the law； God； are or are not。 Now in some of these cases the objectors foist in
private aims； the utility a thing has for me； and then ask； whether it be all the
same to me if the thing exist and if it do not。 For that matter indeed； the teaching
of philosophy is precisely what frees man from the endless crowd of finite aims
and intentions； by making him so insensible to them that their existence or
non…existence is to him a matter of indifference。 But it is never to be forgotten
that； once mention something substantial； and you thereby create a connection
with other existences and other purposes which are ex hypothesi worth having：
and on such hypothesis it comes to depend whether the Being or not…Being of a
determinate subject are the same or not。 A substantial distinction is in these cases
secretly substituted for the empty distinction of Being and Nought。
When a concrete existence is disguised under the name of Being and not…Being；
empty…headedness makes its usual mistake of speaking about； and having in
mind； an image of something else than what is in question： and in this place the
question is about abstract Being and Nothing。 In others of the cases referred to； it
is virtually absolute existences and vital ideas and aims； which are placed under
the mere category of Being and not…Being。 But there is no more to be said of
these concrete objects； than that they merely are or are not。 Barren abstractions；
like Being and Nothing … the initial categories which； for that reason； are the
scantiest anywhere to be found … are utterly inadequate to the nature of these
objects。 Substantial truth is something far above these abstractions and their
oppositions。 And always when a concrete existence is disguised under the name
of Being and not…Being； empty…headedness makes its usual mistake of speaking
about； and having in mind an image of； something else than what is in question：
and in this place the question is about abstract Being and Nothing。
（3） It may perhaps be said that nobody can form a notion of the unity of Being
and Nought。 As for that； the notion of the unity is stated in the section preceding；
and that is all： apprehend that； and you have comprehended this unity。 What the
objector really means by comprehension … by a notion … is more than his language
properly implies： he wants a richer and more complex state of mind； a pictorial
conception which will propound the notion as a concrete case and one more
familiar to the ordinary operations of thought。 And so long as ordinary
incomprehensibility means only the want habituation for the effort needed to
grasp an abstract thought； free from all sensuous admixture； and to seize a
speculative truth； the reply to the criticism is that philosophical knowledge is
undoubtedly distinct in kind from the mode of knowledge best known in common
life； as well as from that which reigns in the other sciences。 But if to have no
notion merely means that we cannot represent in imagination the oneness of
Being and Nought； the statement is far from being true； for everyone has
countless ways of envisaging this unity。 To say that we have no such conception
can only mean that in none of these images do we recognise the notion in
question； and that we are not aware that they exemplify it。 The readiest example
of it is Becoming。 Everyone has a mental idea of Becoming； and will even allow
that it is one idea： he will further allow that； when it is analysed； it involves the
attribute of Being； and also what is the very reverse of Being； viz。； Nothing： and
that these two attributes lie undivided in the one idea： so that Becoming is the
unity of Being and Nothing。 Another tolerably plain example is a Beginning。 In its
beginning； the thing is not yet； but it is more than merely nothing； for its Being is
already in the beginning。 Beginning is itself a case of Becoming； only the former
term is employed with an eye to the further advance。 If we were to adopt logic to
the more usual method of the sciences； we might start with the representation of a
Beginning as abstractly thought； or with Beginning as such； and then analyse this
representation； and perhaps people would more readily admit； as a result of this
analysis； that Being and Nothing present themselves as undivided in unity。
（4） It remains to note that such phrases as 'Being and Nothing are the same'。； or
'The unity of Being and Nothing' … like all other such unities； that of subject and
object； and others … give rise to reasonable objection。 They misrepresent the facts
by giving an exclusive prominence to the unity and leaving the difference which
undoubtedly exists in it （because it is Being and Nothing； for example； the unity of
which is declared） without any express mention or notice。 It accordingly seems as
if diversity had been unduly put out of court and neglected。 The fact is； no
speculative principle can be correctly expressed by any such propositional form；
for the unity has to be conceived in the diversity； which is all the while present
and explicit。
'To become' is the true expression for the resultant of 'to be' and 'not to be'； it is
the unity of the two； but not only is it the unity； it is also inherent unrest … the
unity； which is no mere reference…to…self and therefore without movement； but
which through the diversity of Being and Nothing that is in it； is at war with itself。
Determinate Being on the other hand； is this unity； or Becoming in this form of
unity： hance all that 'is there and so' is one…sided and finite。 The opposition
between the two factors seems to have vanished； it is only implied in the unity； it
is not explicitly put in it。
（5） The maxim of Becoming； that Being is the passage into Nought； and Nought
the passage into Being； is controverted by the maxim of Pantheism； the doctrine
of the eternity of matter； that from nothing comes nothing； and that something
can only come out of something。 The ancients saw plainly that the maxim； 'From
nothing comes nothing； from something something'； really abolishes Becoming：
for what it comes from and what it becomes are one and the same。 Thus
explained； the proposition is the maxim of abstract identity as upheld by the
understanding。 It cannot but seem strange； therefore； to hear such maxims as 'Out
of nothing comes nothing： Out of something comes something' calmly taught in
these days； without the teacher being in the least aware that they are the basis of
Pantheism； and even without his knowing that the ancients have exhausted all that
is to be said about them。
§ 88n
Becoming is the first concrete thought； and therefore the first notion： whereas Being and Nought
are empty abstractions。 The notion of Being； therefore； of which we sometimes speak； must mean
Becoming； not the mere point of Being； which is empty Nothing； any more than Nothing； which is
empty Being》 in Being then we have Nothing； and in Nothing； Being； but this Being which does
not lose itself in Nothing is Becoming。 Nor must we omit the distinction； while we emphasise the
unity of Becoming； without that distinction we should once more return to abstract Being。
Becoming is only the explicit statement of what Being is in its truth。
We often hear it maintained that thought is opposed to being。 Now； in the face of such a
statement； our first question ought to be； what is meant by being。 If we understand being as it is
defined by reflection； all that we can say of it is what is wholly identical and affirmative。 And if we
then look at thought； it cannot escape us that thought also is at least what is absolutely identical
with itself。 Both therefore； being as well as thought； have the same attribute。 This identity of being
and thought is not however to be taken in a concrete sense； as if we could say that a stone； so far
as it has being； is the same as a thinking man。 A concrete thing is always very different from the
abstract category as such。 And in the case of being； we are speaking of nothing concrete： for being
is the utterly abstract。 So far then the question regarding the being of God … a being which is in
itself concrete above all measure … is of slight importance。
As the first concrete thought…form； Becoming is the first adequate vehicle of truth。 In the history of
philosophy； this stage of the logical Idea finds its analogue in the system of Heraclitus。 When
Heraclitus says 'All is flowing'； he enunciates Becoming as the fundamental feature of all existence；
whereas the Eleatics； as already remarked； saw only truth in Being； rigid processless Being。
Glancing at the principle of the Eleatics； Heraclitus then goes on to say： Being is no more than
not…Being； a statement expressing the negativity of abstract Being； and its identity with not…Being；
as made explicit in Becoming； both abstractions being alike untenable。 This may be looked upon
as the real refutation of one system by another。 To refute a philosophy is to exhibit the dialectical
movement in its principle； and thus reduce it to a constituent member of a higher concrete form of
the Idea。
Even Becoming however； taken at its best on its own ground； is an extremely poor term： it needs
to grow in d