contradiction　appears　in　all　development。　The　development　of　the　tree　is　the　negation　of　the　germ；
  and　the　blossom　that　of　the　leaves；　in　so　far　as　that　they　show　that　these　do　not　form　the　highest
  and　truest　existence　of　the　tree。　Last　of　all；　the　blossom　finds　its　negation　in　the　fruit。　Yet　none　of
  them　can　come　into　actual　existence　excepting　as　preceded　by　all　the　earlier　stages。　Our　attitude　to
  a　philosophy　must　thus　contain　an　affirmative　side　and　a　negative；　when　we　take　both　of　these　into
  consideration；　we　do　justice　to　a　philosophy　for　the　first　time。　We　get　to　know　the　affirmative　side
  later　on　both　in　life　and　in　science；　thus　we　find　it　easier　to　refute　than　to　justify。
  In　the　third　place；　we　shall　limit　ourselves　to　the　particular　consideration　of　the　principle　itself。　Each
  principle　has　reigned　for　a　certain　time；　and　when　the　whole　system　of　the　world　has　been
  explained　from　this　special　form；　it　is　called　a　philosophical　system。　Its　whole　theory　has　certainly
  to　be　learned；　but　as　long　as　the　principle　is　abstract　it　is　not　sufficient　to　embrace　the　forms
  belonging　to　our　conception　of　the　world。　The　Cartesian　principles；　for　instance；　are　very　suitable
  for　application　to　mechanism；　but　for　nothing　further；　their　representation　of　other　manifestations　in
  the　world；　such　as　those　of　vegetable　and　animal　nature；　are　insufficient；　and　hence　uninteresting。
  Therefore　we　take　into　consideration　the　principles　of　these　philosophies　only；　but　in　dealing　with
  concrete　philosophies　we　must　also　regard　the　chief　forms　of　their　development　and　their
  applications。　The　subordinate　philosophies　are　inconsistent；　they　have　had　bright　glimpses　of　the
  truth；　which　are；　however；　independent　of　their　principles。　This　is　exemplified　in　the　Tim？us　of
  Plato；　a　philosophy　of　nature；　the　working　out　of　which　is　empirically　very　barren　because　its
  principle　does　not　as　yet　extend　far　enough；　and　it　is　not　to　its　principle　that　we　owe　the　deep
  gleams　of　thought　there　contained。
  In　the　fourth　place　it　follows　that　we　must　not　regard　the　history　of　Philosophy　as　dealing　with　the
  past；　even　though　it　is　history。　The　scientific　products　of　reason　form　the　content　of　this　history；
  and　these　are　not　past。　What　is　obtained　in　this　field　of　labour　is　the　True；　and；　as　such；　the
  Eternal；　it　is　not　what　exists　now；　and　not　then；　it　is　true　not　only　today　or　tomorrow；　but　beyond
  all　time；　and　in　as　far　as　it　is　in　time；　it　is　true　always　and　for　every　time。　The　bodily　forms　of　those
  great　minds　who　are　the　heroes　of　this　history；　the　temporal　existence　and　outward　lives　of　the
  philosophers；　are；　indeed；　no　more；　but　their　works　and　thoughts　have　not　followed　suit；　for　they
  neither　conceived　nor　dreamt　of　the　rational　import　of　their　works。　Philosophy　is　not
  somnambulism；　but　is　developed　consciousness；　and　what　these　heroes　have　done　is　to　bring　that
  which　is　implicitly　rational　out　of　the　depths　of　Mind；　where　it　is　found　at　first　as　substance　only；　or
  as　inwardly　existent；　into　the　light　of　day；　and　to　advance　it　into　consciousness　and　knowledge。
  This　forms　a　continuous　awakening。　Such　work　is　not　only　deposited　in　the　temple　of　Memory　as
  forms　of　times　gone　by；　but　is　just　as　present　and　as　living　now　as　at　the　time　of　its　production。　The
  effects　produced　and　work　performed　are　not　again　destroyed　or　interrupted　by　what　succeeds；
  for　they　are　such　that　we　must　ourselves　be　present　in　them。　They　have　as　medium　neither　canvas；
  paper；　marble；　nor　representation　or　memorial　to　preserve　them。　These　mediums　are　themselves
  transient；　or　else　form　a　basis　for　what　is　such。　But　they　do　have　Thought；　Notion；　and　the　eternal
  Being　of　Mind；　which　moths　cannot　corrupt；　nor　thieves　break　through　and　steal。　The　conquests
  made　by　Thought　when　constituted　into　Thought　form　the　very　Being　of　Mind。　Such　knowledge　is
  thus　not　learning　merely；　or　a　knowledge　of　what　is　dead；　buried　and　corrupt：　the　history　of
  Philosophy　has　not　to　do　with　what　is　gone；　but　with　the　living　present。
  c。　Further　comparison　between　the　History　of　Philosophy　and
  Philosophy　itself。
  We　may　appropriate　to　ourselves　the　whole　of　the　riches　apportioned　out　in　time：　it　must　be
  shown　from　the　succession　in　philosophies　how　that　succession　is　the　systematization　of　the
  science　of　Philosophy　itself。　But　a　distinction　is　to　be　noted　here：　that　which　first　commences　is
  implicit；　immediate；　abstract；　general…it　is　what　has　not　yet　advanced；　the　more　concrete　and　richer
  comes　later；　and　the　first　is　poorer　in　determinations。　This　may　appear　contrary　to　one's　first
  impressions；　but　philosophic　ideas　are　often　enough　directly　opposed　to　ordinary　ideas；　and　what
  is　generally　supposed；　is　not　found　to　be　the　case。　It　may　be　thought　that　what　comes　first　must　be
  the　concrete。　The　child；　for　instance；　as　still　in　the　original　totality　of　his　nature；　is　thought　to　be
  more　concrete　than　the　man；　hence　we　imagine　the　latter　to　be　more　limited；　no　longer　forming　a
  totality；　but　living　an　abstract　life。　Certainly　the　man　acts　in　accordance　with　definite　ends；　not
  bringing　his　whole　soul　and　mind　into　a　subject；　but　splitting　his　life　into　a　number　of　abstract
  unities。　The　child　and　the　youth；　on　the　contrary；　act　straight　from　the　fullness　of　the　heart。　Feeling
  and　sense…perception　come　first；　thought　last；　and　thus　feeling　appears　to　us　to　be　more　concrete
  than　thought；　or　the　activity　of　abstraction　and　of　the　universal。　In　reality；　it　is　just　the　other　way。
  The　sensuous　consciousness　is　certainly　the　more　concrete；　and　if　poorer　in　thought；　at　least　richer
  in　content。　We　must　thus　distinguish　the　naturally　concrete　from　the　concrete　of　thought；　which　on
  its　side；　again；　is　wanting　in　sensuous　matter。　The　child　is　also　the　most　abstract　and　the　poorest　in
  thought：　as　to　what　pertains　to　nature；　the　man　is　abstract；　but　in　thought　he　is　more　concrete　than
  the　child。　Man's　ends　and　objects　are　undoubtedly　abstract　in　general　affairs；　such　as　in
  maintaining　his　family　or　performing　his　business　duties；　but　he　contributes　to　a　great　objective
  organic　whole；　whose　progress　he　advances　and　directs。　In　the　acts　of　a　child；　on　the　other　hand；
  only　a　childish　and；　indeed；　momentary　〃I；〃　and　in　those　of　the　youth　the　subjective　constitution　or
  the　random　aim；　form　the　principle　of　action。　It　is　in　this　way　that　science　is　more　concrete　than
  sense…perception。
  In　applying　this　to　the　different　forms　of　Philosophy；　it　follows　in　the　first　place；　that　the　earliest
  philosophies　are　the　poorest　and　the　most　abstract。　In　them　the　Idea　is　least　determined；　they　keep
  merely　to　generalities　not　yet　realized。　This　must　be　known　in　order　that　we　may　not　seek　behind
  the　old　philosophies　for　more　than　we　are　entitled　to　find；　thus　we　need　not　require　from　them
  determinations　proceeding　from　a　deeper　consciousness。　For　instance；　it　has　been　asked　whether
  the　philosophy　of　Thales　is；　properly　speaking；　Theism　or　Atheism；　（5）　whether　he　asserted　a
  personal　God　or　merely　an　impersonal；　universal　existence。　The　question　here　regards　the
  attribution　of　subjectivity　to　the　highest　Idea；　the　conception　of　the　Personality　of　God。　Such
  subjectivity　as　we　comprehend　it；　is　a　much　richer；　more　concentrated；　and　therefore　much　later
  conception；　which　need　not　be　sought　for　in　distant　ages。　The　Greek　gods　had；　indeed；　personality
  in　imagination　and　idea　like　the　one　God　of　the　Jewish　religion；　but　to　know　what　is　the　mere
  picture　of　fancy；　and　what　the　insight　of　pure　Thought　and　Notion；　is　quite　another　thing。　If　we
  take　as　basis　our　own　ideas　judged　by　these　deeper　conceptions；　an　ancient　Philosophy　may
  undoubtedly　be　spoken　of　as　Atheism。　But　this　expression　would　at　the　same　time　be　false；　for　the
  thoughts　as　thoughts　in　beginning；　could　not　have　arrived　at　the　development　which　we　have
  reached。
  From　this　it　follows…since　the　progress　of　development　is　equivalent　to　further　determination；　and
  this　means　further　immersion　in；　and　a　fuller　grasp　of　the　Idea　itself…that　the　latest；　most　modern
  and　newest　philosophy　is　the　most　developed；　richest　and　deepest。　In　that　philosophy　everything
  which　at　first　seems　to　be　past　and　gone　must　be　preserved　and　retained；　and　it　must　itself　be　a
  mirror　of　the　whole　history。　The　original　philosophy　is　the　most　abstract；　because　it　is　the　original
  and　has　not　as　yet　made　any　movement　forward；　the　last；　which　proceeds　from　this　forward　and
  impelling　influence；　is　the　most　concrete。　This；　as　may　at　once　be　remarked；　is　no　mere　pride　in　the
  philosophy　of　our　time；　because　it　is　in　the　nature　of　the　whole　process　that　the　more　developed
  philosophy　of　a　later　time　is　really　the　result　of　the　previous　operations　of　the　thinking　mind；　and
  that　it；　pressed　forwards　and　onwards　from　the　earlier　standpoints；　has　not　grown　up　on　its　own
  account　or　in　a　state　of　isolation。
  It　must　also　be　recollected　that　we　must　not　hesitate　to　say；　what　is　naturally　implied；　that　the　Idea；
  as　comprehended　and　shown　forth　in　the　latest　and　newest　philosophy；　is　the　most　developed；　the
  richest　and　deepest。　I　call　this　to　remembrance　because　the　designation；　new　or　newest　of　all　in
  reference　to　Philosophy；　has　become　a　very　common　by…wo