by　men　—　generally　speaking　—　reason。　He　whom　the　pure　feelings　of　the　beautiful　and　good；　of
  admiration　and　love；　of　respect　and　awe；　do　not　convince　that　in　and　with　these　feelings　he
  perceives　something　to　be　present　which　is　independent　of　them；　and　which　is　unattainable　by　the
  outward　senses　or　by　an　understanding　directed　upon　their　perceptions　alone　—　such　an　one
  cannot　be　argued　with”　（Jacobi's　Werke；　Vol。　II。　pp。　74；　76）。　But　by　faith　Jacobi　likewise
  understands　all　that　has　immediacy　of　Being　for　me：　“Through　faith　we　know　that　we　have　a　body；
  we　become　aware　of　other　actual　things；　and　that　indeed　with　the　same　certainty　with　which　we
  are　aware　of　ourselves。　We　obtain　all　conceptions　through　the　qualities　which　we　receive　and
  accept；　and　there　is　no　other　way　of　attaining　real　knowledge；　for　reason；　when　it　begets　objects；
  begets　phantoms　of　the　brain。　Thus　we　have　a　revelation　of　nature。〃（11）　Hence　the　expression
  faith；　which　had　a　deep　significance　in　religion；　is　made　use　of　for　different　contents　of　every　kind；
  this　in　our　own　time　is　the　point　of　view　most　commonly　adopted。
  Jacobi　here　brings　faith　into　opposition　with　thought。　Let　us　compare　the　two；　and　discover
  whether　they　are　separated　by　so　great　a　chasm　as　those　who　thus　oppose　them　think。　On　the　one
  hand　absolute　existence　is　to　faith　immediate；　believing　consciousness　feels　itself　penetrated　by　this
  as　by　its　essence：　that　existence　is　its　life；　believing　consciousness　asserts　itself　to　be　in　direct　unity
  with　it。　Thought　thinks　the　absolute　existence；　such　existence　is　to　it　absolute　thought；　absolute
  understanding；　pure　thought；　but　that　signifies　that　it　is　likewise　immediate　itself。　On　the　other　hand
  to　faith　the　immediacy　of　absolute　existence　has　also　the　significance　of　a　Being：　it　is；　and　is
  another　than　'I。'　And　the　same　is　true　of　the　thinker；　to　him　it　is　absolute　Being；　actual　in　itself；　and
  different　from　self…consciousness　or　thought　as　finite　understanding；　to　use　the　common　term。　Now
  what　is　the　reason　that　faith　and　thought　do　not　understand　one　another；　and　each　recognize　itself
  in　the　other？　In　the　first　place　faith　has　no　consciousness　of　being　a　thought；　inasmuch　as　it　asserts
  absolute　consciousness　to　be　identical　with　it　as　self…consciousness；　and　has　direct　inward
  knowledge　of　the　same。　But　it　expresses　this　simple　unity；　in　its　consciousness　it　is　only　immediacy
  so　to　speak　in　the　signification　of　Being；　a　unity　of　its　unconscious　substance。　In　the　second　place
  Being…for…self　is　contained　in　thought；　to　this　faith　opposes　the　immediacy　of　Being。　Thought；　on
  the　contrary；　has　the　immediate　as　absolute　potentiality；　as　absolutely　a　thing　of　thought：　and　the
  immediacy　belonging　to　this　thing　of　thought　is　without　the　determination　of　Being；　of　life。　On　the
  heights　of　this　abstraction　the　two　stand　opposed　to　each　other；　as　the　Aufkl？rung　which　asserts
  absolute　existence　to　be　a　Beyond　of　self…consciousness；　and　as　the　materialism　which　makes　it　so
  to　speak　present　matter　（supra；　pp。　382；　383）。　In　the　one　case　it　is　in　faith　and　thought　as　positive
  existence　or　thought；　and　in　the　other　it　is　the　negative　of　self…consciousness；　which　is　thus　either
  only　determined　as　negative；　as　a　Beyond；　or　likewise　as　existent　for　self…consciousness。　Hence
  faith　and　thought　are　both　of　them　knowledge。　We　call　universal　knowledge　thought；　particular
  knowledge　we　call　sensuous　perception；　and　we　term　the　introduction　of　external　determinations
  understanding。　The　universal　element　in　man　is　thought；　but　to　it　likewise　appertains　religious
  feeling　for　instance；　the　animal　does　not　possess　it；　for　it　has　no　human　feeling；　and　in　so　far　as　this
  feeling　is　religious；　it　is　the　feeling　of　a　thinker；　and　what　determines　this　feeling　is　not　the
  determination　of　natural　desire；　&c。；　but　a　universal　determination。　Thus　God；　even　though　He　is
  only　felt　and　believed　in；　is　yet　the　universal　taken　quite　abstractly　—　even　in　His　personality　He　is
  the　absolutely　universal　personality。
  As　thought　and　faith　are　thus　one；　the　same　is　true　of　the　antithesis　between　mediated　and
  immediate　knowledge。　We　must；　it　is　true；　keep　before　our　eyes　the　fact　that　what　is　revealed　in
  immediate　knowledge　is　the　universal。　But　abstract　immediate　knowledge　is　natural；　sensuous
  knowledge；　the　immediate　man　in　his　natural　condition；　in　his　desires；　does　not　know　this　universal。
  Children；　the　Esquimaux；　&c。；　know　nothing　of　God；　or　what　the　natural　man　knows　of　Him　is　not
  a　real　knowledge　of　Him。　Thus　the　intuitive　knowledge　of　the　Egyptians　told　them　that　God　was　an
  ox　or　a　cat；　and　the　Indians　still　possess　similar　sorts　of　knowledge。　On　the　other　hand　when　man
  has　come　so　far　as　to　know　God　as　merely　an　object　of　the　mind；　i。e。　as　spiritual；　it　is　easy　to
  perceive　that　this　knowledge　which　is　asserted　to　be　immediate　is　really　a　result　mediated　through
  instruction；　through　a　long　continued　culture。　It　is　only　by　means　of　being　elevated　above　nature
  that　man　arrives　at　a　consciousness　of　what　is　higher；　and　at　a　knowledge　of　the　universal；　there
  indeed　his　knowledge　is　immediate；　but　he　has　only　arrived　at　this　through　mediation。　I　think；　and
  thus　I　know　the　universal　immediately；　but　this　very　thought　is　just　process　in　itself；　movement　and
  life。　All　life　is　process　within　itself；　is　mediated；　and　this　is　all　the　more　true　of　spiritual　life；　for　it　is
  the　passing　from　one　to　the　other；　that　is；　from　the　merely　natural　and　sensuous　to　the　spiritual。　It
  thus　indicates　a　deficiency　in　the　most　simple　reflection　not　to　know　that　the　universal　is　not　in
  immediate　knowledge；　but　is　a　result　of　the　culture；　the　education；　and　the　self…revelation　of　the
  human　race。　If　immediate　knowledge　is　to　be　allowed；　everyone　will　be　responsible　merely　to
  himself：　this　man　knows　this；　another　that；　and　consequently　everything　is　justified　and　approved；
  however　contrary　to　right　and　religion。　This　opposition　between　immediacy　and　mediacy　is　thus　a
  very　barren　and　quite　empty　determination；　it　is　a　platitude　of　the　extremest　type　to　consider
  anything　like　this　to　be　a　true　opposition；　it　proceeds　from　a　most　wooden　understanding；　which
  thinks　that　an　immediacy　can　be　something　on　its　own　account；　without　a　mediation　within　itself。　If
  Philosophy　were　to　result　in　this　it　would　be　a　poor　affair；　these　determinations　are　merely　forms；
  none　of　which　has　intrinsic　truth。　The　form　into　which　Philosophy　has　in　Jacobi's　case　finally　fallen；
  which　is　that　immediacy　is　grasped　as　absolute；　manifests　a　lack　of　all　critical　faculty；　of　all　logic。
  The　Kantian　philosophy　is　critical　philosophy；　but　from　it　the　fact　has　been　omitted　that　we　cannot
  constitute　the　infinite　with　finite　categories　—　and　immediacy　is　such　an　one。　When　we　regard　this
  opposition　more　closely　all　knowledge　may　be　termed　immediate；　but　all　immediate　knowledge　is
  likewise　mediated　in　itself。　This　we　know　within　our　consciousness；　and　we　may　see　it　in　the　most
  general　phenomena。　I　know；　for　example；　of　America　immediately；　and　yet　this　knowledge　is　very
  much　mediated。　If　I　stand　in　America　and　see　its　soil；　I　must　first　of　all　have　journeyed　to　it；
  Columbus　must　first　have　discovered　it；　ships　must　have　been　built；　&c。；　all　these　discoveries　and
  inventions　pertain　to　it。　That　which　we　now　know　immediately　is　consequently　a　result　of　infinitely
  many　mediations。　Likewise　when　I　see　a　right…angled　triangle　I　know　that　the　squares　of　the　two
  sides　are　equal　to　the　square　of　the　hypotenuse：　I　know　this　immediately；　and　yet　I　have　merely
  learned　it　and　am　convinced　of　it　through　the　mediation　of　proof。　Immediate　knowledge　is　thus
  everywhere　mediated；　and　Philosophy　does　nothing　but　bring　this　to　consciousness　—
  demonstrating　the　mediation　which　in　point　of　fact　is　already　present　there；　e。g。　in　religion；　&c。
  The　philosophy　of　Jacobi；　inasmuch　as　it　says：　“Thought　cannot　proceed　further　than　to　the　feeling
  of　God；”　has　been　accepted　utiliter；　it　was　more　easily　arrived　at　than　in　the　case　of　Kant。
  Knowledge；　however；　is　something　very　different　from　what　Jacobi　calls　such；　against　finite
  knowledge　his　arguments　are　quite　correct。　Immediate　knowledge　is　not　knowledge；
  comprehension；　for　that　implies　that　the　content　is　determined　in　itself；　i。e。　is　grasped　as　concrete。
  But　in　immediate　knowledge　it　is　the　case　that　the　only　fact　known　of　God　is　that　He　exists。　For
  should　there　be　determinations　respecting　God；　they　must；　according　to　Jacobi；　be　grasped　as　a
  finite；　and　the　knowledge　of　them　would　again　merely　be　a　progression　from　finite　to　finite。　There
  thus　remains　only　the　indeterminate　conception　of　God；　an　“Above　me；”　an　indeterminate
  Beyond。　This　gives　accordingly　the　same　result　as　does　the　Aufkl？rung；　viz。　that　the　highest
  reality　is　ultimate：　we　find　the　same　in　French　philosophy　and　in　Kant　—　only　here　we　still　have　the
  opinion　that　this　emptiness　is　the　highest　philosophy　possible。　But　if　each　standpoint　has　an　aspect
  wherein　it　is　justified；　there　always　rests　in　the　proposition　that　the　human　mind　knows　God
  immediately；　the　important　consideration　that　we　have　here　a　recognition　of　the　freedom　of　the
  human　spirit：　in　it　we　have　the　source