have merely a contingent existence in connection with the end. What, however, is demanded by the argument is, that they should not be forms of existence standing in a relation of indifference to the end. When, therefore, it is said that such things do actually exist, it is necessary to add to this the moment that their Being is not their own Being, but Being which has been degraded to a means. On the other hand, when it is said ends do actually exist, they certainly do; but since there is a Power which arranges them in a certain way, the existence of the ends in common with that of the means is posited as well. It is not the Being of the ends which, as positive Being, has the power of making the mediation the transition, but rather it is just in this transition that their Being is changed into a Being which has been posited or made dependent on something else.
The minor proposition here, however, does not get farther than the Being of things, instead of taking their Not-Being also into consideration. The general content of this form of proof is this: The world is arranged in accordance with an end, leaving out of consideration more definite ends. Conformity to an end is the notion not only in finite things, but expresses also the absolute essential character of the Notion, i.e., the divine Notion, the essential characterisation or determination of God. God is Power, self-determination, and this means that He determines Himself in accordance with ends. The main defect in the argument is that it starts from perception, from phenomena. These supply a conformity to ends which is finite merely, while the pure end is the universal and absolute end.
We shall now pass on to the concrete or more definite form of religion, to the concrete determination of God. The notion or general conception is that of Power which works actively in accordance with ends. In the region of religion we occupy a different standpoint, that of consciousness or the self-consciousness of Spirit. Here we
