the　finite　as　such；　which　enters　into　external　connection　with　what　is　“other。”　In　this　Spinoza　only
  descends　to　a　lower　stage；　the　mode　is　only　the　foregoing　warped　and　stunted。　Spinoza's　defect　is
  therefore　this；　that　he　takes　the　third　moment　as　mode　alone；　as　a　false　individuality。　True
  individuality　and　subjectivity　is　not　a　mere　retreat　from　the　universal；　not　merely　something　clearly
  determinate；　for；　as　clearly　determinate；　it　is　at　the　same　time　Being…for…itself；　determined　by　itself
  alone。　The　individual；　the　subjective；　is　even　in　being　so　the　return　to　the　universal；　and　in　that　it　is
  at　home　with　itself；　it　is　itself　the　universal。　The　return　consists　simply　and　solely　in　the　fact　of　the
  particular　being　in　itself　the　universal；　to　this　return　Spinoza　did　not　attain。　Rigid　substantiality　is　the
  last　point　he　reached；　not　infinite　form；　this　he　knew　not；　and　thus　determinateness　continually
  vanishes　from　his　thought。
  f。　In　the　sixth　place；　the　definition　of　the　infinite　is　also　of　importance；　for　in　the　infinite　Spinoza
  defines　more　strictly　than　anywhere　else　the　Notion　of　the　Notion。　The　infinite　has　a　double
  significance；　according　as　it　is　taken　as　the　infinitely　many　or　as　the　absolutely　infinite　（infra；　p。
  263）。　“The　infinite　in　its　kind　is　not　such　in　respect　of　all　possible　attributes；　but　the　absolutely
  infinite　is　that　to　whose　essence　all　belongs　that　expresses　an　essence　and　contains　no　negation。”
  In　the　same　sense　Spinoza　distinguishes　in　the　nine…and…twentieth　Letter　（Oper。　T。　I。　pp。　526…532）
  the　infinite　of　imagination　from　the　infinite　of　thought　（intellectus）；　the　actual　（actu）　infinite。　Most
  men；　when　they　wish　to　strive　after　the　sublime；　get　no　farther　than　the　first　of　these；　this　is　the　false
  infinite；　just　as　when　one　says　“and　so　on　into　infinity；”　meaning　perhaps　the　infinity　of　space　from
  star　to　star；　or　else　the　infinity　of　time。　An　infinite　numerical　series　in　mathematics　is　exactly　the
  same　thing。　If　a　certain　fraction　is　represented　as　a　decimal　fraction；　it　is　incomplete；　1/7　is；　on　the
  contrary；　the　true　infinite；　and　therefore　not　an　incomplete　expression；　although　the　content　here　is
  of　course　limited。　It　is　infinity　in　the　incorrect　sense　that　one　usually　has　in　view　when　infinity　is
  spoken　of；　and　even　if　it　is　looked　on　as　sublime；　it　yet　is　nothing　present；　and　only　goes　ever　out
  into　the　negative；　without　being　actual　（actu）。　But　for　Spinoza　the　infinite　is　not　the　fixing　of　a　limit
  and　then　passing　beyond　the　limit　fixed　—　the　sensuous　infinity　—　but　absolute　infinity；　the　positive；
  which　has　complete　and　present　in　itself　an　absolute　multiplicity　which　has　no　Beyond。　Philosophic
  infinity；　that　which　is　infinite　actu；　Spinoza　therefore　calls　the　absolute　affirmation　of　itself。　This　is
  quite　correct；　only　it　might　have　been　better　expressed　as：　“It　is　the　negation　of　negation。”
  Spinoza　here　also　employs　geometrical　figures　as　illustrations　of　the　Notion　of　infinity。　In　his　Opera
  postuma；　preceding　his　Ethics；　and　also　in　the　letter　quoted　above；　he　has　two　circles；　one　of
  which　lies　within　the　other；　which　have　not；　however；　a　common　centre。
  “The　inequalities　of　the　space　between　A　B　and　C　D　exceed　every　number；　and
  yet　the　space　which　lies　between　is　not　so　very　great。”　That　is　to　say；　if　I　wish
  to　determine　them　all；　I　must　enter　upon　an　infinite　series。　This　“beyond”
  always；　however；　remains　defective；　is　always　affected　with　negation；　and　yet
  this　false　infinite　is　there　to　hand；　circumscribed；　affirmative；　actual　and　present
  in　that　plane　as　a　complete　space　between　the　two　circles。　Or　a　finite　line
  consists　of　an　infinite　number　of　points；　and　yet　the　line　is　present　here　and　determined；　the
  “beyond”　of　the　infinite　number　of　points；　which　are　not　complete；　is　in　it　complete　and　called
  back　into　unity。　The　infinite　should　be　represented　as　actually　present；　and　this　comes　to　pass　in
  the　Notion　of　the　cause　of　itself；　which　is　therefore　the　true　infinity。　As　soon　as　the　cause　has
  something　else　opposed　to　it　—　the　effect　—　finitude　is　present；　but　here　this　something　else　is　at
  the　same　time　abrogated　and　it　becomes　once　more　the　cause　itself。　The　affirmative　is　thus
  negation　of　negation；　since；　according　to　the　well…known　grammatical　rule；　duplex　negatio
  affirmat。　In　the　same　way　Spinoza's　earlier　definitions　have　also　the　infinite　already　implied　in
  them；　for　instance　in　the　case　of　the　just　mentioned　cause　of　itself；　inasmuch　as　he　defines　it　as　that
  whose　essence　involves　existence　（supra；　p。　258）。　Notion　and　existence　are　each　the　Beyond　of
  the　other；　but　cause　of　itself；　as　thus　including　them；　is　really　the　carrying　back　of　this　“beyond”
  into　unity。　Or　（supra；　p。　259）　“Substance　is　that　which　is　in　itself　and　is　conceived　from　itself；”
  that　is　the　same　unity　of　Notion　and　existence。　The　infinite　is　in　the　same　way　in　itself　and　has　also
  its　Notion　in　itself；　its　Notion　is　its　Being；　and　its　Being　its　Notion；　true　infinity　is　therefore　to　be
  found　in　Spinoza。　But　he　has　no　consciousness　of　this；　he　has　not　recognized　this　Notion　as
  absolute　Notion；　and　therefore　has　not　expressed　it　as　a　moment　of　true　existence；　for　with　him　the
  Notion　falls　outside　of　existence；　into　the　thought　of　existence。
  g。　Finally　Spinoza　says　in　the　seventh　place：　“God　is　a　Being　absolutely　infinite；　i。e。　a　substance
  consisting　of　infinite　attributes；　each　of　which　expresses　an　eternal　and　infinite　essence。”　Does
  substance；　one　might　here　ask；　possess　an　infinite　number　of　attributes？　But　as　with　Spinoza　there
  are　only　two　attributes；　thought　and　extension；　with　which　he　invests　God；　“infinite”　is　not　to　be
  taken　here　in　the　sense　of　the　indeterminate　but　positively；　as　a　circle　is　perfect　infinity　in　itself。
  The　whole　of　Spinoza's　philosophy　is　contained　in　these　definitions；　which；　however；　taken　as　a
  whole　are　formal；　it　is　really　a　weak　point　in　Spinoza　that　he　begins　thus　with　definitions。　In
  mathematics　this　method　is　permitted；　because　at　the　outset　we　there　make　assumptions；　such　as
  that　of　the　point　and　line；　but　in　Philosophy　the　content　should　be　known　as　the　absolutely　true。　It
  is　all　very　well　to　grant　the　correctness　of　the　name…definition；　and　acknowledge　that　the　word
  “substance”　corresponds　with　the　conception　which　the　definition　indicates；　but　it　is　quite　another
  question　to　determine　whether　this　content　is　absolutely　true。　Such　a　question　is　not　asked　in　the
  case　of　geometrical　propositions；　but　in　philosophic　investigation　it　is　the　very　thing　to　be　first
  considered；　and　this　Spinoza　has　not　done。　Instead　of　only　explaining　these　simple　thoughts　and
  representing　them　as　concrete　in　the　definitions　which　he　makes；　what　he　ought　to　have　done　was
  to　examine　whether　this　content　is　true。　To　all　appearance　it　is　only　the　explanation　of　the　words
  that　is　given；　but　the　content　of　the　words　is　held　to　be　established。　All　further　content　is　merely
  derived　from　that；　and　proved　thereby；　for　on　the　first　content　all　the　rest　depends；　and　if　it　is
  established　as　a　basis；　the　other　necessarily　follows。　“The　attribute　is　that　which　the　understanding
  thinks　of　God。”　But　here　the　question　is：　How　does　it　come　that　besides　the　Deity　there　now
  appears　the　understanding；　which　applies　to　absolute　substance　the　two　forms　of　thought　and
  extension？　and　whence　come　these　two　forms　themselves？　Thus　everything　proceeds　inwards；
  and　not　outwards；　the　determinations　are　not　developed　from　substance；　it　does　not　resolve　itself
  into　these　attributes。
  2。　These　definitions　are　followed　by　axioms　and　propositions　in　which　Spinoza　proves　a　great
  variety　of　points。　He　descends　from　the　universal　of　substance　through　the　particular；　thought　and
  extension；　to　the　individual。　He　has　thus　all　three　moments　of　the　Notion；　or　they　are　essential　to
  him。　But　the　mode；　under　which　head　falls　individuality；　he　does　not　recognize　as　essential；　or　as
  constituting　a　moment　of　true　existence　in　that　existence；　for　it　disappears　in　existence；　or　it　is　not
  raised　into　the　Notion。
  a。　The　main　point　then　is　that　Spinoza　proves　from　these　Notions　that　there　is　only　One
  Substance；　God。　It　is　a　simple　chain　of　reasoning；　a　very　formal　proof。　“Fifth　Proposition：　There
  cannot　be　two　or　more　substances　of　the　same　nature　or　of　the　same　attribute。”　This　is　implied
  already　in　the　definitions；　the　proof　is　therefore　a　useless　and；　wearisome　toil；　which　only　serves　to
  render　Spinoza　more　difficult　to　understand。　“If　there　were　several”　（substances　of　the　same
  attribute）　“they　must　be　distinguished　from　one　another　either　by　the　diversity　of　their　attributes　or
  by　the　diversity　of　their　affections”　（modes）。　“If　they　are　distinguished　by　their　attributes；　it　would
  be　directly　conceded　that　there　is　only　one　substance　having　the　same　attribute。”　For　the
  attributes　are　simply　what　the　understanding　grasps　as　the　essence　of　the　one　substance；　which　is
  determined　in　itself；　and　not　through　anything　else。　“But　if　these　substances　were　distinguished　by
  their　affections；　since　substance　is　by　nature　prior　to　its　affections