determinations；　either　because　the　mother　tongue　has　no　words　for　them　or　if　it　has；　as　here；
  because　its　expression　calls　to　mind　more　what　is　immediate；　whereas　the　foreign　language
  suggests　more　what　is　reflected。
  The　more　precise　meaning　and　expression　which　being　and　nothing　receive；　now　that　they　are
  moments；　is　to　be　ascertained　from　the　consideration　of　determinate　being　as　the　unity　in　which
  they　are　preserved。　Being　is　being；　and　nothing　is　nothing；　only　in　their　contradistinction　from　each
  other；　but　in　their　truth；　in　their　unity；　they　have　vanished　as　these　determinations　and　are　now
  something　else。　Being　and　nothing　are　the　same；　but　just　because　they　are　the　same　they　are　no
  longer　being　and　nothing；　but　now　have　a　different　significance。　In　becoming　they　were
  coming…to…be　and　ceasing…to…be；　in　determinate　being；　a　differently　determined　unity；　they　are
  again　differently　determined　moments。　This　unity　now　remains　their　base　from　which　they　do　not
  again　emerge　in　the　abstract　significance　of　being　and　nothing。
  Chapter　2　Determinate　Being
  In　considering　determinate　being　the　emphasis　falls　on　its　determinate　character；　the
  determinateness　is　in　the　form　of　being；　and　as　such　it　is　quality。　Through　its　quality；　something　is
  determined　as　opposed　to　an　other；　as　alterable　and　finite；　and　as　negatively　determined　not
  only　against　an　other　but　also　in　its　own　self。　This　its　negation　as　at　first　opposed　to　the　finite
  something　is　the　infinite；　the　abstract　opposition　in　which　these　determinations　appear　resolves
  itself　into　the　infinity　which　is　free　from　the　opposition；　into　being…for…self。
  The　treatment　of　determinate　being　falls　therefore　into　three　parts：
  A。　Determinate　being　as　such
  B。　Something　and　other；　finitude
  C。　Qualitative　infinity。
  A　Determinate　Being　as　Such
  （a）　Determinate　Being　in　General
  （b）　Quality
  （c）　Something
  B　Finitude
  （a）　Something　and　Other
  （b）　Determination；　Constitution　and　Limit
  （c）　Finitude
  ＇a＇　The　Immediacy　of　Finitude
  ＇b＇　Limitation　and　the　Ought
  Remark：　The　Ought
  The　ought　has　recently　played　a　great　part　in　philosophy；　especially　in　connection　with　morality
  and　also　in　metaphysics　generally；　as　the　ultimate　and　absolute　concept　of　the　identity　of　the
  in…itself　or　self…relation；　and　of　the　determinateness　or　limit。
  'You　can；　because　you　ought'　…　this　expression；　which　is　supposed　to　mean　a　great　deal；　is　implied
  in　the　notion　of　ought。　For　the　ought　implies　that　one　is　superior　to　the　limitation；　in　it　the　limit　is
  sublated　and　the　in…itself　of　the　ought　is　thus　an　identical　self…relation；　and　hence　the　abstraction　of
  'can'。　But　conversely；　it　is　equally　correct　that：　'you　cannot；　just　because　you　ought。'　For　in　the
  ought；　the　limitation　as　limitation　is　equally　implied；　the　said　formalism　of　possibility　has；　in　the
  limitation；　a　reality；　a　qualitative　otherness　opposed　to　it　and　the　relation　of　each　to　the　other　is　a
  contradiction；　and　thus　a　'cannot'；　or　rather　an　impossibility。
  In　the　Ought　the　transcendence　of　finitude；　that　is；　infinity；　begins。　The　ought　is　that　which；　in　the
  further　development；　exhibits　itself　in　accordance　with　the　said　impossibility　as　the　infinity。
  With　respect　to　the　form　of　the　limitation　and　the　ought；　two　prejudices　can　be　criticised　in　more
  detail。　First　of　all；　great　stress　is　laid　on　the　limitations　of　thought；　of　reason；　and　so　on；　and　it　is
  asserted　that　the　limitation　cannot　be　transcended。　To　make　such　as　assertion　is　to　be　unaware
  that　the　very　fact　that　something　is　determined　as　a　limitation　implies　that　the　limitation　is　already
  transcended。　For　a　determinateness；　a　limit；　is　determined　as　a　limitation　only　in　opposition　to　its
  other　in　general；　that　is；　in　opposition　to　that　which　is　free　from　the　limitation；　the　other　of　a
  limitation　is　precisely　the　being　beyond　it。　Stone　and　metal　do　not　transcend　their　limitation
  because　this　is　not　a　limitation　for　them。　If；　however；　in　the　case　of　such　general　propositions
  framed　by　the　understanding；　such　as　that　limitation　cannot　be　transcended；　thought　will　not　apply
  itself　to　finding　out　what　is　implied　in　the　Notion；　then　it　can　be　directed　to　the　world　of　actuality
  where　such　proportions　show　themselves　to　be　completely　unreal。　just　because　thought　is
  supposed　to　be　superior　to　actuality；　to　dwell　apart　from　it　in　higher　regions　and　therefore　to　be
  itself　determined　as　an　ought…to…be；　on　the　one　hand；　it　does　not　advance　to　the　Notion；　and；　on
  the　other　hand；　it　stands　in　just　as　untrue　a　relation　to　actuality　as　it　does　to　the　Notion。
  Because　the　stone　does　not　think；　does　not　even　feel；　its　limitedness　is　not　a　limitation　for　it；　that
  is；　is　not　a　negation　in　it　for　sensation；　imagination；　thought；　etc。；　which　it　does　not　possess。　But
  even　the　stone；　as　a　something；　contains　the　distinction　of　its　determination　or　in…itself　and　its
  determinate　being；　and　to　that　extent　it；　too；　transcends　its　limitation；　the　Notion　which　is　implicit　in
  it　contains　the　identity　of　the　stone　with　its　other。　If　it　is　a　base　capable　of　being　acted　on　by　an
  acid；　then　it　can　be　oxidised；　and　neutralised；　and　so　on。　In　oxidation；　neutralisation　and　so　on；　it
  overcomes　its　limitation　of　existing　only　as　a　base；　it　transcends　it；　and　similarly　the　acid　overcomes
  its　limitation　of　being　an　acid。　This　ought；　the　obligation　to　transcend　limitations；　is　present　in　both
  acid　and　caustic　base　in　such　a　degree　that　it　is　only　by　force　that　they　can　be　kept　fixed　as
  （waterless；　that　is；　purely　non…neutral）　acid　and　caustic　base。
  If；　however；　an　existence　contains　the　Notion　not　merely　as　an　abstract　in…itself；　but　as　an　explicit；
  self…determined　totality；　as　instinct；　life；　ideation；　etc。；　then　in　its　own　strength　it　overcomes　the
  limitation　and　attains　a　being　beyond　it。　The　plant　transcends　the　limitation　of　being　a　seed；
  similarly；　of　being　blossom；　fruit；　leaf；　the　seed　becomes　the　developed　plant；　the　blossom　fades
  away；　and　so　on。　The　sentient　creature；　in　the　limitation　of　hunger；　thirst；　etc。；　is　the　urge　to
  overcome　this　limitation　and　it　does　overcome　it。　It　feels　pain；　and　it　is　the　privilege　of　the　sentient
  nature　to　feel　pain；　it　is　a　negation　in　its　self；　and　the　negation　is　determined　as　a　limitation　in　its
  feeling；　just　because　the　sentient　creature　has　the　feeling　of　its　self；　which　is　the　totality　that
  transcends　this　determinateness。　If　it　were　not　above　and　beyond　the　determinateness；　it　would　not
  feel　it　as　its　negation　and　would　feel　no　pain。
  But　it　is　reason；　thought；　which　is　supposed　to　be　unable　to　transcend　limitation　…　reason；　which　is
  the　universal　explicitly　beyond　particularity　as　such　（that　is；　all　particularity）；　which　is　nothing　but
  the　overcoming　of　limitation！　Granted；　not　every　instance　of　transcending　and　being　beyond
  limitation　is　a　genuine　liberation　from　it；　a　veritable　affirmation；　even　the　ought　itself；　and
  abstraction　in　general；　is　in　imperfect　transcending。　However；　the　reference　to　the　wholly　abstract
  universal　is　a　sufficient　reply　to　the　equally　abstract　assertion　that　limitation　cannot　be　transcended；
  or；　again；　even　the　reference　to　the　infinite　in　general　is　a　sufficient　refutation　of　the　assertion　that
  the　finite　cannot　be　transcended。
  In　this　connection　we　may　mention　a　seemingly　ingenious　fancy　of　Leibniz：　that　if　a　magnet
  possessed　consciousness　it　would　regard　its　pointing　to　the　north　as　a　determination　of　its　will；　as　a
  law　of　its　freedom。　On　the　contrary；　if　it　possessed　consciousness　and　consequently　will　and
  freedom；　it　would　be　a　thinking　being。　Consequently；　space　for　it　would　be　universal；　embracing
  every　direction；　so　that　the　single　direction　to　the　north　would　be　rather　a　limitation　on　its　freedom；
  just　as　much　as　being　fixed　to　one　spot　would　be　a　limitation　for　a　man　although　not　for　a　plant。
  On　the　other　hand；　the　ought　is　the　transcending；　but　still　only　finite　transcending；　of　the
  limitation。　Therefore；　it　has　its　place　and　its　validity　in　the　sphere　of　finitude　where　it　holds　fast　to
  being…in…itself　in　opposition　to　limitedness；　declaring　the　former　to　be　the　regulative　and　essential
  factor　relatively　to　what　is　null。　Duty　is　an　ought　directed　against　the　particular　will；　against
  self…seeking　desire　and　capricious　interest　and　it　is　held　up　as　an　ought　to　the　will　in　so　far　as　this
  has　the　capacity　to　isolate　itself　from　the　true。　Those　who　attach　such　importance　to　the　ought　of
  morality　and　fancy　that　morality　is　destroyed　if　the　ought　is　not　recognized　as　ultimate　truth；　and
  those　too　who；　reasoning　from　the　level　of　the　understanding；　derive　a　perpetual　satisfaction　from
  being　able　to　confront　everything　there　is　with　an　ought；　that　is；　with　a　'knowing　better'…and　for　that
  very　reason　are　just　as　loath　to　be　robbed　of　the　ought…do　not　see　that　as　regards　the　finitude　of
  their　sphere　the　ought　receives　full　recognition。　But　in　the　world　of　actuality　itself；　Reason　and　Law
  are　not　in　such　a　bad　way　that　they　only　ought　to　be…it　is　only　the　abstraction　of　the　in…itself　that
  stops　at　this…any　more　than　the　ought　is　in　its　own　self　perennial　and；　what　is　the　same　thing；　that