the subjective consciousness, which has not as yet renounced its immediate particularity, so that this determination of the objective Universal, as such, is not as yet adequate. In order to this, it is requisite that the abstract Universal should have a content as well, should have determinations or attributes in itself. Not till then can it be present to me as essentially existing. If it be empty, the determinateness exists only in my supposition; it belongs to me, all content, all activity, all vitality remain in myself, the determining and the objectifying are mine alone. I have only a dead, an empty God, a so-called Highest Being, and this emptiness, this idea, remains subjective only, and does not attain to true objectivity. At this last standpoint we get certainty only, there is no truth; and I may perfectly well remain here characterised as this unit, as the finite. The objectivity in that case is a mere semblance of objectivity.
It is not for philosophy alone that the object is full of content. This feature is common to both philosophy and religion; here there is as yet no difference in their point of view.
Closely connected with this is the question: How is the subject determined here? The subject is characterised, in relation to the recognised object, as thinking. Thought is the activity of the Universal, having an Universal as its object. By the Universal here is meant the purely absolute Universal. The relation to such an object is therefore the thought of the subject; the object is the Essence, that which exists for the subject. The thought is not merely subjective, but also objective.
In thinking, reflecting about the true object, I am subjective, I have my thoughts about it. But equally in thinking the object, thinking the thought of it, the relation of my personality towards it as something particular is got rid of, and I assume an objective attitude; I have renounced myself as an individual, renounced my particularity, and am universal. To do this and to think that
