethings are, accordingly, the two distinct relations of content which have resulted. They stand in the identical Ground-relation of Form; they are one and the same whole Content, namely, the two content-determinations and their relation; they are distinguished only by the manner of this relation, which is immediate in the one and posited in the other, so that one is distinguished from the other only formally, as Ground and Grounded.—Secondly, this Ground-relation is not only formal, but also real. It was seen above that Formal Ground passes over into Real Ground; the moments of Form reflect themselves into themselves; they are an independent Content, and the Ground-relation also contains one peculiar Content as Ground and one as Grounded. The Content first constitutes the immediate identity of the two sides of Formal Ground: they thus have one and the same Content. But it also has Form in itself, and is thus a twofold Content, having terms in the relation of Ground and Grounded. Consequently one of the two content-determinations of the two Somethings is determined to be not only common to them in an external comparison, but also to be their identical substratum and the foundation of their relation. As against the other content-determination this one is the essential one, and is its Ground while the other is posited—namely in the Something of which the grounded content-determination is the relation. In the first Something, which is the Ground-relation, this second content-determination too exists immediately, and is connected in itself with the first. The other Something on the other hand contains only the one in itself as that in which it is immediately identical with the first Something; and it contains the other content-determination as posited in it. The former content-determination is its Ground by virtue of the fact that, originally it is connected with the other content-determination in the first Something.

The Ground-relation of the content-determinations in the second Something is thus mediated by the self-existent relation of the first Something. The argument is this: in one Something determination B is in itself connected with determination A; therefore in the second Something, to which immediately only the determination A belongs, B too is connected with A. In the second Something it is not only the case that this second determination is mediate, but also that its immediate determination is Ground; the mediation takes place through its original relation to B in the first Something. This relation accordingly is the Ground of Ground A, and the whole Ground-relation in the second Something is posited, or Grounded.

3. Real Ground appears as the self-external Reflection of Ground; and the complete mediation of the latter is the restoration of its self-identity. But hereby this has also acquired the externality of Real Ground, and the formal Ground-relation in this unity of itself and of Real Ground is self-positing as much as it is self-transcending Ground; the Ground-relation mediates itself with itself through its negation. First, Ground, as the original relation, is a relation of immediate content-determinations. As essential Form the Ground-relation has for sides such entities as are transcended or are moments. Consequently, as Form of immediate determinations, it is self-identical relation, and also relation of its negation; accordingly it is Ground, not in and for itself, but as relation to transcended Ground-relation.—Secondly, the transcended relation or the immediate, which in the original and posited relation is the identical foundation, is Real Ground, but also not in and for itself; but it is posited by that original connexion, that it is Ground.—

The Ground-relation in its totality is thus essentially presupposing Reflection; Formal Ground presupposes the immediate content-determination, and this, as Real Ground, presupposes Form. Ground is then Form as immediate connexion; but in such a manner that it repels itself from itself and rather presupposes immediacy, and therein relates itself to itself as to an Other. This immediate is the content-determination, or simple Ground; but as such—as Ground—it too is repelled from itself, and also relates itself to itself as to an Other.—Thus the total Ground-relation has determined itself to be conditioning mediation.

1. Ground is the immediate and Grounded the mediate. But Ground is Positing Reflection; as such it turns itself into positedness, and is Presupposing Reflection; it thus relates itself to itself as to a transcended term, to an immediate through which it is mediated itself. This mediation, as the progress from the immediate to Ground, is not an External Reflection, but, as was seen, the immanent activity of Ground, or, what is the same thing, the Ground-relation as Reflection into self-identity is equally essentially self-externalizing Reflection. The immediate to which Ground relates itself as to its essential presupposition is Condition’, Real Ground is therefore essentially conditioned. The determinateness which it contains is the other-being of itself.

Condition then, is, first, an immediate and manifold Determinate Being. Secondly, this Determinate Being is related to another, to something which is Ground, not of this Being, but in another respect; for the Determinate Being itself is immediate and without Ground. According to the former relation it is a posited term; the immediate Determinate Being is to be as Condition not for itself, but for something else. But at the same time this fact, that it is thus for an other, is only a positedness; the fact that it is a posited is transcended in its immediacy, and a Determinate Being is indifferent to the fact that it is Condition. Thirdly, the Condition is an immediate in such a manner that it constitutes the presupposition of Ground. In this determination it is the Form-relation of Ground, which has passed back into self-identity, and hence it is its Content. But Content as such is but the indifferent unity of Ground as in Form; without Form there is no Content. And it further sets itself free from Form when in Complete Ground the Ground-relation becomes a relation external to its identity, whereby Content acquires immediacy. Accordingly, in so far as Condition is that in which the Ground-relation has its self-identity, it constitutes the Content of Ground; but Content is that which is indifferent to this Form, and therefore it is its Content only in itself, or such an entity as, so far, ought only to become Content, and accordingly constitutes material for Ground. Posited as Condition, Determinate Being has the determination (according to the second moment) of losing its indifferent immediacy and becoming the moment of an Other. It is indifferent to this relation by virtue of its immediacy; but, in so far as it enters into the relation, it constitutes the Being-in-Self of Ground, and is for it the Unconditioned. In order to be Condition, it has its presupposition in Ground and is itself conditioned; but this determination is external to it.

2. Something does not exist by virtue of its Condition; its Condition is not its Ground. Condition is the moment of unconditioned immediacy for Ground, but it is not itself that movement and positing which relates itself negatively to itself and turns itself into positedness. Condition therefore is opposed by the Ground-relation. Apart from its Condition, Something also has a Ground.—Ground is the empty movement of Reflection because the presupposition of Reflection is immediacy, which is, accordingly, external to it. But Reflection is the whole Form and is independent mediation; for Condition is not its Ground. This mediation, in so far as it is positing, is self-related, and from this side therefore it too is an immediate and an Unconditioned: it presupposes itself, but only as an externalized or transcended positing, while it is in and for itself what it is according to its determination.—Thus the Ground-relation has a peculiar Content as against the Content of Condition in so far as it is independent self-relation and has the identity of Reflection in itself. The former Content is Content of Ground, and therefore essentially has Form; but the latter is only immediate material, and its relation to Ground is also external to it, while at the same time it constitutes Ground’s Being-in-Self. It is, therefore, a mixture of independent Content, which has no relation to the Content of the Ground-determination, and of such content as is absorbed in the latter and, as its material, is designed to become its moment.

3. The two sides of the whole—Condition and Ground—are, then, indifferent and unconditioned one against the other; the one since it is the unrelated term to which the relation in which it is Condition is external, and the other as the relation or Form for which the determinate existence of Condition is only a kind of material or passive substratum, whose Form (which it has in it for itself) is an unessential one. And further, both are mediate. Condition is the Being-in-Self of Ground; it is so much essential moment of the Ground-relation that it is the simple identity of this with itself. But this is also transcended; this Being-in-Self is only posited; immediate Determinate Being is indifferent to the fact that it is Condition. Thus the fact that Condition is Being-in-Self for Ground constitutes that side of it which makes it mediate. And in the same manner the Ground-relation in its independence has a presupposition, and its Being-in-Self is external to it.—Thus each of the two sides is the contradiction of indifferent immediacy and of essential mediation, both in one relation,—or the contradiction of independent persistence and the determination of being only moment.

The two Relatively Unconditioned terms at first show each into the other; the Condition, as immediate, into the Form-relation of Ground, and the Form-relation into immediate Determinate Being as its positedness; but while its Other shows in each, each is also independent and has its peculiar content.

Condition at first is immediate Determinate Being; its Form has two moments,—positedness, where as Condition it is the material and moment of Ground, and Being-in-Self, where it constitutes the essentiality of Ground or its simple intro-Reflection. Both sides of Form are external to immediate Determinate Being, since that is transcended Ground-relation.—But, first, Determinate Being in itself is no more than the fact that it transcends itself in its immediacy and perishes. And indeed Being is only the Becoming of Essence; it is its essential nature to become Posited and Identity, which latter becomes immediate by negation of itself. Accordingly the Form-determinations of Positedness and of self-identical Being-in-Self—the Form by virtue of which immediate Determinate Being is Condition—are therefore not external to it: it is this Reflection itself. Secondly, as Condition, Being is now posited as that which it is essentially, that is, as moment, and necessarily as moment of an Other, and also as the Being-in-Self likewise of an Other; but in itself it exists only by virtue of its own negation, that is, of Ground and of its self-transcendent and consequently self-presupposing Reflection; the Being-in-Self of Being is, accordingly, only posited. This Being-in-Self of Condition has two sides: it is, first, its essentiality, as essentiality of Ground, and, secondly, the immediacy of its Determinate Being. Or, rather, both are the same. Determinate Being is an immediate, but the immediacy is essentially what is mediated—mediated by self-transcending Ground. It is immediacy mediated by self-transcending mediation; but, as such, it is also the Being-in-Self of Ground and its Unconditioned; while this Being-in-Self in turn is equally only moment or positedness, for it is mediated.—Condition therefore is the whole Form of the Ground-relation; it is its presupposed Being-in-Self, but for this reason it is itself a positedness; and its immediacy is this, that it becomes positedness, and so repels itself from itself in such a manner that it perishes but is also Ground, which Ground becomes positedness and hence also Grounded; these two are one and the same.

Similarly, in Conditioned Ground, Being-in-Self is not only the showing in it of an Other. This Ground is the independent, that is, the self-relating, Reflection of positing, and accordingly it is self-identical; in other words it is in itself its Being-in-Self and its Content. But also it is presupposing Reflection: it relates itself negatively to itself, and opposes its Being-in-Self to itself as Other to it; and Condition, according to its moment of Being-in-Self and also according to its moment of immediate Determinate Being, is the proper moment of the Ground-relation; immediate Determinate Being exists essentially only by virtue of its Ground, and is its own moment in so far as it is presupposition. Ground therefore is equally the whole.

Accordingly there is here only one whole of Form, and, equally, only one whole of Content. For the peculiar Content of Condition is essential Content only in so far as it is the self-identity of Reflection in Form, or in so far as it is Ground-relation as being this immediate Determinate Being in itself. This latter further is Condition only by virtue of the presupposing Reflection of Ground; it is the self-identity of Ground, or it is its Content, to which it opposes itself. Hence Determinate Being is not merely formless material for the Ground-relation: it has this Form in itself, and therefore it is Formed Matter; and also, since in its identity with it it is indifferent to it, it is Content. Finally, it is the same Content which Ground has; for, precisely, it is Content, and Content is that which is self-identical in the Form-relation.

The two sides of the whole, Condition and Ground, are, then, one essential unity, equally as Content and as Form. Each passes into the other through itself, or, being a Reflection, each posits itself as transcended, relates itself to this its negation, and thus presupposes the other. But at the same time this is only one Reflection of both, and therefore their presupposing also is only one; and the reciprocity of this rather passes over into that state where they presuppose their one identity as their persistence and their foundation. It is this identity—their common Content and unity of Form—which is the truly Unconditioned; it is the Fact in itself.—Condition, as resulted above, is only the Relatively Unconditioned. Generally, therefore, it is itself looked upon as a Conditioned; a new condition is asked for, and thus the familiar infinite progress from condition to condition is initiated. The question now is why a new condition to any one condition is asked for, that is, why this condition is taken as conditioned. The answer is, because it is indifferently any finite Determinate Being. But this is a further determination of Condition, which is not contained in its concept. Condition as such is a Conditioned because it is posited Being-in-Self; it is therefore transcended in the Absolutely Unconditioned.

Now this contains in itself the two sides—Condition and Ground—as its moments; it is the unity into which these have returned. They together constitute its Form or positedness. The Unconditioned Fact is Condition of both; but it is Absolute Condition, that is, Condition which is itself Ground.—Now as Ground it is that negative identity which has repelled itself into these two moments;—first, into the shape of transcended Ground-relation, an immediate, self-external multiplicity which is without unity, which relates itself to Ground as an Other to it and at the same time constitutes its Being-in-Self; and secondly into the shape of an internal and simple Form, which is Ground, but relates itself to the self-identical immediate as to an Other and determines it as Condition,—that is, it determines this its In-itself as its own moment.—These two sides presuppose the totality in such a manner that the totality is that which posits them. Conversely, because they presuppose the totality, the totality in turn appears to be conditioned by them; and the Fact appears to arise from its Condition and from its Ground. But these two sides have shown themselves to be identity, and therefore the relation between Condition and Ground has vanished; they have been reduced to a Show; the Absolutely Unconditioned in its movement of positing and presupposing is only that movement in which this Show cancels itself. The activity of the Fact is, to condition itself and to oppose itself as Ground to its Conditions; but its relation as relation between Conditions and Ground is a Showing within itself, and its attitude to them is its collapse into itself.

The Absolutely Unconditioned is Absolute Ground which is identical with its Condition: the immediate Fact, as being of truly essential nature. As Ground it is in a negative relation to itself; it makes itself positedness, but a positedness which is Reflection perfected in its sides and Form-relation self-identical in them; for such is the concept of it which was reached. Accordingly this positedness is, first, transcended Ground, or the Fact as the reflectionless immediate; this is the side of Conditions. This side is the totality of the determinations of the Fact—or the Fact itself, but cast out into the externality of Being; it is the re-established sphere of Being. In Condition, Essence dismisses the unity of its intro-Reflection as an immediacy, which immediacy now, however, has the determination that it is conditioning presupposition and essentially constitutes one only of the sides of Essence. The Conditions are the whole content of the Fact because they are the Unconditioned in the form of formless Being. But by reason of this form they have another shape besides that of determinations of the content as it is in the Fact as such. They appear as a manifold lacking unity and mixed with nonessentials and other elements which do not belong to the sphere of Determinate Being in so far as this constitutes the Conditions of this particular Fact.—The sphere of Being itself is Condition for the absolute and unrestricted Fact. Ground, which passes back into itself, posits it as the first immediacy, and relates itself to it as to its Unconditioned. This immediacy, as transcended Reflection, is Reflection within the element of Being, which thus, as such, develops into a whole; Form continues to grow rank as determinateness of Being, and thus appears as a Content which is manifold and both distinct from and indifferent to the Determination of Reflection. The Unessential, which belongs to the sphere of Being, and is cast off by it in so far as it is Condition, is the determinateness of immediacy, in which the unity of Form is submerged. This unity of Form as the relation of Being is, in Being, first, Becoming—the transition of one determinateness of Being into another. But further the Becoming of Being is its Becoming of Essence and the regress into Ground. In truth, therefore, that Determinate Being which constitutes the Conditions is not determined to be Condition by an Other, nor used as material by an Other; but by itself it makes itself the moment of an Other.—Further, in its Becoming it does not begin with itself as the true first term and immediate: its immediacy is only that which is presupposed, and the movement of its Becoming is the activity of Reflection itself. Consequently the truth of Determinate Being is that it is Condition; its immediacy is due only to the Reflection of the Ground-relation, which posits itself as transcended. Like immediacy, therefore, Becoming is only the Show of the Unconditioned, when this latter presupposes itself and therein has its Form; and consequently the immediacy of Being essentially is only moment of Form.

The Ground-relation as such is the other side of this Showing of the Unconditioned; this relation is determined as Form against the immediacy of the Conditions and of Content. But it is the Form of the absolute Fact, which has in itself the self-unity of its Form (or, its Content), and, determining it as Condition, transcends its variety in this positing and makes it a moment; and, conversely, as essenceless Form it achieves the immediacy of persistence in this self-identity. The Reflection of Ground transcends the immediacy of the Conditions and relates them so that they become moments in the unity of the Fact. But the Conditions themselves are presupposed by the unconditioned Fact, which thus transcends its own positing; in other words, its own positing equally and immediately constitutes itself Becoming.—The two are therefore one unity; the proper movement of the Conditions is Becoming, regress into Ground to the positing of Ground; but Ground as posited—that is, as transcended—is the immediate. Ground relates itself negatively to itself, constitutes itself positedness, and grounds the Conditions. It is thus that immediate Determinate Being is determined as a posited, and in this very fact Ground transcends it and only now constitutes itself Ground.—This Reflection then is the mediation with itself of the unconditioned Fact through its negation. Or rather, the Reflection of the Unconditioned at first is presupposition (but this self-transcendence is an immediately determining positing); secondly it is here immediately transcendence of what is presupposed, and is determination out of itself; and thus this determining has again become transcendence of positing and is in itself Becoming. Here mediation—the return to self through negation—has vanished; it is simple Reflection showing in itself, and groundless absolute Becoming. The movement of the Fact, when it is posited (a) by its Conditions and (b) by its Ground, is nothing more than the disappearance of the show of mediation. Accordingly, when the Fact is posited, this process is an emergence, the simple entry into Existence, pure movement of the Fact to itself.

When all the Conditions of a Fact are present, it enters into Existence. The Fact is before it exists: it is, first, as Essence or as Unconditioned; secondly, it has Determinate Being, or is determinate in the twofold manner already considered—in its Conditions and in its Ground respectively. In the former it gave itself the form of external and groundless Being, since, being absolute Reflection, it is negative relation to itself and makes itself its own presupposition. This presupposed Unconditioned is, therefore, the groundless immediate, whose Being is nothing except the mere fact of its existence as groundless. When all the Conditions of the Fact are present, then, that is, when the totality of the Fact is posited as the groundless immediate, this scattered manifold internalizes itself in itself.—The whole Fact must be there in its Conditions; or, all Conditions belong to its Existence, for all constitute its Reflection; in other words, Determinate Being, since it is Condition, is determined by Form; its determinations are consequently determinations of Reflection, and the positing of one essentially involves the positing of the others.—The internalization of the Conditions is, so far, the destruction of immediate Determinate Being, and the Becoming of Ground. But thus Ground becomes posited Ground,—that is, by as much as it is Ground, by so much it is transcended as Ground and is immediate Being. Therefore, when all the Conditions of the Fact are present, they transcend themselves as immediate Determinate Being and presupposition; and equally Ground transcends itself. Ground manifests itself merely as a Show which immediately vanishes; accordingly this emergence is the tautological movement of the Fact towards itself, and its mediation by the Conditions and by Ground is the disappearance of both. The emergence into Existence is therefore immediate, but immediate in such a manner that it is mediated only by the disappearance of mediation.

The Fact emerges out of Ground. It is not grounded in or posited by Ground in such a manner that Ground remains as substratum: the process of positing is the egress of Ground towards itself and its simple disappearance. The union with the Conditions gives to Ground external immediacy and the moment of Being. But Ground does not obtain these as something external, nor by means of an external relation: but as Ground it turns itself into positedness; in positedness its simple essentiality coincides with itself, and in this self-transcendence is the disappearance of its difference from its positedness; that is, it is simple essential immediacy. Ground therefore does not remain over as different from Grounded, but the truth of Grounding is that Ground there unites itself with itself and that therefore its Reflection into other is its intro-Reflection. Hence the Fact, as it is the Unconditioned, so also is the Groundless, and emerges from Ground only in so far as Ground has perished and is no Ground: it emerges from the Groundless, that is, from its proper essential negativity or pure Form.

This immediacy mediated by Ground and Condition, and self-identical by the transcendence of mediation, is Existence.