parcelled　out　in　detail；　is　dissipated　into　contingencies。　Natural　history；　geography；
  and　medicine　stumble　upon　descriptions　of　existence；　upon　kinds　and　distinctions；
  which　are　not　determined　by　reason；　but　by　sport　and　adventitious　incidents。
  Even　history　comes　under　the　same　category。　The　Idea　is　its　essence　and　inner
  nature；　but；　as　it　appears；　everything　is　under　contingency　and　in　the　field　of
  voluntary　action。　（ii）　These　sciences　are　positive　also　in　failing　to　recognise　the
  finite　nature　of　what　they　predicate；　and　to　point　out　how　these　categories　and
  their　whole　sphere　pass　into　a　higher。　They　assume　their　statements　to　possess　an
  authority　beyond　appeal。　Here　the　fault　lies　in　the　finitude　of　the　form；　as　in　the
  previous　instance　it　lay　in　the　matter。　（iii）　In　close　sequel　to　this；　sciences　are
  positive　in　consequence　of　the　inadequate　grounds　on　which　their　conclusions
  rest：　based　as　these　are　on　detached　and　casual　inference；　upon　feeling；　faith；　and
  authority；　and；　generally　speaking；　upon　the　deliverances　of　inward　and　outward
  perception。　Under　this　head　we　must　also　class　the　philosophy　which　proposes　to
  build　upon　'anthropology'；　facts　of　consciousness；　inward　sense；　or　outward
  experience。　It　may　happen；　however；　that　empirical　is　an　epithet　applicable　only
  to　the　form　of　scientific　exposition；　while　intuitive　sagacity　has　arranged　what　are
  mere　phenomena；　according　to　the　essential　sequence　of　the　notion。　In　such　a
  case　the　contrasts　between　the　varied　and　numerous　phenomena　brought　together
  serve　to　eliminate　the　external　and　accidental　circumstances　of　their　conditions；
  and　the　universal　thus　comes　clearly　into　view。　Guided　by　such　an　intuition；
  experimental　physics　will　present　the　rational　science　of　Nature　…　as　history　will
  present　the　science　of　human　affairs　and　actions　…　in　an　external　picture；　which
  mirrors　the　philosophic　notion。
  §17
  It　may　seem　as　if　philosophy；　in　order　to　start　on　its　course；　had；　like　the　rest　of
  the　sciences；　to　begin　with　a　subjective　presupposition。　The　sciences　postulate
  their　respective　objects；　such　as　space；　number；　or　whatever　it　be；　and　it　might　be
  supposed　that　philosophy　had　also　to　postulate　the　existence　of　thought。　But　the
  two　cases　are　not　exactly　parallel。　It　is　by　the　free　act　of　thought　that　it　occupies　a
  point　of　view；　in　which　it　is　for　its　own　self；　and　thus　gives　itself　an　object　of　its
  own　production。　Nor　is　this　all。　The　very　point　of　view；　which　originally　is　taken
  on　its　own　evidence　only；　must　in　the　course　of　the　science　be　converted　to　a
  result　…　the　ultimate　result　in　which　philosophy　returns　into　itself　and　reaches　the
  point　with　which　it　began。　In　this　manner　philosophy　exhibits　the　appearance　of　a
  circle　which　closes　with　itself；　and　has　no　beginning　in　the　same　way　as　the　other
  sciences　have。　To　speak　of　a　beginning　of　philosophy　has　a　meaning　only　in
  relation　to　a　person　who　proposes　to　commence　the　study；　and　not　in　relation　to
  the　science　as　science。　The　same　thing　may　be　thus　expressed。　The　notion　of
  science　…　the　notion　therefore　with　which　we　start　…　which；　for　the　very　reason
  that　it　is　initial；　implies　a　separation　between　the　thought　which　is　our　object；　and
  the　subject　philosophising　which　is；　as　it　were；　external　to　the　former；　must　be
  grasped　and　comprehended　by　the　science　itself。　This　is　in　short；　the　one　single
  aim；　action；　and　goal　of　philosophy　…　to　arrive　at　the　notion　of　its　notion；　and　thus
  secure　its　return　and　its　satisfaction。
  §18
  As　the　whole　science；　and　only　the　whole；　can　exhibit　what　the　Idea　or　system　of
  reason　is；　it　is　impossible　to　give　in　a　preliminary　way　a　general　impression　of　a
  philosophy。　Nor　can　a　division　of　philosophy　into　its　parts　be　intelligible；　except　in
  connection　with　the　system。　A　preliminary　division；　like　the　limited　conception
  from　which　it　comes；　can　only　be　an　anticipation。　Here　however　it　is　premised
  that　the　Idea　turns　out　to　be　the　thought　which　is　completely　identical　with　itself；
  and　not　identical　simply　in　the　abstract；　but　also　in　its　action　of　setting　itself　over
  against　itself；　so　as　to　gain　a　being　of　its　own；　and　yet　of　being　in　full　possession
  of　itself　while　it　is　in　this　other。　Thus　philosophy　is　subdivided　into　three　parts：
  I。　Logic：　the　science　of　the　Idea　in　and　for　itself。
  II。　The　Philosophy　of　Nature：　the　science　of　the　Idea　in　its　otherness。
  III。　The　Philosophy　of　Mind：　the　science　of　the　Idea　come　back　to　itself　out　of
  that　otherness。
  As　observed　in　§15；　the　differences　between　the　several　philosophical　sciences
  are　only　aspects　or　specialisations　of　the　one　Idea　or　system　of　reason；　which　and
  which　alone　is　alike　exhibited　in　these　different　media。　In　Nature　nothing　else
  would　have　to　be　discerned；　except　the　Idea；　but　the　Idea　has　here　divested　itself
  of　its　proper　being。　In　Mind；　again；　the　Idea　has　asserted　a　being　of　its　own；　and
  is　on　the　way　to　become　absolute。　Every　such　form　in　which　the　Idea　is
  expressed　is　at　the　same　time　a　passing　or　fleeting　stage；　and　hence　each　of　these
  subdivisions　has　not　only　to　know　its　contents　as　an　object　which　has　being　for
  the　time；　but　also　in　the　same　act　to　expound　how　these　contents　pass　into　their
  higher　circle。　To　represent　the　relation　between　them　as　a　division；　therefore；
  leads　to　misconception；　for　it　co…ordinates　the　several　parts　or　sciences　one　beside
  another；　as　if　they　had　no　innate　development；　but　were；　like　so　many　species；
  really　and　radically　distinct。
  II：　Preliminary　Notion
  Logic　derived　from　a　survey　of　the　whole　system
  §　19
  Logic　is　the　science　of　the　pure　Idea；　pure；　that　is；　because　the　Idea　is　in　the
  abstract　medium　of　Thought。
  This　definition；　and　the　others　which　occur　in　these　introductory　outlines；　are
  derived　from　a　survey　of　the　whole　system；　to　which　accordingly　they　are
  subsequent。　The　same　remark　applies　to　all　prefatory　notions　whatever　about
  philosophy。
  Logic　might　have　been　defined　as　the　science　of　thought；　and　of　its　laws　and
  characteristic　forms。　But　thought；　as　thought；　constitutes　only　the　general
  medium；　or　qualifying　circumstance；　which　renders　the　Idea　distinctively　logical。
  If　we　identify　the　Idea　with　thought；　thought　must　not　be　taken　in　the　sense　of　a
  method　or　form；　but　in　the　sense　of　the　self…developing　totality　of　its　laws　and
  peculiar　terms。　These　laws　are　the　work　of　thought　itself；　and　not　a　fact　which　it
  finds　and　must　submit　to。
  From　different　points　of　view；　Logic　Is　either　the　hardest　or　the　easiest　of　the
  sciences。　Logic　is　hard；　because　it　has　to　deal　not　with　perceptions；　nor；　like
  geometry；　with　abstract　representations　of　the　senses；　but　with　the　pure
  abstractions；　and　because　it　demands　a　force　and　facility　of　withdrawing　into　pure
  thought；　of　keeping　firm　hold　on　it；　and　of　moving　in　such　an　element。　Logic　is
  easy；　because　its　facts　are　nothing　but　our　own　thought　and　its　familiar　forms　or
  terms：　and　these　are　the　acme　of　simplicity；　the　ABC　of　everything　else。　They　are
  also　what　we　are　best　acquainted　with：　such　as　'is'　and　'is　not'；　quality　and
  magnitude；　being　potential　and　being　actual；　one；　many；　and　so　on。　But　such　an
  acquaintance　only　adds　to　the　difficulties　of　the　study；　for　while；　on　the　one　hand；
  we　naturally　think　it　is　not　worth　our　trouble　to　occupy　ourselves　any　longer　with
  things　so　familiar；　on　the　other　hand；　the　problem　is　to　become　acquainted　with
  them　in　a　new　way；　quite　opposite　to　that　in　which　we　know　them　already。
  The　utility　of　Logic　is　a　matter　which　concerns　its　bearings　upon　the　student；　and
  the　training　it　may　give　for　other　purposes。　This　logical　training　consists　in　the
  exercise　in　thinking　which　the　student　has　to　go　through　（this　science　is　the
  thinking　of　thinking）：　and　in　the　fact　that　he　stores　his　head　with　thoughts；　in　their
  native　unalloyed　character。　It　is　true　that　Logic；　being　the　absolute　form　of　truth；
  and　another　name　for　the　very　truth　itself；　is　something　more　than　merely　useful。
  Yet　if　what　is　noblest；　most　liberal；　and　most　independent　is　also　most　useful；
  Logic　has　some　claim　to　the　latter　character。　Its　utility　must　then　be　estimated　at
  another　rate　than　exercise　in　thought　for　the　sake　of　the　exercise。
  §　19n
  （1）　The　first　question　is：　What　is　the　object　of　our　science？　The　simplest　and　most　intelligible
  answer　to　this　question　is　that　Truth　is　the　object　of　Logic。　Truth　is　a　noble　word；　and　the　thing　is
  nobler　still。　So　long　as　man　is　sound　at　heart　and　in　spirit；　the　search　for　truth　must　awake　all　the
  enthusiasm　of　his　nature。　But　immediately　there　steps　in　the　objection　…　are　we　able　to　know　truth
  ？　There　seems　to　be　a　disproportion　between　finite　beings　like　ourselves　and　the　truth　which　is
  absolute；　and　doubts　suggest　themselves　whether　there　is　any　bridge　between　the　finite　and　the
  infinite。　God　is　truth：　how　shall　we　know　Him　？　Such　an　undertaking　appears　to　stand　in
  contradiction　with　the　graces　of　lowliness　and　humility。　Others　who　ask　whether　we　can　know　the
  truth　have　a　different　purpose。