within　it。　Thus　the　Idea　is　the　central　point；　which　is　also　the　periphery；　the　source　of　light；　which　in
  all　its　expansion　does　not　come　without　itself；　but　remains　present　and　immanent　within　itself。　Thus
  it　is　both　the　system　of　necessity　and　its　own　necessity；　which　also　constitutes　its　freedom。
  3。　RESULTS　OBTAINED　WITH　RESPECT　TO　THE　NOTION　OF　THE
  HISTORY　OF　PHILOSOPHY。
  Thus　we　see　that　Philosophy　is　system　in　development；　the　history　of　Philosophy　is　the　same；　and
  this　is　the　main　point　to　be　noted　and　the　first　principle　to　be　dealt　with　in　this　treatise　on　that
  history。　In　order　to　make　this　evident；　the　difference　in　respect　to　the　possible　modes　of
  manifestation　must　first　be　pointed　out。　That　is　to　say；　the　progression　of　the　various　stages　in　the
  advance　of　Thought　may　occur　with　the　consciousness　of　necessity；　in　which　case　each　in
  succession　deduces　itself；　and　this　form　and　this　determination　can　alone　emerge。　Or　else　it　may
  come　about　without　this　consciousness　as　does　a　natural　and　apparently　accidental　process；　so
  that　while　inwardly；　indeed；　the　Notion　brings　about　its　result　consistently；　this　consistency　is　not
  made　manifest。　This　is　so　in　nature；　in　the　various　stages　of　the　development　of　twigs；　leaves；
  blossom　and　fruit；　each　proceeds　for　itself；　but　the　inward　Idea　is　the　directing　and　determining
  force　which　governs　the　progression。　This　is　also　so　with　the　child　whose　bodily　powers；　and
  above　all　whose　intellectual　activities；　make　their　appearance　one　after　the　other；　simply　and
  naturally；　so　that　those　parents　who　form　such　an　experience　for　the　first　time；　marvel　whence　all
  that　is　now　showing　itself　from　within；　comes　from；　for　the　whole　of　these　manifestations　merely
  have　the　form　of　a　succession　in　time。
  The　one　kind　of　progression　which　represents　the　deduction　of　the　forms；　the　necessity　thought　out
  and　recognized；　of　the　determinations；　is　the　business　of　Philosophy；　and　because　it　is　the　pure
  Idea　which　is　in　question　and　not　yet　its　mere　particularized　form　as　Nature　and　as　Mind；　that
  representation　is；　in　the　main；　the　business　of　logical　Philosophy。　But　the　other　method；　which
  represents　the　part　played　by　the　history　of　Philosophy；　shows　the　different　Stages　and　moments　in
  development　in　time；　in　manner　of　occurrence；　in　particular　places；　in　particular　people　or　political
  circumstances；　the　complications　arising　thus；　and；　in　short；　it　shows　us　the　empirical　form。　This
  point　of　view　is　the　only　one　worthy　of　this　science。　From　the　very　nature　of　the　subject　it　is
  inherently　the　true　one；　and　through　the　study　of　this　history　it　will　be　made　manifest　that　it　actually
  shows　and　proves　itself　so。
  Now　in　reference　to　this　Idea；　I　maintain　that　the　sequence　in　the　systems　of　Philosophy　in　History
  is　similar　to　the　sequence　in　the　logical　deduction　of　the　Notion　…　determinations　in　the　Idea。　I
  maintain　that　if　the　fundamental　conceptions　of　the　systems　appearing　in　the　history　of　Philosophy
  be　entirely　divested　of　what　regards　their　outward　form；　their　relation　to　the　particular　and　the　like；
  the　various　stages　in　the　determination　of　the　Idea　are　found　in　their　logical　Notion。　Conversely　in
  the　logical　progression　taken　for　itself；　there　is；　so　far　as　its　principal　elements　are　concerned；　the
  progression　of　historical　manifestations；　but　it　is　necessary　to　have　these　pure　Notions　in　order　to
  know　what　the　historical　form　contains。　It　may　be　thought　that　Philosophy　must　have　another　order
  as　to　the　stages　in　the　Idea　than　that　in　which　these　Notions　have　gone　forth　in　time；　but　in　the　main
  the　order　is　the　same。　This　succession　undoubtedly　separates　itself；　on　the　one　hand；　into　the
  sequence　in　time　of　History；　and　on　the　other　into　succession　in　the　order　of　ideas。　But　to　treat
  more　fully　of　this　last　would　divert　us　too　far　from　our　aim。
  I　would　only　remark　this；　that　what　has　been　said　reveals　that　the　study　of　the　history　of
  Philosophy　is　the　study　of　Philosophy　itself；　for；　indeed；　it　can　be　nothing　else。　Whoever　studies
  the　history　of　sciences　such　as　Physics　and　Mathematics　makes　himself　acquainted　with　Physics
  and　Mathematics　themselves。　But　in　order　to　obtain　a　knowledge　of　its　progress　as　the
  development　of　the　Idea　in　the　empirical；　external　form　in　which　Philosophy　appears　in　History；　a
  corresponding　knowledge　of　the　Idea　is　absolutely　essential；　just　as　in　judging　of　human　affairs　one
  must　have　a　conception　of　that　which　is　right　and　fitting。　Else；　indeed；　as　in　so　many　histories　of
  Philosophy；　there　is　presented　to　the　vision　devoid　of　idea；　only　a　disarranged　collection　of
  opinions。　To　make　you　acquainted　with　this　Idea；　and　consequently　to　explain　the　manifestations；
  is　the　business　of　the　history　of　Philosophy；　and　to　do　this　is　my　object　in　undertaking　to　lecture　on
  the　subject。　Since　the　observer　must　bring　with　him　the　Notion　of　the　subject　in　order　to　see　it　in
  its　phenomenal　aspect　and　in　order　to　expose　the　object　faithfully　to　view；　we　need　not　wonder　at
  there　being　so　many　dull　histories　of　Philosophy　in　which　the　succession　of　its　systems　are
  represented　simply　as　a　number　of　opinions；　errors　and　freaks　of　thought。　They　are　freaks　of
  thought　which；　indeed；　have　been　devised　with　a　great　pretension　of　acuteness　and　of　mental
  exertion；　and　with　everything　else　which　can　be　said　in　admiration　of　what；　is　merely　formal。　But；
  considering　the　absence　of　philosophic　mind　in　such　historians　as　these；　how　should　they　be　able
  to　comprehend　and　represent　the　content；　which　is　reasoned　thought？
  It　is　shown　from　what　has　been　said　regarding　the　formal　nature　of　the　Idea；　that　only　a　history　of
  Philosophy　thus　regarded　as　a　system　of　development　in　Idea；　is　entitled　to　the　name　of　Science：　a
  collection　of　facts　constitutes　no　science。　Only　thus　as　a　succession　of　phenomena　established
  through　reason；　and　having　as　content　just　what　is　reason　and　revealing　it；　does　this　history　show
  that　it　is　rational：　it　shows　that　the　events　recorded　are　in　reason。　How　should　the　whole　of　what
  has　taken　place　in　reason　not　itself　be　rational？　That　faith　must　surely　be　the　more　reasonable　in
  which　chance　is　not　made　ruler　over　human　affairs；　and　it　is　the　business　of　Philosophy　to
  recognize　that　however　much　its　own　manifestations　may　be　history　likewise；　it　is　yet　determined
  through　the　Idea　alone。
  Through　these　general　preliminary　conceptions　the　categories　are　now　determined；　the　more
  immediate　application　of　which　to　the　history　of　Philosophy　we　have　now　to　consider。　This
  application　will　bring　before　us　the　most　significant　aspects　in　this　history。
  a。　The　development　in　Time　of　the　various　Philosophies。
  The　first　question　which　may　be　asked　in　reference　to　this　history；　concerns　that　distinction　in
  regard　to　the　manifestation　of　the　Idea；　which　has　just　been　noticed。　It　is　the　question　as　to　how　it
  happens　that　Philosophy　appears　to　be　a　development　in　time　and　has　a　history。　The　answer　to
  this　question　encroaches　on　the　metaphysics　of　Time；　and　it　would　be　a　digression　from　our　object
  to　give　here　more　than　the　elements　on　which　the　answer　rests。
  It　has　been　shown　above　in　reference　to　the　existence　of　Mind；　that　its　Being　is　its　activity。　Nature；
  on　the　contrary；　is；　as　it　is；　its　changes　are　thus　only　repetitions；　and　its　movements　take　the　form
  of　a　circle　merely。　To　express　this　better；　the　activity　of　Mind　is　to　know　itself。　I　am；　immediately；
  but　this　I　am　only　as　a　living　organism；　as　Mind　I　am　only　in　so　far　as　I　know　myself。　Know　thyself；
  the　inscription　over　the　temple　of　the　oracle　at　Delphi；　is　the　absolute　command　which　is　expressed
  by　Mind　in　its　essential　character。　But　consciousness　really　implies　that　for　myself；　I　am　object　to
  myself。　In　forming　this　absolute　division　between　what　is　mine　and　myself；　Mind　constitutes　its
  existence　and　establishes　itself　as　external　to　itself。　It　postulates　itself　in　the　externality　which　is　just
  the　universal　and　the　distinctive　form　of　existence　in　Nature。　But　one　of　the　forms　of　externality　is
  Time；　and　this　form　requires　to　be　farther　examined　both　in　the　Philosophy　of　Nature　and　the　finite
  Mind。
  This　Being　in　existence　and　therefore　Being　in　time　is　a　moment　not　only　of　the　individual
  consciousness；　which　as　such　is　essentially　finite；　but　also　of　the　development　of　the　philosophical
  Idea　in　the　element　of　Thought。　For　the　Idea；　thought　of　as　being　at　rest；　is；　indeed；　not　in　Time。
  To　think　of　it　as　at　rest；　and　to　preserve　it　in　the　form　of　immediacy　is　equivalent　to　its　inward
  perception。　But　the　Idea　as　concrete；　is；　as　has　been　shown；　the　unity　of　differences；　it　is　not　really
  rest；　and　its　existence　is　not　really　sense…perception；　but　as　differentiation　within　itself　and　therefore
  as　development；　it　comes　into　existent　Being　and　into　externality　in　the　element　of　Thought；　and
  thus　pure　Philosophy　appears　in　thought　as　a　progressive　existence　in　time。　But　this　element　of
  Thought　is　itself　abstract　and　is　the　activity　of　a　single　consciousness。　Mind　is；　however　not　only　to
  be　considered　as　individual；　finite　consciousness；　but　as　that　Mind　which　is　universal　and　concrete
  within　itself；　this　concrete　universality；　ho