the standpoint of reflection is that it persists in holding fast the antithesis, the finiteness, as against infinitude. It is just the mutual relation of these two which constitutes the standpoint of reflection; both of them belong to the antithesis which characterises this standpoint. That is to say, advance is made to the infinite only as the abstract negation of the finite, as the not-finite, which, however, as not containing the finite in itself as part of itself, remains over against the finite as an Other, and so itself a finite, which finite again advances to an infinite, and so on ad infinitum.
(..) The externality or mutual exclusion of finiteness and universality.
If we consider the first antithesis of finite and infinite in Reflection, finiteness is a varied, manifold externality, of which each component part is particular or limited. In contrast to this, the manifoldness determines itself in its universality, its unlimitedness, as the Universal in this multiplicity. This form presents itself thus in a concrete shape in our consciousness.
We have knowledge of many things, but always of single things only. As desiring or willing, the spirit is determined in accordance with particular ends and interests. But in both relations, whether forming ideas or willing, the spirit behaves as exclusive particularity, and, therefore, stands in connection with other independent things. Here, too, the element of contrast comes in, for the spirit compares its actually existing singularity with its singularity as universally determined or conceived. I compare the stores of knowledge which I actually possess with the mass of knowledge of which I form an idea. I find that these two, namely my actuality, and the universality of which I form a conception, do not correspond with each other, and it is made imperative that the actual quantity of knowledge should be further advanced and perfected, made exhaustive, and brought to universality In like manner, it is possible in prac-
