cannot　be　laid　hold　of。　Religion　necessarily　has　this　character；　since　the　fear　of　the　Lord　is　the
  essential　element　beyond　which　we　cannot　get。　〃The　fear　of　the　Lord　is　the　beginning　of　wisdom〃
  is　indeed　a　true　saying；　man　must　begin　with　this　in　order　to　know　the　finite　ends　in　their　negative
  character。　But　man　must　also　have　overcome　fear　through　the　relinquishment　of　finite　ends；　and　the
  satisfaction　which　that　Religion　affords　is　confined　to　what　is　finite；　seeing　that　the　chief　means　of
  reconciliation　are　natural　forms　which　are　impersonated　and　held　in　reverence。
  The　oriental　consciousness　raises　itself；　indeed；　above　the　natural　content　to　what　is　infinite；　but　it
  only　knows　itself　as　accidental　in　reference　to　the　power　which　makes　the　individual　fear。　This
  subordination　may　take　two　forms　and　must　indeed　from　one　extreme　pass　to　the　other。　The　finite；
  which　is　for　consciousness；　may　have　the　form　of　finitude　as　finite；　or　it　may　become　the　infinite；
  which　is　however　an　abstraction。　The　man　who　lives　in　fear；　and　he　who　rules　over　men　through
  fear；　both　stand　upon　the　same　platform；　the　difference　between　them　is　only　in　the　greater　power
  of　will　which　can　go　forth　to　sacrifice　all　that　is　finite　for　some　particular　end。　The　despot　brings
  about　what　his　caprice　directs；　including　certainly　what　is　good；　not　as　law；　but　as　arbitrary　will：
  the　passive　will；　like　that　of　slavery；　is　converted　into　the　active　energy　of　will；　which　will；　however；
  is　arbitrary　still。　In　Religion　we　even　find　self…immersion　in　the　deepest　sensuality　represented　as
  the　service　of　God；　and　then　there　follows　in　the　East　a　flight　to　the　emptiest　abstraction　as　to　what
  is　infinite；　as　also　the　exaltation　attained　through　the　renunciation　of　everything；　and　this　is　specially
  so　amongst　the　Indians；　who　torture　themselves　and　enter　into　the　most　profound　abstraction。　The
  Indians　look　straight　before　them　for　ten　years　at　a　time；　are　fed　by　those　around；　and　are　destitute
  of　other　spiritual　content　than　that　of　knowing　what　is　abstract；　which　content　therefore　is　entirely
  finite。　This；　then；　is　not　the　soil　of　freedom。
  In　the　East；　Mind　indeed　begins　to　dawn；　but　it　is　still　true　of　it　that　the　subject　is　not　presented　as
  a　person；　but　appears　in　the　objectively　substantial；　which　is　represented　as　partly　supersensuous
  and　partly；　and　even　more；　material；　as　negative　and　perishing。　The　highest　point　attainable　by　the
  individual；　the　everlasting　bliss；　is　made　an　immersion　into　substance；　a　vanishing　away　of
  consciousness；　and　thus　of　all　distinction　between　substance　and　individuality　…　hence　an
  annihilation。　A　spiritually　dead　relation　thus　comes　into　existence；　since　the　highest　point　there　to
  be　reached　is　insensibility。　So　far；　however；　man　has　not　attained　that　bliss；　but　finds　himself　to　be
  a　single　existent　individual；　distinguished　from　the　universal　substance。　He　is　thus　outside　the　unity；
  has　no　significance；　and　as　being　what　is　accidental　and　without　rights；　is　finite　only；　he　finds
  himself　limited　through　Nature　…　in　caste　for　instance。　The　will　is　not　here　the　substantial　will；　it　is
  the　arbitrary　will　given　up　to　what　is　outwardly　and　inwardly　contingent；　for　substance　alone　is　the
  affirmative。　With　it　greatness；　nobility；　or　exaltitude　of　character；　are　certainly　not　excluded；　but
  they　are　only　present　as　the　naturally　determined　or　the　arbitrary　will；　and　not　in　the　objective
  forms　of　morality　and　law　to　which　all　owe　respect；　which　hold　good　for　all；　and　in　which　for　that
  same　reason　all　are　recognized。　The　oriental　subject　thus　has　the　advantage　of　independence；　since
  there　is　nothing　fixed；　however　undetermined　is　the　substance　of　the　Easterns；　as　undetermined；
  free　and　independent　may　their　character　be。　What　for　us　is　justice　and　morality　is　also　in　their
  state；　but　in　a　substantial；　natural；　patriarchal　way；　and　not　in　subjective　freedom。　Conscience　does
  not　exist　nor　does　morality。　Everything　is　simply　in　a　state　of　nature；　which　allows　the　noblest　to
  exist　as　it　does　the　worst。
  The　conclusion　to　be　derived　from　this　is　that　no　philosophic　knowledge　can　be　found　here。　To
  Philosophy　belongs　the　knowledge　of　Substance；　the　absolute　Universal；　that　whether　I　think　it
  and　develop　it　or　not；　confronts　me　still　as　for　itself　objective；　and　whether　this　is　to　me　substantial
  or　not；　still　just　in　that　I　think　it；　it　is　mine；　that　in　which　I　possess　my　distinctive　character　or　am
  affirmative：　thus　my　thoughts　are　not　mere　subjective　determinations　or　opinions；　but；　as　being　my
  thoughts；　are　also　thoughts　of　what　is　objective；　or　they　are　substantial　thoughts。　The　Eastern　form
  must　therefore　be　excluded　from　the　History　of　Philosophy；　but　still；　upon　the　whole；　I　will　take
  some　notice　of　it。　I　have　touched　on　this　elsewhere；　for　some　time　ago　we　for　the　first　time
  reached　a　position　to　judge　of　it。　Earlier　a　great　parade　was　made　about　the　Indian　wisdom
  without　any　real　knowledge　of　what　it　was；　now　this　is　for　the　first　time　known；　and　naturally　it　is
  found　to　be　in　conformity　with　the　rest。
  c。　Beginnings　of　Philosophy　in　Greece。
  Philosophy　proper　commences　in　the　West。　It　is　in　the　West　that　this　freedom　of
  self…consciousness　first　comes　forth；　the　natural　consciousness；　and　likewise　Mind　disappear　into
  themselves。　In　the　brightness　of　the　East　the　individual　disappears；　the　light　first　becomes　in　the
  West　the　flash　of　thought　which　strikes　within　itself；　and　from　thence　creates　its　world　out　of　itself。
  The　blessedness　of　the　West　is　thus　so　determined　that　in　it　the　subject　as　such　endures　and
  continues　in　the　substantial；　the　individual　mind　grasps　its　Being　as　universal；　but　universality　is　just
  this　relation　to　itself　This　being　at　home　with　self；　this　personality　and　infinitude　of　the　〃I〃　constitutes
  the　Being　of　Mind；　it　is　thus　and　can　be　none　else。　For　a　people　to　know　themselves　as　free；　and
  to　be　only　as　universal；　is　for　them　to　be；　it　is　the　principle　of　their　whole　life　as　regards　morality
  and　all　else。　To　take　an　example；　we　only　know　our　real　Being　in　so　far　as　personal　freedom　is　its
  first　condition；　and　hence　we　never　can　be　slaves。　Were　the　mere　arbitrary　will　of　the　prince　a　law；
  and　should　he　wish　slavery　to　be　introduced；　we　would　have　the　knowledge　that　this　could　not　be。
  To　sleep；　to　live；　to　have　a　certain　office；　is　not　our　real　Being；　and　certainly　to　be　no　slave　is　such；
  for　that　has　come　to　mean　the　being　in　nature。　Thus　in　the　West　we　are　upon　the　soil　of　a　veritable
  Philosophy。
  Because　in　desire　I　am　subject　to　another；　and　my　Being　is　in　a　particularity；　I　am；　as　I　exist；　unlike
  myself；　for　I　am　〃I；〃　the　universal　complete；　but　hemmed　in　by　passion。　This　last　is　self…will　or
  formal　freedom；　which　has　desire　as　content。　Amongst　the　Greeks　we　first　find　the　freedom　which
  is　the　end　of　true　will；　the　equitable　and　right；　in　which　I　am　free　and　universal；　and　others；　too；　are
  free；　are　also　〃I〃　and　like　me；　where　a　relationship　between　free　and　free　is　thus　established　with　its
  actual　laws；　determinations　of　the　universal　will；　and　justly　constituted　states。　Hence　it　is　here　that
  Philosophy　began。
  In　Greece　we　first　see　real　freedom　flourish；　but　still　in　a　restricted　form；　and　with　a　limitation；
  since　slavery　was　still　existent；　and　the　states　were　by　its　means　conditioned。　In　the　following
  abstractions　we　may　first　of　all　superficially　describe　the　freedom　of　the　East；　of　Greece；　and　of
  the　Teutonic　world。　In　the　East　only　one　individual　is　free；　the　despot；　in　Greece　the　few　are　free；
  in　the　Teutonic　world　the　saying　is　true　that　all　are　free；　that　is；　man　is　free　as　man。　But　since　the
  one　in　Eastern　countries　cannot　be　free　because　that　would　necessitate　the　others　also　being　free
  to　him；　impulse；　self…will；　and　formal　freedom；　can　there　alone　be　found。　Since　in　Greece　we　have
  to　deal　with　the　particular；　the　Athenians；　and　the　Spartans；　are　free　indeed；　but　not　the
  Messenians　or　the　Helots。　The　principle　of　the　〃few〃　has　yet　to　be　discovered；　and　this　implies
  some　modifications　of　the　Greek　point　of　view　which　we　must　consider　in　connection　with　the
  History　of　Philosophy。　To　take　these　into　consideration　means　simply　to　proceed　to　the　dividing
  up　of　Philosophy。
  Introduction
  C。　　Division；　Sources；　and　Method　Adopted
  in　Treating　of　the　History　of　Philosophy。
  1。　Division　of　the　History　of　Philosophy。
  Since　we　set　to　work　systematically　this　division　must　present　itself　as　necessary。　Speaking
  generally；　we　have　properly　only　two　epochs　to　distinguish　in　the　history　of　Philosophy；　as　in
  ancient　and　modern　art…these　are　the　Greek　and　the　Teutonic。　The　Teutonic　Philosophy　is　the
  Philosophy　within　Christendom　in　so　far　as　it　belongs　to　the　Teutonic　nations；　the
  Christian…European　people；　inasmuch　as　they　belong　to　the　world　of　science　possess　collectively
  Teutonic　culture；　for　Italy；　Spain；　France；　England；　and　the　rest；　have　through　the　Teutonic　nations；
  received　a　new　form。　The　influence　of　Greece　also　reaches　into　the　Roman　world；　and　hence　we
  have　to　speak　of　Philosophy　in　the　territory　of　the　Roman　world；　but　the　Romans　produced　no
  proper　Philosophy　any　more　than　any　proper　poets。　They