x an INTRODUCTION TO HEGI loci AN INTRODUCTION TO — eas HEGEL'S LOGIC SOwNLIYH, 3 Justus Hartnack provides a highly accessible, philosophi- cally astute introduction to Hege!’s logic—one of those rare books that rewards readers at any level of sophisti- cation, and the ideal text for students about to embark ‘on the study of this challenging topic. 2100) 5,34 OF NoLINOOUINY NY “one of the best short introductions to ives a comprehensive survey that easy to understand™ “Michael Wot, Universitat Bielefeld | Hackett Publishing Company P.0.Box 44937 ' Indianapolis, IN 46244-0937 ‘www.hackettpublishing.com Justus Hartnack ISBN-13: 978.0.87220-424.9 7 vi)An Introduction to Hegel’s Logic Justus Hartnack ‘Trane from he Danish by Lars Aagaard Mopesen A great man condemns people to explicate him, aie by GWE Hegel _——e “Hacker Publahing Company, I. Tadanapli/Cambridge(Copigh © 1998 by Hack Pobining Cpe Ine. Allighs seed Pred in th United Stes of Americn ww 234567 Coe desig by Deborah Wikes Tiere desig by Mons Ds “ater of Congres Casing in-Pubicnton Data Hark, fr (Hepes opt Bagsy _htinredeinte He egy omc rand eeihe ih by La pee ees led Reh Incaderibogrphi reference and indee {SBN O-8720-425-I (co). SUN 0-87220-424-3(044) |. Hagel Georg Win Fd 770-831—Cei nd Inerpesion BEMEHOASIS 198 wwosr—sa omanes ae {SBN-13:978-0872004256 (ced) ISBN 9760.87200-109 ta) Contents Preface Induction ‘With What Must the Science of Logic Begin? "The Concepts of the Mediated and the Immediate Being ‘are Being snd Nothing "The Concept of Becoming "The Concept of Determinate Belg and the Concept of Negation Quali ‘Booming and Deer minat Being Something and Something Ese Bad Infinity Tree infty Being-for Set uantey ‘Pare Quanty and Quantum Contin and Disreteness ‘Nomber “Extensive and Intensive Magnitades (uantative Infinity Measure ‘Summary Emenee asence as Medined Being eciey ‘entity and Difference Contradiction Ground ‘Ground a Unity of enti and Difrence Formal Ground, Real Ground, Sufficient Ground, ficient Cate @esrereeee ees SSURE BESSsi | tated ta ‘he Cpe Gro —Condion and Condoned ‘Nicwct the Grom ofthe WordEsienee Thing ad Properss ‘The Object at Telnogcal Objet ‘Theldee ‘The dena Unity of Subjects and Objectivity Lite "The Life Proce ‘The det Copiion "The Theerecal Ide ‘The dene Volon—the Good ‘The Praca Iden ‘The Abwolute Idea Summary Biography SSESRSRUzuRNsesEse Agee Ativan and News| Abbreviations of Hege!’s frequently cited texts: PS: Phenomenology of Spin, tans. A. V- Miler. Oxford: Clarendon Pret 97. SL Hoge’ Seco Logis tan. A.V. Miler. London: George, Allen & ‘Unwin New York: Humanities, 1969 Exe The Enccopadia Lope, rans. F. Geraes W. A. Suchting, nd 1H. Haris Indinnpoli: Hackett Pulishing Co, 1981 ‘Note on Hegel's texts Both the Phnomenaiy of Spit md the Soe of Lope ae com plete, el-standing texts They are ted by page mumbers. Hepes Enc “epee is a ecare compendam divided ino sections. To some etons ‘Heqelappended published remarks. To mast sections Heget'seitorsbave appended “addons” exacted ffom stadent notes ten from his e- ture Accordingly Hepel® Enlace Logics cited by ection mum- ‘bers “Remark” indicate Heels own publahed remark; "Adition” Indleteslecare material eppended by Hegel torsPreface ee Ao has his ook on Hee ee been ween? One reson a be Weed inte shor rom Hepts Bern prod ced in thee staph Een hop the pram propose scala is applil Jest Hl te Aner ern an be fund feat i Soumann hs cae the Hea sera,” by which mesa "Heylcons tela theimpoerble poston ing bth esordiy infoonat and nest comply cele" Any ef o prove ‘Sioetethat whch lon compel inacreiie stie. “Tt wo eps Se Lape (nd ot on ay of Hees ihr wei) been he epi more han he leon of Sp ‘ty efinehertook sine Grey ate lon of what igh be cil dhe mctopyealpoblen 0 fone pres he ontlogea proten- The ‘Sry opp har cpt rt farm fal enim ch {2 Hunce hr fieaeous consequence: I cles us © commit the fumes anceps or worst ee rary for ng and ig Kan ere phlonpy sve hom fom the ames In Kan pie py th were reed ouoln,1 e 8 ow-Katn, at ey opata concep scape Bat ant bsp nino ede ‘Be Hs psp rele the examen objec nga, TAL Somman The Hain Afra (Bakimae and Londo: The oh Hapine Univers Prove 98), bere gute am Reber Ppa Has Ha SP ent moe Ce Uy Pres,x | Antnrescton we Hees Lape sss Ding sich of which one could sy nothing none ofthe categories (Ge, none ofthe concepts constinting necessary coniions fr experience nd knowlege) could be applied toi, not ven the category of existence It ‘ms left to Absolute Iam ianugurated by Fiche and Scheling and mmpeted by Hegel, w doy wth he object at thing in te by trae fexming tito an object determined bythe ame categorie tare thought and language: What Heel sai the “Pefice” tothe Phenomena ie ‘aldo al hie philosophy: In my view which can be jie omy ‘he exposition ofthe rpsem ively everything tan on gagpng and ex- _ressng the tus not only as subtance, but equal ss mbjec” (PS 10). ‘Thesim ofthe Lies ducover the catgoiee the categories hat, worst the foundation ofthe mabect as ells ofthe object, that the _deermines the culture of «country, tssoul Inthe Preface” te the fit edition of hie Sine of Lapiz Hegel mention “he strange spectacle ofa caltred nation withour metaphysce—ike a temple richly ‘rnumented in oer respect but wihaut holy of holies” (SL 25.Introduction Hegel, soled ‘bent deals’ reached its culmination and tscompletion, This poeophy developed inorder to correct what took tobe the fundamental errs of previous philosophice—capeil 10 ‘correct Kantanisn, that ca from the concepual landers that ted the absurdly ofthe thing in ie all at here go into how Fichte replaced Kan’ thing init with the universal or nine oo, or how Scheling and Hegel replaced Fehrs ‘univeral or infinie ego wit universal enon or he aso "Thetis howeve, an ese ference berween Scelings sbeo- Jute and Hegessbeolute, namely: Scheling'sabolute consis the foundation of al knowledge and cant, therefore, itself be an objet of Imowledge In Schelling seat, theres no difeence between sbjex td objec there canbe, therefore, no judgments and, consequent, form of tnowlege stated or expressed. In this respect, Hepes abslte is just he oppose Hegel eicizs Sebel’ bolus by saying artis “te night in which, asthe saying soe all cowsare back" (PS 9). “Hegel's absclute des acon the foundation fl knows “gels abot the truth of the sytem, andthe trthf he sytem is totonly te resut btained. tithe resul understood asthe esl of he rpumentsand deductions Gn Hegeslanguag, the lei movements ‘tn concept involved eng up In ocer word the abo ‘he toa daeeial peter no a the eu bar ls the sep eading WP {bit Hegel illanrate the polatin the lowing way: Te bosom i re- (aed by the bud. When he bd burs, the ossom eomesout en, 3 Tw one ti derdopmentn dein ybck Pm Rail Emi i Att Tain, Law, NewYork Mee, 1986,21 An Inet He's Laie sfter the bosom comes the fut According to dhe view Hegel opposes, ‘the bu, te blossom, andthe fri enrespod to thee mal opposed ‘hlosophiesyatems where at moron one can represent erty nd ‘he two others if nol hte ae ule. Hegel contende that noe of them sf. Eachof themisa presaposicon forthe succeeding one. An esen- ‘al prof what is meet by 2 buds hat tins necoay and lat ep be fore the development ofthe blowor; iti what, by botanical neces, recedes the exitence of the bosom, jus a whats meant by fra t Teast in pry is wha necessarily is preceded by the bom (PS2)$ Hope absolutes deterned by te categorie he categories 06 ‘hey are speed daleciclly i his Laie In Ui respet and thi ex- tent here ia slr berwoen Kant and Hegel, But the difference be- tween their concepts of ctegry is important; lusrates and i an cxpresion ofthe fundamental diflerencsbemeen Kanna snd Hegel “The diference berween the concept of category in Kan’ and in “eget phiceophy thir: According wo Kant category ic concept con- sitting a conton of experince and knowledge I sw concept the [nowing subject apps othe soled sal ofexpeience ‘The des that the categorie ae applied wo this so-called stuf implies ‘hat hit exists independent of and pir tothe categories And be- ‘use expericice only occurs afte the appleaton ofthe catorie it foe lows thatthe stuff itself slgilly exclded from beng an object of| experience and knowledge ‘This conception of the category—tht i is applied ike mn instra- ‘ment—thus lads 1 negation of knowledge. Because Hegel rejects the ‘concep ofthe thing in el, he scoring most ret the inrument- ‘theory of exreporien® Hgel'sapproah o categories is emily ferent In order wo catiy Hegel's method let me begin by restating what Hegel ia his “Preface” to the Phenomenology proclins a his sim: “In my view, which can be jumifed only by the exposition of he sytem el every tarts on 4 Seeley From Rail Empnsion t Ab ip it), SH 5. Hee lames crim fan's intrament- tryin Bas 108 Le ‘ar onthe Hat of Phy, ts. ES ld sod FH, Sion, 3 vl (New York Hames Pret, 1985) 48 Se slo my ey “Caprice ‘Thing in Tharalen" Hees Co of Ka Pe (Ones Aae Pail oy 198,786, Introduction | 3 raping and expressing the true notoly 8 ubsance but gully 5 5- free P50. Trothe words substance, which hremeans the beasts experi: cocel ins supposed independent exten, i esoring to common Sere, prngm of invidntyPhlowopicl rely hovers, show (ur therappertindidtaty cam be wndentod only interase unvr- = eet sateent shot his sims conequeny a important key 19 undersunding his pil. a Herter Mares puts. the whole ofthe epelan tem ise portrayal othe proven whereby the inividal ‘ecome enteral and whueby te consrucson of unr” ket mere Pees Fow docs this construction pocsd? Hels being pin: wis wat could be called the commonsense worl Tat he welds rey the senses ty ls word n which bjt ae exer iced a bet pei pace epee ines. Threads that an be ‘porto bere a thinspecti ing ie, they elated as beng ere fine new’. vt world preset ona preepistemologeal and» pre ‘Reap lev Te acca resale epistemological nd metaphysis ‘hnkungon he atari the pout fom whch lepsemlog nd ‘mempyscal hing necemry bens? Hep examine the word and {he lngunge tat desrib in is chapcr on “Senseo?” (PS 555, renin mary rec be competed Pa'salegery of eave tsbe duces The Real The prisoner who aeimpronedinthe ‘Gre mst neces bebe what ey direc experince. The ein ‘Prone y thelr epsenolge ancmetaphyal ignorance, which dot oxen ha hy ve tire an opel Imei need, hey se posed by ale bli. impart ot Pe py spel meal progres achieved through the concep of nepton. ‘Gmetphoopieatanalan into neste —tofifythe lly of te be- Indy te prone This inert omoion Dessert y ‘etwng lochs Hepa propre both inthe Phenomenol ain the Lap? “Marco Bs nd Ratio (Oxford Oner Unive Pre, 141), om 7. CLP. Samon Indu (Landon: Methuen & Co. Lt 1959), 86 {nthe “Poti” 0 the Permenliy Hepl speaks of te teens power ofthe nea ithe energy ei the pare T "(25 1)4 | Autniaduction wo Hegel Laie What Hegel negates concerrig our commonsense view snd oor ‘commonsense unguase, tat ithe language we ue inorder tok about ‘ur commonsense welds nt our us ofthe words we in fact we. That ‘ould beto committhefulay commited by Hume, whoseradialempi- Sem would commit the ames words whch were ro connected with ‘sense impressions and would thus impoverh the lznguage tothe pint that could not be used a + lnguage Hoge would webecribe to what ‘se words suchas Thee, ‘now and hs. He corres our anderstand- ingot these words He neater the incorectesurnption that india ‘erances of such word ameindividul partclre.Phzeopical analysis ‘eves that these words can be used and understod only within acontext ‘Funivermla © Our nepting power takes us inthe Phenomenology From ‘one form of conscouanast snotier it taker fom vente ceri ‘rough perception and force and undersanding, tos conacoutness “Ato-caled form of conssiournen iedeermined by the natarfthe cbjct—the object of conscioumess Two forms of enscousness ier the jes constatng the objects of consciousness ae diferent. There 4 fr example dilerence between a conacoumes ascording © which ‘object ar conceived as indvival artes and coniciounestacord- ing to whic object are conceived as univers. Of neces, we are al- ing stout objec, bat the nature ofthe cbjecsis conceived differently We se Derefere ling abou two diferent forms of consdouanesn The ne ‘ating power—ar, if one prefer, or capacity fr philosophical analy- ‘St-—enables usta see thet on orm conscoumeas need corectonnd, ‘consequent, mots tothe coreted one Ti coreson impli that the ‘concept ofthe objects preserved, but the false concep of what an object ithe now ben replaced by the caret ene. This wry of philosophizing ak Neen hil meni Lan: Marin, 5,18 10, CEG. Moar’: sateen inhi esey*A Defence of Cama Senn ering eran common see propetion, fo eample “The Earth hat exited fer many years pst” Some pilerophes, be sys are config the gestion ‘thtber we understand its meaning (ich we cer) wh the ety ‘rntquoson whether we know wha meg inthe ses at ware sets ie ‘cacy ts mening JH Mea, Cpr Brith Ph ‘My (econd Ses; London: Grog Allen Una 925), 198. Ineroduction | 5 Hoge terms x eftcen which is wel translated int English 5 t0 svblae "We chu see that according to Hegel we reach knowledge, not by 9- lying etoores sols, ashe sys at pears and staves, but by nding ‘ut through phioephial ses wha must be negated and therefore Climate and what mst preserved (abled). Heg categories re Consequently not tools, they ae not epesrs nd stares instead they Men- ‘iy te object of about onde they identify the bene. ‘Another and fundamental difeeace berween Kant’ and Hegel's categorie thie Kant caters re the abject’ tols with which ta tees th ebject. They re theo in sense subjective The categories inKanpiloophy categorize the bj, that i they make the objec «> prin sucha way that itcan bean objeto experience However, at an ob- Feet of experience i fers frm te cbject in oem cee hat by ‘sfinision cannot be kxown, In Heges philosophy the cater constite and define the bxo~ Ice. nthe absolute we ear, the true grasped and expresed “not only ss substance bu equally at ubjec:" This implies that the etgore on ‘fie they are vd of and iden, subject and ubstance equally In ter wordy, the objet in tel snot unknown; ts known because tisan ject thats constited by the camories. The catego ens de Sere, and contrat both subject and substance. Heyes categories are ‘Consequently ontological categories They ae categories not only for all thoughts but also categorie forthe worl. This why 2 main thei in Hegel's pilwophy is tha being and thought are denial. "nthe “Pefce tothe second edition ofthe Selene of Lai Hegel ‘wtite! The forms of thought are, in the fat natance, displayed and ‘On fos of easton ad Hee phenome des ee KR pi "eget Slee Dien othe Cerin" The Phrrcel- wee Sp Rend A Caco of Cre on nro Bay}. Sera (Ray ue Univer of Now Yor Pr, 19,7. 12, Hoge pot that the verb a afew ha dob meting it means pits ad pry opener seats renved mit puted fom he le encepton 3 Sex noe 8, Only in em, Sst the abe i ot the enpirieaand ‘nd objec ibe etl ajo wich een of Ka ‘Senden sper ancrndesal perception cites pl ‘isons rte nega, CE Werner May Hee Plone of Sprit (New York Harper Row, 1975) 17.6 | Antndaction o He's Laie stored in human langage. Novadays we canoe be reminded to often that thinking dtingises man fom bes” (S731). Or expreted fle. cath tough tay ft logical aractaroflenguage hat he eto ‘rr rroealedordsrvra tis le therfore, tzouph sec tad et the Categorie ofthe world ae revealed o covered. Tis accord with He t's dictum that there isidenty between thought and bingo, in ober words that the atgories ae ontological valid “This dency canbe urate a flows: Language is sboutsome- ‘hing. Irseemsat firs ervally tue wey tat language about nonlia- ‘psc ray. Admins, language canbe about language I can wre linguage to speak about another ngage which a tara might be de- signed to speak about et another language and oo forth. But inorder to stoi obvious logical difculiesitmust be the case hat here sa enguage that snot shout another lngusge bat about nonlinguati reat cis import, however, dinguish betwen (I) the fc tated, (the sting ofthe fc, and (3) that which makes the stating true ot false" That that which sate or ay something shoot belong othe fac category Teta set, of someting about an bjt: tate ora tert fact sbost an object. About the ext ane thai ten thera, shout the window that itis open, te. Obviously, ean sy something about snobjet, but annotsay an object What makes the stating treo the fct sate, Ithe cat isin facto the mato the window sin fc pen, then the sozement tit the cat som the mato thatthe window i open it ‘uur; othervig i fle. The portant thing to noie thi The fact that makes the statement tru oles noelngsiaerels, Bat thie non- ‘anceps in question it play them-—they ae involved. And becouse ‘omceps ental langue it als thatthe noningsine ely hich ‘We cnnot sy that at itl enconceptualized suf, and be- 1, Fo deed amie af the elton bens he eng of fc ad theft ted sy “Language ad is Objet" Piopty and Phnom! Re ‘eae (1571-78), 238-246 and" aay in Ongar tration de Phimephe 1350981, 0-73. Iniroduction | 7 ‘eames «fact only fer concept re aplied to it. I we could, the 10 “Thich the concep are supposedly appled would ten ise be noting "Tossy that something in unconcrptalzed contreenes the meaning of he ‘concep somthin’ Nothing en be anything unless concepraaed. ‘Gonospts consti the necesary conditions for the exitence of fem "They omatiute fics; they ae par and parce of at. mother wor the stating fhe fs andthe facts ated ar inthe seve ja deserted denteWith What Must the Science of Logic Begin? ——— ‘The Concepts of the Mediated and the Immediate ‘ro conmepthe onc te mde nd hep inmedinep esiput raping Wemeaoeraeny ithe tit on mney vpn ao ten tele or ode Tew mises ee ene Hela water nr eign cf th ey ni a ig tt car atin of he yoo gre ace ‘Spmionom wih edna coe opie eas Inlaed Itt deen nbegning ses Hose ‘eee; fun bn toy ete ae ‘pra yen eed ose fom aha she ‘nities et sowie Ines eps oe elt is ngewe ny pment oro ha tine ipo te ereo tena OF rae ben avon ben ctan eh eae ttm th quent tb aed The weeps cpl ese vu wean ‘don ne me etn Then eto aes ‘chart nd ering as oeend care fio omen har ned nore a mse fegeeveeetn, ~ tre hole tt iis fe deer Ae asi tTnetring neting aan tren hewn oy nan mney ese, i tna deri eal dea oe sion ek ents oppo en en ha SE 0 Ina wes enn sting bere ed With What Mast the Science of Logic Begin? | 9 sn yn et epi Seehrereseaine pebateriniehie toric onsla iea purge ioratiee pater Eeciieaneedomcnn cto iabcemaemenmcereninret Slate aaron a Sores EiSicnwreeseeaoeaareeres een Seaeeatee reece ones ecetaeee a ices ra rom it timiat arama miciaherrcnetmcaramn mineiegcteaeetemenpemont Se ienoniemrsape spar Set heat eiaeeeete attra aeons cetaraetcnunemae eee Soeiasomaane eran sey ac minarets meses tanaee meee ce aeaneieanane errr ssa cemiatemarereeat cena eae eee ay oe eee eee merece eenante Sree oe ee erm Set ceemtecencatenmte eee Si ciaioraas 15, Sevan Fda op it 1-88,10 | tet es ge sen ot ge aan Sota ace tome ievag mentees i se sal ethers ewe’ td emt ‘Sm enor fet wh hrm mame sand oe tary & i ou, Te tenes) “The rings dy aa & fheSun refs pe Vu Toe dentin of emcee Sart net Vn Conder et atemen (Then at 1 si anindby te Sn” Th atm happen tr te se ln namely Vn Inter ode €)end ere eae ene ‘ton Novato (and) we dle uteneas itr eae sin sin irs fon then erg a Ths {reaps hte flees cmon So Pep: wits: Anja is incino the tenga tbe ora sss irate tn ete Bee" —— penny enn epithe ct hat ty ont de ‘otc Toute mtn offre cunpeTae see {tal ody maa om Eth ey cas sams oti nt hare any ot (Wibins oom, en a st hat mont taro in cont htm mo da one ime butf welt tier ivf sere guremethe mace 1G eg deg” ice fe ‘Keak 100107), 25-5 nied ia Trane onthe Merge ee, ‘POnb Prete. Gach and Be Ore Bec DENSI Feet pra el et et a enn 8. Sirona Sin’ opened nosso eat ee ‘Spin td poe om na as ape he Fes 1. Mt, 19. ta, 58 7 Inte cpa The Lion and he Uso,” Being | 13 “Toreturnto he anceps of par being nd nething, ese concepts torhhaveconnctaions bute densation On analy wnt we mesh OY the conpof pare sings mont finely feet fom what we et bythe concept of mthing Frm thea of the concept of pure being filloe ts oncegea erp From the concep of nothing, cet focal empines does ct flo, iti enprosed To arte the og lferen betwee the concept allow fon andthe concep deci ex- pre, mein tha we have tox conti oly twenty ems. Ten Train tht hae went en re remove. According we may make the flloring trae satemente() "From his bx we he removed ll tenty ms contained” and () "This box emp” Sateen () td (vee sume deacon Bat they do not have the me conn ‘Son Prom inter tat the bx emp bt ho noting rm cami dy whe mete he rewed Wal ean of Hosts neyo sy tis "The doin Sig begins wit he msc {tour rind tvng. oting and becoming. wich doer more an ‘attending emptnear of ctgorier wichare withthe {ra dieendasbn of mutual contrasted denies or fines Hees ‘ilsphy ia picsopy fhe fin tein, mot rom the ar ‘Foam atach no meaning to ons in which al fader otin an Orel ‘an Finlay cn pam hide only bees doe oc dine fui ites do other comenttr or cen Hegel hive betwen {Re densa andthe connotation ofthe conc of pure bln. Levi Cara Trg te Lakin Glan webs cn sathappens whens word itt est bt win cr eons ss ted wi seep ot Te ince Aleit ans ter eth ro menenge et owe nk lng Then and el eifouca ecient nobody nthe id Bic only wih had che” th King rma in ete “Tbe ‘Mit oerncbdy Anda dance ny, ies much Tene re ple by he i” 12, Hes Lge. W. Wace (Oxf: Cendon Pre, 1979, oe many peop no et ended Heise oh Se ‘Mathur devel otcnrenten had the De e Ge rm hci ne at epg the Lg ening beng doth em omen of Hep pet mes Had Mil wed im ti {in bteen dsnton and extn be wouldve methine ‘cen Cr Bnd Sombre (Caled Wats) IX, 016 | Au uration to Hees Lagi ‘Tt Hegel does noc keep this tinction cen mind can be sosn ‘om whatheaysin the Enccapadia “In reprznation ofthe ner standing, the proposition: "Being end mothings ths’ appears be uch 4 predaieproposton that it may perhaps be taken as not erouly ‘ment. And really ison ofthe hardest propositions tat thinking det ‘oral fr being and nothing are the antithesis in alts medic” (Eas. §8). The parade xpect daspexrs when asa the 0 c= ‘epi are nr denti in connorton, even though they are identical in de ‘otton Thr difeeace in contain shown ty the loge fac that {rom the concep of pure being fellows i mtlogclemptine, whereat ‘the concep of nothing directly express it ontoloiel emptiness ‘The Concept of Becoming meer ntact sae eerie teat Fp ie ad agian taonegens eon Seis ceee Sens ease Sota Shes ceetennsctnantan Siete eeeacs Rocitemvaanl taaoematte fareeee mart ‘Sng tnt bce Seg) cgay copy Saeareeenran ‘text of what Hegel calls determinate being (Dasein)23 SRT NOE wad inen pressed it, bringing moversent into logic. went fa eral arty eye cn seetereeeat pres treme tes SSieomten ieee ee Seer eee eae Peeper ir relent alma Seiya emer noes Write fy te ca Sh nce rane Shannan nara Being | 18 In what es can sy tht he concept of Dcoming connec mits thence pare bing an ching? One of ils wth ‘egt ml ft concre of tecming at is langage upp hth ed not ith pre ung but with ig (ati determinate ind fra eng wh beng nt win peng een fey beaue ve te then ding weh someting chaning ffm ometing ino somthing te Bui wear ealig wih pore be {het Yrhing scotch e's ere to chan Pare bg dow oe ane it nothing, or dos noing ‘hangs puree in what see any asthe cone cing fda tn conte pret Fo pacity ies at thoconert ot bcing tes ons sone tht Svat fom ordinary n= frage (there mise, song other, Trendelenbur and Kick far We may ny ht when we undertnd the connoaon of pure ie we ndenend thi at some ology ene a ‘Sita itn Gt tear the concept ning Or we may rom th concen ofthe concept of pre beng exrion te ‘Fre that iw ire onto emptiness we dere concep of Tadhg Or lead of wing the cons of deraton ne may wit ‘ining theconcpt becoming sted inom ee coptat pure being we deethecenceyo ohn. ema sy Pu be- {By becomes ning Jot he ence of deraion Genplton tres e) xmnet oie ha om which ene sili Sin he pitta a of esr comer or nites tat ‘hich s becoming with hat which i Bema Gate prea empl ore be ccs noting), Wha eave rn fr haps mat fin ithe concep of pre beng Toreatethe aru at wit oasble Beene he Lape -sta be undersood he sem of uso: Tons herein of pre hough” or as Heel alo sate, “he ten of loves there of thadow the word fing vente ed om ‘Mec concn 505, fi aie et rh hing hata is ochig (someting aed om Eins entre), Conquest the bepianing man be ing wit termination, that inthe epg at be arb anne of vine Th Wr.“ : ‘Tag t Connon 7h Con Copano He FC Da, 1 Cat Cp Une Pron 9) 0-18.16 | tent eg “The Concept of Determinste Being and the Concept ‘of Negation : “Thetrunion fom pre bea to deeming curacsad ye ct pre ew (sme) hing hangin de ‘emit ig + big hat es wmcng. Tg i Sn the ene of ming cage in (ec) png pore Deceninte eng ting sso bese neg tha ih tio sbchsoeting nd neon rg ‘The dermining aro fe compen dein is Aesod only wndwanding we coe tae tres Sat dete al oer gamete sachas selene To ‘oath Hee can rad a sgt chien ih ‘ea the ety condone ny othe sceinedy ck tering ety sno of ae ng eel Sete of range nda qs tee et uf ingen, na yas nde oth T and now Ts bre ‘icomerpefnonT ubuitno become ews ence ‘pane Tpit ao flr a chances of ying ‘he chrncinsreencndl wat something sien Sie) and hone chien nary ee thee che ‘end ee nto ofa ig Isang tose entation fds a ign phn The necany ofthe negation ete oir oe s)he meen hay ern a pcr {yin pec tir) ua bt Si te sarong eg ‘lism ome qn mp ee ges To {derstand th comonomer nero ndersand ‘Senegal tt oe tempo fe pie aes oneaed ty tat ong Te cocoa aig (oe eno Forbes ermine tt epi fon, Shi tnege the omen fermen Inc dae once fring te denatn of pre bags nee 24 This Spnocin pine acted by Hegel ($13) finden “=Detrintion is mepon ped fre” ao te propesiton Oy Sp nom om detent wpe pin 50). Haron is rmalitionssowbeet be amd inte wk of Spinner fe Lape of Hegel (Lanna: Univer Pe of ein 98 12 Being | 17 ement ofthe concep of being—of pure aswell of determinate being Indeterminate being it Docomes negating force The as content some- thing bay, he mores negated. I something vanishes, chen the negaing force becomes identical with nothing — and the determinate being wil be ‘lnscal with pre being "Hoyas dependence on Heraclitus wellAnown Table Lgic he de- scribes Heracltrasdeep-tinking and prise fr having brought forward the higher total concept of heen (S183) and in his Hy of ‘Philp, Hegel writes "With rac we se land; theres m0 propo- sion of Herc which Lave no adoped in my Lape" "The becoming Heraclns tall boat isa concept ofthe tructare of the wor is nota lpia eonceptin the sense which Hegel's concept cof becoming tf logis maar when he investigates the reation between ure being and nothing, Heraclis’ concept of becoming belongs tothe tori of objec Within his wel, according wo Herat here iacon~ ‘ant fu. The word iconceived as being nx constant coming-<>-band eating-to-be. At each moment theres someting that comes-to-be that reverthles at that very same momen ceaes-o-be (If this were no 20 there would bea moment, however shor, where there was something that ‘dno change) The reult by ecesy that theres nyting a any ‘momen Ii eter abourtobe, tat i eexnnocyex be aad obs, 05 rita slready bee, talready ha ceased wo be and therefor ino. Thus the Heracltean world at conan fat ads by necessity to ello he onceptofa word Itt sell-dstracive word. "Atte same ime, however, erase lege not only aceps the con- ceptofbecoming—In fit, ac only aceptsbut regards its mostimpoe~ ‘ant one—he doer not app i to the world of objects. For Hegel, this ‘concept appliale othe behavior of the categories. I preuppowes that twelve moved into the concep enim of determinate beng. hati We ‘hae moved nt the eam of concep which, due othe concept nep4~ ‘om the categories have determined as something a wells something te, Deore of the concept of negation, one category Homer acter Category and in this other category (he category that bas Become), he ormer category: ater the tue part of i is presered, i subted ‘Beene the concept of becoming mean the oie movement of thet orca itobvowsy cannot be Sndertood ass physical movement or ‘ime proces 25 Lee te itary of hop on it 129,1 | satan espe ‘twat stressed cartier that, within the contetof pure beng and nath- {ng the concept of tecoming was tobe understood implying or ‘ental and consequently could no mere be undersod a4 tine proces than could the statement tat the sum ofthe angle in ange becomes 10°. Anabgouly ican be id tha the lg movement of nt entepory 'No concep is ony wha i is itis al ar we have just seen, ad farts ‘mach hit which not. It ino wiv mater tos, for example that ‘brown ansuch inches al the color that diferent bom brown von tts brownnes preielybeeiseitisnone of te othe eaors beste ‘excludes hem. If rerything nthe world was brown, the word "brown ould be meaningless ‘The preceding treatment ofthe conept of becoming has only, toa ‘ualldegres, been an interpret; it has, however, ta gretr degre, ‘ren an auempr at crifestion. The rean« cardcaion ssone wt needed i th: Hepes language sometimes sugges tha ic Heractg ‘oe thinks of becoming a time procea that tt oppest tht he would ‘be engaged in an investiaton that ultimately would be empire But ‘Hege'sinvetgation is obvious logical r conceptual nvsipsion Leis ‘a investigaon ito the categories, thi existence, nd the logical la Song it is therefore an investigation that i entielydifrearfrom ay “empirical investi, ‘That he concept of becoming understood a time proces a con- ‘peoa about oes ot mean of course that the concep ac gh ‘al miscarriage We ofen use the concept, and often wth good seas in intent where weak about «proc wey such hinge at Tam abouts become sik 1 become older atime goes by, athe child attends schol, se or brames mare nd more edacate. eis when we tal about be coming at proces assomething tat occurs betwen nothing snd the fe sting beng that we are mised. Suppose that Ihave mid something ‘dam looking frit. Suddenly Und, Aseverybdy knows woul sud to speak about a certin‘inding prea’, ie, + proces during hich cold be sid neither to have not found it hort ae fod fk ‘Process that takes place in a orto no-man's land. By itn very log the ‘sb “tofind can belated among what Gilbert Ryle clledachievesent Being | 19 wt at je eee meehe tose Wane Tay *Now inde Te SSNDSEE STs oe truer ee Settee triste Wee a Lees ceca voy cuarsasee ee cae oe eased” Tae ety ede ‘00d. a cemanney ot Ty (tea: tee Urey Pa New ie, 19, snd Mores, Meme, od Ding Te 30 tienQuality — ee Son oe ne tp in Met that tc ey prepa sour commons iw be mr sektoemnca eae aoe See eci eee Soo eeee Ei noeante eres Societe ‘tecomept te tention of wed oting In edge cone peer! Soiiostaseent Slept Sion esi ees’ Win i ips, frerare, tt oo ‘metic eve 9 0 stand alone; its identity conditions must id ‘ uation icoieecanaetlaneamentoanca Soe EeRnqeaciee spemcameanore: fron ce eateeancr-areece Sana Geetaeroeteemmely Sineninasna ee Qeatty | 21 exible if did not know what it woud meant ty ha yew it calor ‘hat contrite with ll heater olor och a rede, bs ends. ‘or topey that softs i tat which contrast, fr ezampl, wih hardness ha fd To sy sot something that its defining property is 8, End A contrasts with B,C, andD, sts tha A esis meaning by being ‘non-B, non-Cy and noe-D. A ste pose valu, wheres B,C, and Dare ‘he negative vals (with respect 9 4) ‘Obviously the concept of someting und of something ese ar cate- sien "They are neemery conceps wo gt rom pure being fo determinate eng, Abwot pure beng, it islopealyechued took what tie. The co0- ‘capt ‘what cannot aply to pure being. Deterinate being, however, trl not be determinate being if there mere no answer tothe question of Is whainess The minimum sever is oonnformative: Ii something ‘Tae concept of something, and therefoce also the concep of someting clo, are consequent not only cteorics of determinate Being, bat hey ‘cls ts et xtepti tat fesinthe loge sense Because they ae ‘Stepories of thou, they areconsequeaty alo categories of anguage I ‘ould be imposible tobuvealanguage without the concep something? ind therefore abo witout the concept ef ‘someting che Bad Infinity “Theconcept of ‘meting’ implies by necenity the consepe of some thing ct The wo concepts it eachother. But just asthe something by nese imple the someting ele so the concept of ‘omething clo in ive ina 'someshing” Tati, tina nomething sont inant {rs that which limits the something. In elf the something eli “Something anda rometing’ i swe hae ut ee, ena some ‘hing co and bec the new something el’ self is omen’ it tls tea meting ele’, And soon infinitely. Such an infinity Hep cls the Bd infinity (elec Unni). "The reson Hegel charntriaes as bad this Its an ene ees offic, hati oem that, by neces, ae finite and abby 2¢- ‘ancy mune cosine tothe next er, rom the very fact hat is on ‘Soule lope bien follows hatter i cont betwen sre the sere eis, namely, ts contintion to completion, andthe Topi import of euch complet. Ii purtof the meaning ofthe22 | Au traction He's Lape concept f incomplete’ that whats incomplete shuld be complet. That the concept ‘nsomplew impli anoght—an ought amples he ‘True Infinity “Trinity is non contrast to bu infty a seis tat continue ‘nfnitel—continues infinitely in the sume way ax fr example a straight necesry once more examine the con- ‘2% all importane fr Heyes philosophy of negation. Each Something Imo rte moire rennin ees Ths ize ch etn big ot nl tt wih te tat eae ieepcare tory oceans rea tte gu ecroeenraieeyemeanaiee Seiinaaneonarseamtes = ele ne stots be newt an rater mn ee ed than not. In other words, this infinity expresses only cement tat Sef abe mand Pisprenrsd shen beset cpp coon ee ee ‘Soin ny np cpp ete ibe oman nace Penn tatigteent ca tne roe a Sctincainpetacic stent icine ee Sn peteaaces Fereg eta t ‘ie, oan oy ence tte ene Ree ty tegen fope Siete seer a e Quality | 23 ‘esi oben othe enor, Tostythatit ied isto say thatthe colitis ‘snoneof the other colors Ied waste only color, there cold eno cae whatever In order to bes oor aay aor requires other eolors with (Thich tomtras there were no sch ober ors, enor name ould ave any meaning Tost haa thing stat whic itis notithusa propor tid whose truth required ae wel fiom an ontlogteal point of view 5 ‘rom logical point of view. "The rue infinity as aborbed the nite. Tn themselves, the ‘eme- thing and the Something ee’ are rit, and a long as hr deny is hot understood, they const elemts of bed infinity but their Hen {iy i undertod, tis undertond tha itis «neation ofthe negation — Understood tat ite a el-negation st therefore asel-limiation—then itisunderstood that they commit ements of rity. Ttmight be misleading to rpeak abou the ‘somethin’ and he ‘some ‘hing ele’ aif we were spestng about two things oF two ontcogicales- ‘ev insted of justone tinged that one thing can, howeves, be concrived ‘Something at wellaes something ee. The movement rm something {o vomething else of cous, «consul morement. The asumtion that it should be« physical movement (eae Tendeenburg and Kieke- tnd) can badly be gen ay ems. Being-for-Self “Truc ininiy ion ctor. Ii category bonus tape by nee sity to whatever in Tere ating which snot dentical with tat which ‘eqats i thei identity condone ae interdefied. Or, expresit df= {ere evrything is tha which tis not "This ateren seems flatly contradic Bishop Buters of-quoted aatement hata tings what ie and no anoher hig. This merely ap- pesetobea contradiction. To Hegel swells to Baler, 8 wellastnny~ ody eke, hoes ia hse (nd nt tee) ands cow ie cow (and nat 8 fore) and the umber twos number to (and noc mamber thre) And if ‘user could have red Hoge e would have agreed with, namely that nothing could be anything but nothing if twas not determined bythe tegatie properton Hegel statement would bes provocative, hove, {tit ware expreed by sating the cli htt poses property i possea the properties hat negate no-P.P ean nly be ifthe are rop- ‘res belonging wo the sxe caso ropertessF, bu afr rm hiss not the ce, P could no lager be called a property.24 | detent tage tabu theses of trl umber? hs seri ten oe stats op fanny bts seth ined sneered renin Ho tcc mae ‘ote ew ha whch iat isp Nomen Skee! Tig cv tne be Tac ube to me Sain ‘ete ih the nai tice Howe se tame’ Soca ‘thing er a ema oe oe Te we ot Saath sis tenon td ce Tat et ‘ane tv prety bets tr mmbe enorme ties ‘Won xp The mn toes deep epee tig ete mamteronc nr nb fe The npn eee ‘tne mere Te unter shes tnpena ‘Gey eect eeu ef rind heen bss fra Tsay ens an) fe Senos Te ‘hinged the omtnghesepiog ch nson ond thy aetna hyenas inne et Tey ome erin wy cares ee Son wien we nea meting ep eon cascades ‘Stren ve bed tin “Tetra itha scion of heft Be nie Grrr ieee itd erect ‘ats fineconent Inter wards wineries beundend ‘emf the ae infin, Wher experince ng ee ‘Seu yoy ob pl etnies icin te roves arg Hee eh “hectic in er ni tin haan cn expe ne onng wy Te fe 2k “Thon ne synthe the ifn enw es nine and wht i, only fii Quality | 25 ceived a some parculer (Le, as nonnivers), can neither be described torbeanebjerto inowedge Or rather ian be described as known only {ntermact universe Any steibuteor property wed ina description mat ‘eceaery be une, An atbut or a property that snot cones {Ss universal would be meninges. The existence ofthe particular 8 ‘uch only myth ‘Benae the someting i identified in and through the something lo that enti d with that which negates the negation ofthe eme- {hing and consequently falls under the category of being-or-c it ian ‘expraton of beng a nity—of being Hegel cali “the one” Ancer | ‘ray ofexpresingt would bet sy dhe the something and the someting ‘eave the same denoation:"The somethin andthe something cise on- fctte the ome ety, But with respect to connotation, the something nd the something ee are different ther connoratins form «wo diferent concep In thi connection, Hegel us (quite misleading) the expres- ‘lone repulsion andatracion’. In connection with Went thas wth the one and therefore withthe coneetofdenctaon, Hegel ses the tem ‘atraction, whereas heures the concept of "eps xnnecio with the dflerencebeoween the connotation ofthe two concept. Hegel maintain thatthe one (hat the entation enjoys lice priory over the connotation (which ralogous, he alse mary) He ‘oes not mach explain why this. He may draw ona piloopher ike loin who thought thatthe mas were emanation from dhe on. But Potnur tory wat a ontological or cosmological theory, whereas He- {e's logic i concep inveigatoo—an investigation socrdingt Ihich te connotton of «concept resus from philosophical ani "The omething ele ir negation ofthe somthing and consequently pre- appoues the vmething that the one And beezse the one has legal ror it fllow that epulson has lege priority over etction;atae- ‘on presupposes repuion * 1." We wll teat Hegel ot infequenly sage fp a teem irae race sti Bona ncaa ie Reactant ececaaae aeons i eenntaepanecteeciatese Site e se mararaeacrat Sor Na os Snare2% | clei Hl ge Became the somthing ee is negation ofthe something (ihe on), ‘then whatever falls wader the negation belongs othe many. Ite some? ‘hing i sy, gree, then the omen ele (he many i that which net seen but ezher blue or redo yell, ands 0, each of which ite na ‘one. At Hage puts it each ofthe mary bowerer is tae oe and he then ads “und because bees as such, hi all ound epson earns ‘ve forthwith int its opposite eration” (Ens 97 Addon), ‘The we ofthe terms ‘repulsion’ snd ‘eration’, when applied mithin the mpher of concept! analyais—within the extopary of Being. fo-selt—in many respects sys no more and no le (although mislend- ingly than the term negation’ when wed in conneton withthe dif. ce between denottion and connocation, ‘The one express the twing-or-sef when the identity of denottion is emphasized, and the ‘many exprent the being-fr-other when differences of connotation ae. sized. We thereby avoid the danger of being mised when we speak ‘shou the repision and staction aif they were process a something {aking plce—which wuld be sburd, Nor would we need any tpumentt inorder to show that repulsion and auraction ae infact ental We ‘ould not ned any such epumensbeeuae we do nt employ these con «ots Thereationbumeen conepsisalogical one. In tha elation, the ‘anceps of repulsion and atzaconspply nly in guatve sens and ‘even then ony ina mideading way. “loge never forgo his Grek forebears, and then lence of encent ‘loopy intraceablein almost everything he wrote The concen ofthe fone and the many are themes in Anasimander’s cosmology tad, mone claborately, fa the comology of Patinus Neverthe, whe Plo? ‘emuation ex concept, Hegel’ concepts of repulsion and stracon cael each cher and lve with a concrptal investigation, "rom Anarimande snd Plotinaso Hegel we witness ho, ia the hands of Philosophy cooly change ito cone! lope !muy tothe one. concn makes chorea what be pelog oc notin phy ent, betencepent ted th reno ee ‘ectnce my ht "engrafted roc repln snd scion) ha ove oe be the bling otal. "Ene 8 Adio), Quantity Pure Quantity and Quantum Continuity and Discreteness ‘When we move to the ctgory of euanty, we find again the charac tersieally Hegelian srucae of arly That iy we Gnd the al fmmporan conerptof negation; thi concept is implied by the cogive ft th gis et within codons einen ‘with—tat which snot We theefrenlo find the conceprof ve = quality, jelse con ey tn mein rong oer tte ee eee tl tem el tn oa aera noes Seer en ee cee tines Soa ey ee cote ae err a coal rn agar asp oar serene a eae a ae eb nef ing chs hesselepfsna, Secret ee Te ie teen ee ea inserter te‘est ies sch seat St pre gun one south haeof sera as osgamtan, Thee nese ‘ego bebe oak ct ue acer ot Section ulsbns enteral {aya heer may perl he ope ea {Caused pregnant ae ‘hai tiny elie ee ro conep dont may Hep tone ‘psittaci bt eevee roemerpaae Cth Howe wien wc morn cep of ene ‘ett emer ccd dnsrened Ta es cba snrac dtsmeap ed ery Toya hee endplate pal theorem ery gay ae tt thy elope atacand gue ‘sane eps bowee tt onghtos onto "iy ed dee) by cay sp w ayy et ‘eon o ce cr anne ‘Stitt ep taf yao Frslong inl beyond ny pot traches Thc encase ‘Scconepet denen ae pag nr mo nga tier carp of uy. Tey we euanoeey he erent hee apie ee ‘reupposs the eof which tsa pec Ang, i wm, teak pes ‘pee the snept ef crete td wt ees a thee sey funy | 2 sepecescut out fem thecal sere mayor may note. The poi that tlthough the eake may not be divided, tis obviously divisible in its infitely dive. This ini i ofcourse, aad ify ci ogy ‘mpouibl hat shoo ever be completed. Ther nological route ead ing fom the etstement Xi infitely visible” tothe statement" frialy divided." One reason for thie thatthe ter sateen in its ‘no gensine tatemeat. Tobe infinitely divided would imply that there wre infinite umber of part, whch cleaely would be not alse but nonses- ‘al Howeter mach quanti vided, we shall never be ale to ran- ‘rend ite mumter of pers oF elements. Th general, wermay ty that the concep of part (he discrete) pres pote the conept ef whole (he continous that de whole of which {he partirapart. There rustalways bean anor tthe quertion: Whats the prt part of? And, re tera, heconept of contin presuppose the concept of «part tht i the parts eiting fom te infinite divi dng. In otter wor the concept of «put he discrete, the many) and of the whole (the continuous, the one) presuppose each ther Or if one pre- fer, the logical yea of the languge-game of dretnens Lifer at from the logical eyo the angusge-gume of contin But Ly nd, presuppose each ote. Ly om Be sed only iF, forms the loge tctpfound fant a L, can be wed only I Ly forms the logical bake (ground, If we use one of these language-pumes witout the other a8 « Topical background, we nd orslvesin parses “This syntactical rl, he rule tha the wo equires the logical tackgrund of Lys ile by Zeno when he by apparent neces de- ced his famous paradanessbou the lg imposblty ef motion The row wil ever reach the gol simed at becuse isimposble forthe - row tomove:Theline that represent the raioctary ove the distance fom {he eating peat w the gous continous lin. And a coninoousline itivalo dares, which imple that canbe divided into meters centine- tern milimeters, or whatever Each ofthese can again be died, ed 9 ‘on ed fini ad ni. We sal never rach «last i that & hit were we cnnot continue the division, or uher where the xin hat tre could not continue the dvsion would have no meaning The dtnce Ueeweenthe tring point and he goal thatthe length ofthe econ, doesnot consat feo undso many metro centimetersin the eme way ‘nich wall consis of many bricks: The path does ot msi of meters (or cxntinetery emearer 0 and v0 many meters, According to I the30 | An traduction Hegel's Lage ‘exectory is sorand-eo long The trajectory the ling is measure to be o- sd-o lor; the parte—the meters or centimeters or whatever uni it ‘ed—premppor the whole (parts must alwys be parts of meting. ‘his cae the parts ae pars ofthe ajectory line). "The discrete presop- es the continuous Butif we ctor the ire from the conto snd consequent ignore tht Ly pressposesL, then the parts ate not onion bythe continuous and, consequent donot et the loge condition for being parts. They canbe parts only if tey are part of = hole. Tobe discrete necassrily wo be dicretetnit of the continous ‘Tobemany sto bemany of one. Zeno therfore ca continu is division of the trjoctory without being lial indeed by the continous (the ener the whole. He logical free therefore to asume that the tc ‘ery doesnot measur so-and-so many meters or ectimeter, bt cmt of points And bess theline doesnot const of fine number of pints — "would benonsnse oy thatatex-meter lin coi yt thom sand or weblion ponts—then to asume that «ne consis of point, ‘marten that consists of infnitely many points Andi the arrow hat ‘us an infinite mamber of pins, then the arrow wll never more But ss ‘eave sen the transition (or inference) rom being infil vite {winginintely divided isan incorrect anion (inference), which reals in a nonsensical aaumption. Its Ukewie bard un an incorec we of ‘consist of a is composed oP. This use lads to the sumption tht pintare parts of ine. ‘Thatthiss ot the ease can beeen fom the flloming example Take ‘tine AB. One af ofthe line ibe ee other hal is elo, Let Mbt middle point. Three evry point onthe ine tothe left Mis be end ery pinto the rights yellow Now where docs the bac olor begin nd ‘here doe the low color bein? The obvious nave secs tobe ‘But what cor isM il? I wey that Miablocitfollows tha Mato ‘eof the middle poin, thatthe mile pint notte middle oan, sd osay that tis yl isto sy that Mito the ight ofthe mide point snd therefore cannot be th middle point. The middle point thes scm dsappeac® Zeno tad not roe Ly fom Ly snd used oly Ly thus divorced fom the us ofthe concept of par, he would not have ben led to wt the concept of const for ‘emposed o's he would instead have been logically forced to we the concept of mente. Morsoves the concept of 58. CL my are “Mrmet, Memens, and Beano it) op 74, 8. Quantity | 31 measure dos not permite we ofthe concept of pin thas ne messing ‘omeatres point orto that tine measures so rsny pnt» —no one quent ony that ine mesures infntely many eins. a from the indetermi- ae hopes sms tnaaeae wr ichre Miwa ieacnawia pees at Sct a monte melee rene osu etemsemminesis ote see at Poem ec eager tered me egen aia Sa eas Senses tomate tant ee eaetemea ee anata ms meta teertivng et reemen treme ee pee genes Sereaceeesen eeediscae oes erent rte operas Seviaksee oma tien pee crore oats eanrat amine aeecper gether actos Sounaccrmecnrtniataas nares Seratoeeaenctas tems ret cea tsmpsiageetirea Beretta _eieenvae a mon rioeahcelattta a ironies See ce aa ea Sheen eres poe ars32 | anti espe Extensive and Intensive Magnitudes Wich s quantum, Hegediatinguishesbetnen what he calls an x= ‘eos nd an intensive magnitude, ‘Tomy aboutaquantum that ian extensive magnitudes tony that ‘tis measrable. IF Tsay abous quantum that lengths ten yard this ‘meas tha yard fllows upon yard until on reaches the end th tented {te being the hmiing numb), Ian make sure can very ch the ‘eng stn yards by counting ll the yrds I cout ll the uni. By pers fering the act of counting, I ret the quantum evan exenaive quae, Allthe ants an exesive quantum ae st pe inside the quanti Four tey arena there ina physical enc th presence mene tae ‘whenever Iwan toca cure and recount the unt ‘Lan go teat the mmber 108 an expresion ofan amount. ‘Thetis dfezence betveen s number expensing an tmount and ‘what Hep! cal «degree, Inthe suber ofan ameuntthe number oc ‘resin an amount of yards, fet, inches, volume end the ike—che nis amber are potentially extensive They are sbrbed into the nme of {he amoany, but they can be recounted at extensive: However if me lk sous dere, for instance room temperature of 20°C, then the degre {alow the 2°C never formed an extensive magnitade that we sberted ‘degree has intensity; «number her a nmi vale but cannct ‘peaningfly be i w hae intensity. The criterion fr the corer of {he mumberof an amount ithe measurement. The eteron fo the con, ‘etna ofthe degrecis not the thermometer Of conse, Lean mess the ests withthe thermometer; Ican coun the degress on these ofthe thermometer; nevertces, such a measurement such «counting he ‘eae cennot conse the critsion. Suppre I find the temper of {he room plant. I eheck the thermometer and find that reads noe 20°C, bat only °C. I mom certainly hal not think at Len mses finding the temperate pleat. Noe the sbeurdy ofthe follwing ‘should relly termes unpleasant freezing” What I wld, of cours a ‘ohave my thermometer repaired, ‘Any quanta is bth an exensve and an intensive magnitude 1 take «stone in my hand, I sense bth temperature and weight, Both of uoniy | 33 tha snares dee, They expen of esto oni tear magus but Tem ao mere by bp of nner he Sones tmpersse and ls weight The erry cman inthe ther ‘mantra ibe Tear se tensive mage. Likes plac he one on ae inion tesco ran nae, wih nos theif the tone "Bc precy bee ay quam buh an ene and an ines maids sre Picrophrs ha mini —in he sie a Galo thalntemve mein, bang rable, shal be (eae as nd tented insets rnd Dewey ere ‘cj’ and menue end three vie thse eer or re seine Such «physicals theory however Hegel oppo Ths, edhe, ogo tort phere pce sed egret ‘ely on « meapiyi they (ration) theory Hegel rec (Gee $8 Adin) Iwo fartherorebearfecton wat wean, ‘rhe spe ofits magia Iw pe sock, wt Speak about isthe experiens (eprint eb nd nt oat ‘rain ooesae pio rcs (recs We ont) Quantitative Infinity Meare = ‘Aquntumisaquancon preci nee thas parca sie ee Sint ae mer by ep te mane sin The mabe soni mann eas han tli ca ant hati redo cont then rd sna, Party iis et ot coun hen bt exes the elo Be Counting irae to veh mou tithe sing mabe Iespartof te lg ofthe numer ser hts iin baa fig to unsoppte und nde Tae yb oy eae 5 ‘Thonumier sntandcnoed unleritisendenroderbén e ro