simple　universality；　self…collected　and　removed　from　extraneous　influences　…　in
  one　word；　in　my　Freedom。
  'Think　for　yourself'　is　a　phrase　which　people　often　use　as　if　it　had　some　special
  significance。　The　fact　is；　no　man　can　think　for　another；　any　more　than　he　can　eat
  or　drink　for　him　and　the　expression　is　a　pleonasm。　To　think　is　in　fact　ipso　facto　to
  be　free；　for　thought　as　the　action　of　the　universal　is　an　abstract　relating　of　self　to
  self；　where；　being　at　home　with　ourselves；　and　as　regards　our　subjectivity　utterly
  blank；　our　consciousness　is；　in　the　matter　of　its　contents；　only　in　the　fact　and　its
  characteristics。　If　this　be　admitted；　and　if　we　apply　the　term　humility　or　modesty
  to　an　attitude　where　our　subjectivity　is　not　allowed　to　interfere　by　act　or　quality；　it
  is　easy　to　appreciate　the　question　touching　the　humility　or　modesty　and　pride　of
  philosophy。　For　in　point　of　contents；　thought　is　only　true　in　proportion　as　it　sinks
  itself　in　the　facts；　and　in　point　of　form　it　is　no　private　or　particular　state　or　act　of
  the　subject；　but　rather　that　attitude　of　consciousness　where　the　abstract　self；　freed
  from　all　the　special　limitations　to　which　its　ordinary　states　or　qualities　are　liable；
  restricts　itself　to　that　universal　action　in　which　it　is　identical　with　all　individuals。　In
  these　circumstances　philosophy　may　be　acquitted　of　the　charge　of　pride。　And
  when　Aristotle　summons　the　mind　to　rise　to　the　dignity　of　that　attitude；　the　dignity
  he　seeks　is　won　by　letting　slip　all　our　individual　opinions　and　prejudices；　and
  submitting　to　the　sway　of　the　fact。
  The　Objectivity　of　Thought
  §　24
  With　these　explanations　and　qualifications；　thoughts　may　be　termed　Objective
  Thoughts　…　among　which　are　also　to　be　included　the　forms　which　are　more
  especially　discussed　in　the　common　logic；　where　they　are　usually　treated　as　forms
  of　conscious　thought　only。　Logic　therefore　coincides　with　Metaphysics；　the
  science　of　things　set　and　held　in　thoughts　…　thoughts　accredited　able　to　express
  the　essential　reality　of　things。
  An　exposition　of　the　relation　in　which　such　forms　as　notion；　judgment；　and
  syllogism　stand　to　others；　such　as　causality；　is　a　matter　for　the　science　itself。　But
  this　much　is　evident　beforehand。　If　thought　tries　to　form　a　notion　of　things；　this
  notion　（as　well　as　its　proximate　phases；　the　judgement　and　syllogism）　cannot　be
  composed　of　articles　and　relations　which　are　alien　and　irrelevant　to　the　things。
  Reflection；　it　was　said　above；　conducts　to　the　universal　of　things：　which　universal
  is　itself　one　of　the　constituent　factors　of　a　notion。　To　say　that　Reason　or
  Understanding　is　in　the　world；　is　equivalent　in　its　import　to　the　phrase　'Objective
  Thought'。　The　latter　phrase　however　has　the　inconvenience　that　thought　is　usually
  confined　to　express　what　belongs　to　the　mind　or　consciousness　only；　while
  objective　is　a　term　applied；　at　least　primarily；　only　to　the　non…mental。
  §24n
  （1）　To　speak　of　thought　or　objective　thought　as　the　heart　and　soul　of　the　world；　may　seem　to　be
  ascribing　consciousness　to　the　things　of　nature。　We　feel　a　certain　repugnance　against　making
  thought　the　inward　function　of　things；　especially　as　we　speak　of　thought　as　marking　the　divergence
  of　man　from　nature。　It　would　be　necessary；　therefore；　if　we　use　the　term　thought　at　all；　to　speak　of
  nature　as　the　system　of　unconscious　thought；　or；　to　use　Schelling's　expression；　a　petrified
  intelligence。　And　in　order　to　prevent　misconception；　'thought…form'　or　'thought…type'　should　be
  substituted　for　the　ambiguous　term　thought。
  From　what　has　been　said　the　principles　of　logic　are　to　be　sought　in　a　system　of　thought…types　or
  fundamental　categories；　in　which　the　opposition　between　subjective　and　objective；　in　its　usual
  sense　vanishes。　The　signification　thus　attached　to　thought　and　its　characteristic　forms　may　be
  illustrated　by　the　ancient　saying　that　'nous　governs　the　world'；　or　by　our　own　phrase　that　'Reason
  is　in　the　world'；　which　means　that　Reason　is　the　soul　of　the　world　it　inhabits；　its　immanent　principle；
  its　most　proper　and　inward　nature；　its　universal。　Another　illustration　is　offered　by　the　circumstance
  that　in　speaking　of　some　definite　animal　we　say　it　is　（an）　animal。　Now；　the　animal；　qua　animal；
  cannot　be　shown；　nothing　can　be　pointed　out　excepting　some　special　animal。　Animal；　qua　animal；
  does　not　exist：　it　is　merely　the　universal　nature　of　the　individual　animals；　while　each　existing　animal
  is　a　more　concretely　defined　and　particularised　thing。　But　to　be　an　animal　…　the　law　of　kind　which　is
  the　universal　in　this　case　…　is　the　property　of　the　particular　animal；　and　constitutes　its　definite
  essence。　Take　away　from　the　dog　its　animality；　and　it　becomes　impossible　to　say　what　it　is。　All
  things　have　a　permanent　inward　nature；　as　well　as　an　outward　existence。　They　live　and　die；　arise
  and　pass　away；　but　their　essential　and　universal　part　is　the　kind；　and　this　means　much　more　than
  something　common　to　them　all。
  If　thought　is　the　constitutive　substance　of　external　things；　it　is　also　the　universal　substance　of　what　is
  spiritual。　In　all　human　perception　thought　is　present；　so　too　thought　is　the　universal　in　all　the　acts　of
  conception　and　recollection；　in　short；　in　every　mental　activity；　in　willing；　wishing；　and　the　like。　All
  these　faculties　are　only　further　specialisations　of　thought。　When　it　is　presented　in　this　light；　thought
  has　a　different　part　to　play　from　what　it　has　if　we　speak　of　a　faculty　of　thought；　one　among　a
  crowd　of　other　faculties；　such　as　perception；　conception；　and　will；　with　which　it　stands　on　the
  same　level。　When　it　is　seen　to　be　the　true　universal　of　all　that　nature　and　mind　contain；　it　extends　its
  scope　far　beyond　all　these；　and　becomes　the　basis　of　everything。　From　this　view　of　thought；　in　its
  objective　meaning　as　nous；　we　may　next　pass　to　consider　the　subjective　sense　of　the　term。　We
  say　first；　Man　is　a　being　that　thinks；　but　we　also　say　at　the　same　time；　Man　is　a　being　that
  perceives　and　wills。　Man　is　a　thinker；　and　is　universal；　but　he　is　a　thinker　only　because　he　feels　his
  own　universality。　The　animal　too　is　by　implication　universal；　but　the　universal　is　not　consciously　felt
  by　it　to　be　universal：　it　feels　only　the　individual。　The　animal　sees　a　singular　object；　for　instance；　its
  food；　or　a　man。　For　the　animal　all　this　never　goes　beyond　an　individual　thing。　Similarly；　sensation
  has　to　do　with　nothing　but　singulars；　such　as　this　pain　or　this　sweet　taste。　Nature　does　not　bring　its
  nous　into　consciousness：　it　is　man　who　first　makes　himself　double　so　as　to　be　a　universal　for　a
  universal。　This　first　happens　when　man　knows　that　he　is　'I'。　By　the　term　'I'　I　mean　myself；　a　single
  and　altogether　determinate　person。　And　yet　I　really　utter　nothing　peculiar　to　myself；　for　every　one
  else　is　an　'I'　or　'Ego'；　and　when　I　call　myself　'I'；　though　I　indubitably　mean　the　single　person　myself；
  I　express　a　thorough　universal。　'I'；　therefore；　is　mere　being…for…self；　in　which　everything　peculiar　or
  marked　is　renounced　and　buried　out　of　sight；　it　is　as　it　were　the　ultimate　and　unanalysable　point　of
  consciousness。　We　may　say　'I'　and　thought　are　the　same；　or；　more　definitely；　'I'　is　thought　as　a
  thinker。　What　I　have　in　my　consciousness　is　for　me。　'I'　is　the　vacuum　or　receptacle　for　anything
  and　everything：　for　which　everything　is　and　which　stores　up　everything　in　itself。　Every　man　is　a
  whole　world　of　conceptions；　that　lie　buried　in　the　night　of　the　'Ego'。　It　follows　that　the　'Ego'　is　the
  universal　in　which　we　leave　aside　all　that　is　particular；　and　in　which　at　the　same　time　all　the
  particulars　have　a　latent　existence。　In　other　words；　it　is　not　a　mere　universality　and　nothing　more；
  but　the　universality　which　includes　in　it　everything。　Commonly　we　use　the　word　'I'　without　attaching
  much　importance　to　it；　nor　is　it　an　object　of　study　except　to　philosophical　analysis。　In　the　'Ego'；　we
  have　thought　before　us　in　its　utter　purity。　While　the　brute　cannot　say　'I'；　man　can；　because　it　is　his
  nature　to　think。　Now　in　the　'Ego'　there　are　a　variety　of　contents；　derived　both　from　within　and　from
  without；　and　according　to　the　nature　of　these　contents　our　state　may　be　described　as　perception；
  or　conception；　or　reminiscence。　But　in　all　of　them　the　'I'　is　found：　or　in　them　all　thought　is　present。
  Man；　therefore；　is　always　thinking；　even　in　his　perceptions：　if　he　observes　anything；　he　always
  observes　it　as　a　universal；　fixes　on　a　single　point　which　he　places　in　relief；　thus　withdrawing　his
  attention　from　other　points；　and　takes　it　as　abstract　and　universal；　even　if　the　universality　be　only　in
  form。
  In　the　case　of　our　ordinary　conceptions；　two　things　may　happen。　Either　the　contents　are　moulded
  by　thought；　but　not　the　form；　or；　the　form　belongs　to　thought　and　not　the　contents。　In　using　such
  terms；　for　instance；　as　anger；　rose；　hope；　I　am　speaking　of　things　which　I　have　learnt　in　the　way　of
  sensation；　but　I　express　these　contents　in　a　universal　mode；　that　is；　in　the　form　of　thought。　I　have
  left　out　much　that　is　particular　and　given　the　contents　in　their　generality：　but　still　the　contents　remain
  sense…der