secondary　relation。　Mathematical　science；　in　its　true　propositions　respecting　a　whole；　escapes
  from　the　difficulty　by　proving　also　the　converse　of　the　propositions；　in　this　way　obtaining　for　them　a
  special　definiteness　by　proving　each　proposition　in　both　ways。　True　propositions　may；　therefore；
  be　looked　on　as　definitions；　and　the　conversion　is　the　proof　of　the　proposition　in　the　form　in　which
  it　is　expressed。　But　this　means　of　escaping　the　difficulty　Philosophy　cannot　well　employ；　since　the
  subject　of　which　something　is　proved　is　itself　only　the　Notion　or　the　universal；　and　the　proposition
  form　is　therefore　quite　superfluous　and　out　of　place。　What　has　the　form　of　the　subject　is　in　the　form
  of　an　existent　thing；　as　contrasted　with　the　universal；　the　content　of　the　proposition。　The　existent
  thing　is　taken　as　signifying　existent　in　the　ordinary　sense；　it　is　the　word　which　we　use　in　every…day
  life；　and　of　which　we　have　a　conception　that　has　nothing　of　the　Notion　in　it。　The　converse　of　a
  proposition　would　simply　read　like　this：　The　Notion　is　that　which　is　thus　popularly　conceived。　This
  proof　from　the　usage　of　language　—　that　we　also　understand　this　to　be　the　meaning　in　every…day
  life；　or　in　other　words　that　the　name　is　correct　—　has　no　philosophic　significance。　But　if　the
  proposition　is　not　one　like　this；　but　an　ordinary　proposition；　and　if　the　predicate　is　not　the　Notion；
  but　some　general　term　or　other；　a　predicate　of　the　subject；　such　propositions　are　really　not
  philosophic：　we　might　instance　the　statement　that　substance　is　one　and　not　several；　but　only　that　in
  which　substance　and　unity　are　the　same。　Or；　in　other　words；　this　unity　of　the　two　moments　is　the
  very　thing　which　the　proof　has　to　demonstrate；　it　is　the　Notion　or　the　essence。　In　this　case　it　looks
  as　if　the　proposition　were　the　matter　of　chief　importance；　the　truth。　But　if　in　these　really　only
  so…called　propositions；　subject　and　predicate　are　in　truth　not　alike；　because　one　is　individual　and
  the　other　universal；　their　relation　is　essential；　i。e。；　the　reason　for　which　they　are　one。　The　proof　has
  here　a　false　position　indeed；　as　if　that　subject　were　implicit　or　in　itself；　whereas　subject　and
  predicate　are；　fundamentally　even；　moments　in　separation；　in　the　judgment　“God　is　One；”　the
  subject　itself　is　universal；　since　it　resolves　itself　into　unity。　On　the　other　side　it　is　implied　in　this　false
  position　that　the　proof　is　brought　in　from　outside　merely；　as　in　mathematics　from　a　preceding
  proposition；　and　that　the　proposition　is　not　therefore　conceived　through　itself；　thus　we　see　the
  ordinary　method　of　proof　take　its　middle　term；　the　principle；　from　anywhere　it　can；　in　the　same
  way　as　in　classification　it　takes　its　principle　of　classification。　The　proposition　is　then；　as　it　were；　a
  secondary　affair；　but　we　must　ask　if　this　proposition　is　true。　The　result　as　proposition　ought　to　be
  truth；　but　is　only　knowledge。　The　movement　of　knowledge；　as　proof；　falls　therefore；　in　the　third
  place；　outside　of　the　proposition；　which　ought　to　be　the　truth。　The　essential　moments　of　the　system
  are　really　already　completely　contained　in　the　pre…suppositions　of　the　definitions；　from　which　all
  further　proofs　have　merely　to　be　deduced。　But　whence　have　we　these　categories　which　here
  appear　as　definitions？　We　find　them　doubtless　in　ourselves；　in　scientific　culture。　The　existence　of
  the　understanding；　the　will；　extension；　is　therefore　not　developed　from　infinite　substance；　but　it　is
  directly　expressed　in　these　determinations；　and　that　quite　naturally；　for　of　a　truth　there　exists　the
  One　into　which　everything　enters；　in　order　to　be　absorbed　therein；　but　out　of　which　nothing　comes。
  For　as　Spinoza　has　set　up　the　great　proposition；　all　determination　implies　negation　（supra；　p。　267）；
  and　as　of　everything；　even　of　thought　in　contrast　to　extension；　it　may　be　shown　that　it　is　determined
  and　finite；　what　is　essential　in　it　rests　upon　negation。　Therefore　God　alone　is　the　positive；　the
  affirmative；　and　consequently　the　one　substance；　all　other　things；　on　the　contrary；　are　only
  modifications　of　this　substance；　and　are　nothing　in　and　for　themselves。　Simple　determination　or
  negation　belongs　only　to　form；　but　is　quite　another　thing　from　absolute　determinateness　or
  negativity；　which　is　absolute　form；　in　this　way　of　looking　at　it　negation　is　the　negation　of　negation；
  and　therefore　true　affirmation。　This　negative　self…conscious　moment；　the　movement　of　knowledge；
  which　pursues　its　way　in　the　thought　which　is　present　before　us；　is　however　certainly　lacking　to　the
  content　of　Spinoza's　philosophy；　or　at　least　it　is　only　externally　associated　with　it；　since　it　falls
  within　self…consciousness。　That　is　to　say；　thoughts　form　the　content；　but　they　are　not　self…conscious
  thoughts　or　Notions：　the　content　signifies　thought；　as　pure　abstract　self…consciousness；　but　an
  unreasoning　knowledge；　into　which　the　individual　does　not　enter：　the　content　has　not　the
  signification　of　'I。'　Therefore　the　case　is　as　in　mathematics；　a　proof　is　certainly　given；　conviction
  must　follow；　but　yet　the　matter　fails　to　be　understood。　There　is　a　rigid　necessity　in　the　proof；　to
  which　the　moment　of　self…consciousness　is　lacking；　the　'I'　disappears；　gives　itself　altogether　up；
  merely　withers　away。　Spinoza's　procedure　is　therefore　quite　correct；　yet　the　individual　proposition
  is　false；　seeing　that　it　expresses　only　one　side　of　the　negation。　The　understanding　has
  determinations　which　do　not　contradict　one　another；　contradiction　the　understanding　cannot　suffer。
  The　negation　of　negation　is；　however；　contradiction；　for　in　that　it　negates　negation　as　simple
  determination；　it　is　on　the　one　hand　affirmation；　but　on　the　other　hand　also　really　negation；　and　this
  contradiction；　which　is　a　matter　pertaining　to　reason；　is　lacking　in　the　case　of　Spinoza。　There　is
  lacking　the　infinite　form；　spirituality　and　liberty。　I　have　already　mentioned　before　this　（pp。　93；　94；
  129…137）　that　Lullus　and　Bruno　attempted　to　draw　up　a　system　of　form；　which　should　embrace
  and　comprehend　the　one　substance　which　organizes　itself　into　the　universe；　this　attempt　Spinoza
  did　not　make。
  Because　negation　was　thus　conceived　by　Spinoza　in　one…sided　fashion　merely；　there　is；　in　the　third
  place；　in　his　system；　an　utter　blotting　out　of　the　principle　of　subjectivity；　individuality；　personality；
  the　moment　of　self…consciousness　in　Being。　Thought　has　only　the　signification　of　the　universal；　not
  of　self…consciousness。　It　is　this　lack　which　has；　on　the　one　side；　brought　the　conception　of　the
  liberty　of　the　subject　into　such　vehement　antagonism　to　the　system　of　Spinoza；　because　it　set　aside
  the　independence　of　the　human　consciousness；　the　so…called　liberty　which　is　merely　the　empty
  abstraction　of　independence；　and　in　so　doing　set　aside　God；　as　distinguished　from　nature　and　the
  human　consciousness　—　that　is　as　implicit　consciousness　of　freedom；　of　the　spiritual；　which　is　the
  negative　of　the　corporeal；　and　man　has　also　the　consciousness　that　his　true　Being　lies　in　what　is
  opposed　to　the　corporeal。　This　has　been　firmly　maintained　by　religion；　theology；　and　the　sound
  common　sense　of　the　common　consciousness；　and　this　form　of　opposition　to　Spinoza　appears　first
  of　all　in　the　assertion　that　freedom　is　real；　and　that　evil　exists。　But　because　for　Spinoza；　on　the
  other　hand；　there　exists　only　absolute　universal　substance　as　the　non…particularized；　the　truly　real
  —　all　that　is　particular　and　individual；　my　subjectivity　and　spirituality；　has；　on　the　other　hand；　as　a
  limited　modification　whose　Notion　depends　on　another；　no　absolute　existence。　Thus　the　soul；　the
  Spirit；　in　so　far　as　it　is　an　individual　Being；　is　for　Spinoza　a　mere　negation；　like　everything　in　general
  that　is　determined。　As　all　differences　and　determinations　of　things　and　of　consciousness　simply　go
  back　into　the　One　substance；　one　may　say　that　in　the　system　of　Spinoza　all　things　are　merely　cast
  down　into　this　abyss　of　annihilation。　But　from　this　abyss　nothing　comes　out；　and　the　particular　of
  which　Spinoza　speaks　is　only　assumed　and　presupposed　from　the　ordinary　conception；　without
  being　justified。　Were　it　to　be　justified；　Spinoza　would　have　to　deduce　it　from　his　Substance；　but
  that　does　not　open　itself　out；　and　therefore　comes　to　no　vitality；　spirituality　or　activity。　His
  philosophy　has　only　a　rigid　and　unyielding　substance；　and　not　yet　spirit；　in　it　we　are　not　at　home
  with　ourselves。　But　the　reason　that　God　is　not　spirit　is　that　He　is　not　the　Three　in　One。　Substance
  remains　rigid　and　petrified；　without　Boehme's　sources　or　springs；　for　the　individual　determinations
  in　the　form　of　determinations　of　the　understanding　are　not　Boehme's　originating　spirits；　which
  energize　and　expand　in　one　another　（supra；　pp。　202；　203）。　What　we　find　regarding　this　particular
  then　is　that　it　is　only　a　modification　of　absolute　substance；　which；　however；　is　not　declared　to　be
  such；　for　the　moment　of　negativity　is　what　is　lacking　to　this　rigid　motionlessness；　whose　single　form
  of　activity　is　this；　to　divest　all　things　of　their　determination　and　particularity　and　cast　them　back　into
  the　one　absolute　substance；　wherein　they　are　simply　swallowed　up；　and　all　life　in　itself　is　utterly
  destroyed。　This