which do not come into conflict and are not in contradiction with each other. Ordinary thought obstinately clings to this idea by maintaining that the truth of such a presupposition cannot be controverted because no contradiction is involved in it. It is, however, really one of the ordinary bad forms of Reflection to say that it is possible to form an idea of anything. It is certainly possible to form to oneself an idea of everything, and to conceive of it as possible; but that does not mean anything at all. If it be asked wherein the difference consists, and if the answer is that the one is as powerful as the other, and that no one of them is to have qualities which the other also has not, then the difference is an empty phrase. The difference must necessarily directly advance till it becomes a definite or determined difference, and in that case, so far as our reflection is concerned, there is wanting to the one what is peculiar to the other, but only in so far as our reflection is concerned. Thus the stone, in so far as we reflect upon it, is not so perfect as the plant, yet there is no defect in the stone considered in itself; it neither feels nor knows anything of its defect. Thus the difference spoken of is only an idea in our mind, in our reflection.
It is in this way, therefore, that Reflection reasons, and its reasoning is correct, but all the same it is likewise inadequate. The Universal, the Essence, is presupposed under the form of Power, and it is asked if the predicate of the One attaches to it. The determination of the One is nevertheless already in harmony with the presupposition, for absolute Power is directly contained in the determination of individuality, of oneness, or the One. The proof is thus quite correct but superfluous, and what is overlooked is that the absolute Power itself is already contained in the definition or determination of the One. To prove predicates of God is really not the business of the Notion, nor is God in this way to be known philosophically.
