What Is Really Real?
Author(s): Richard Kroner
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Mar., 1954), pp. 351-362
Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20123381 .
Accessed: 13/04/2012 02:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
ARTICLES
WHAT
IS REALLY REAL?
RICHARDKRONER
Plato
When
conveiced
of the realm
of Ideas as the realm
of the
or of
uontos
an
that which
is really real, he introduced
on,"
immortal distinction
into philosophical
To be sure, he
thought.1
was preceded by Parmenides
who had also spoken of what
is truly
seems to be real,
real and had separated it from that which merely
there is a vast difference between
However,
no degree of
and Parmenides,
for according
to Parmenides,
to
is
conceded
the
this
real;
is, rather, deprived
reality
seemingly
of any truth.
It is the realm of error and illusion while
the realm
of reality alone deserves
the assent of the thinking mind;
it alone
on
to
and
the
truth.
wanted
Plato,
represents
being
contrary,
but
is not real at all.
Plato
This world has its own truth by
the phenomenal
world.
in
realm
the
of
the
Ideas, though a truth of lower
participating
a
has
It
degree.
phenomenal
reality.
This distinction
between
that is really real and
something
that
is
is
of
real
It cannot
great moment.
something
seemingly
even though
be dismissed,
the Platonic
in its historical
scheme
form might
be abandoned.
of reality in the
There are degrees
our
or emotions
contents of
are
experience.
Fleeting
impressions
"save"
real
of things.
than the eternal nature
falsities,
Errors,
are less real than truth.
and deceptions
And yet it cannot
be denied that the fleeting
and emotions,
that even
impressions
erroneous
and deceptions
illusions
have
their own
statements,
mode of reality, though on a lower level.
less
illusions
Plato
united
Parmenides
reality and truth.
simply identified
to
real
is
Parmenides
the
the true, the false is
According
not real; this majestic
dictum underlies
his whole
philosophy.
Plato was more
the substance of the
subtle; although he preserved
them.
1
This
paper
was
presented
before
in New York City, in March 1953.
the Metaphysical
Society
of America,
RICHARDKRONER
352
the degrees
of truth when
thesis, he differentiated
differentiated
of reality.
I agree with
the degrees
both
and Plato that truth and reality cannot be separated
Parmenides
Parmenidean
he
from
each
other.
The really real is the truly real.
The sensations
and emotions
of my soul are less real than are the Platonic
Ideas or the laws of
nature.
The four elements are less real than the atoms of modern
true than was
is more
because
modern
ancient
physics,
physics
nature.
about
relations
The
chemical
between
speculation
as conceived
are
more
elements
modern
real
than
by
chemistry
the same relations as conceived by medieval
The activity
alchemy.
of the stars as discovered
is more
real than that
by astronomy
cases
In
all
these
accepted by astrology.
reality and truth are
To the degree to which
united.
there was a certain
inseparably
or
or in
in
obscured
ancient
distorted
truth, though
speculation
was
to
medieval
that
also
there
in
the
science,
degree
reality
as
to
defined
them.
And
to
the degree
which
there
objects
by
is still some obscurity
in modern
to that degree
the
science,
chemical
is not
or
elements
real themselves.
the
What
are not really
relations
is absolutely
true, and what
of reality
unreal.
The degree
astronomical
is really
true
real
at all is absolutely
on
the
depends
degree of truth and conversely.
science can define what
Modern
is real only to a certain
a
or
sense.
reasons
in
certain
Two
may be given for this
degree,
are
never
thesis.
the natural
sciences
but are at
First,
finished,
all times on the way towards the discovery
of the full and absolute
is, therefore,
up in
always truth and error mixed
as
the
of
shows.
theories,
Second,
presence
hypothesis
the natural
sciences need an interpretation
of the sense in which
their objects are real.
they are true and in which
truth.
There
scientific
There
modern
is truth
natural
and
sciences.
there
The
is
therefore
reality
outside
the
and emotions
fleeting
impressions
as they are not
untrue.
unreal,
completely
can
a
On the contrary,
a
never
claim
to be
truth
and
they
reality
''saved" by the sciences.
The artist can and does "save" them
to the degree
to which
he is a real or a true artist.
Paintings
do preserve
his impressions,
and lyrics or music
his emotions,
are not
Completelv
WHAT ISREALLYREAL?
so that we
in these
353
is a universal
feel there
truth
and a universal
reality
fugitive
phenomena.
taken from the fine arts shows that reality is
example
bound up not only with
truth in the scientific
sense, but also
and presented
the truth revealed
the
the poet,
with
by
painter,
or the artist in general.
the composer
And it might
be bound up
too.
In this respect
with other realms of human
life and activity,
we
can no
the ancient
it of
longer
heritage?be
rely upon
The
or Plato;
scientific
Parmenides
science or
both were
more
than we
convinced
of whatever
kind
investigation
or at least the best, way of finding truth and
reality,
of discovering
what
is true and real to the highest
we call such a conviction
we must
state
rationalism,
are that
is the only,
and therefore
degree.
that we
If
are
minded
than they were.
less rationalistically
insist that
We must
not
to
is
be
real
found
in
the
the exclusively
logical realm
only
nor in the wider
in the realm of the natural
?neither
sciences,
as we will see.
realm of ontology,
The beautiful
It
also is real.
cannot be expressed
in any other
truth which
reveals a certain
way.
As error and falsity exist only in the logical sphere, though
on a lower level than the truth, so also the
ugly and the trivial
exist in the aesthetic
of the beau
sphere only as the counterpart
the sublime.
of
the measure
They exist only where
In fact, as error and
values
is applied or applicable.
to which
falsity are real only to the degree
they are logically
so also the ugly and the artistically,
or aesthetically,
relevant,
are
are still aesthet
to
to
real
the
which
imperfect
degree
only
they
the
and
Both
false
the
borrow
their reality
ically pertinent.
ugly
a
from the true and the beautiful;
live
in
they
only
secondary way,
values.
In a paradoxical
fashion
by the grace of the positive
one might
not
that
the
false
do
and
the
say,
exist, wherever
ugly
and
tiful
aesthetic
truth
truth
have
and beauty reign,
and beauty reign.
to discuss
later.
What
has been
can also be
makes
moral
said about
the logical
the moral
values.
and
the aesthetic
sphere
alone
goodness
real.
Acts of the will which
the
disagree with
are not really moral acts as they are also not morally
said about
morality
standard
and yet that they do exist only where
to a problem we
This paradox points
Moral
RICHARDKRONER
354
And yet they exist only in the moral
realm; they borrow
are
less real
their reality from the morally
good.
morally
They
as they are also really less moral
acts.
than morally
positive
They
follows
the object on which
the
follow the good as the shadow
sun shines.
The good is creative and has a lasting power while
real.
the bad
false
itself eventually.
Like the
and annihilates
a
has
the ugly so the morally
bad, too,
negative
only
of the
it has from the negation
it derives what existence
is destructive
and
existence;
good.
II
term "negative
existence"
raises a hard and important
we
the
have encountered.
Does
indicated
by
paradox
problem
the false, the ugly, the bad really exist?
Has the term "negative
at all?
Is not Parmenides
existence"
any meaning
right after all
The
in insisting
that Being
Is it
alone is, while
is not?
Non-being
not true that truth, beauty and goodness
annihilate
their opposites,
of the false, the ugly and the
the very existence
that they negate
can exist in the
Is it not true, therefore,
bad?
that nothing
moral
not fully agree
the
realm
the
which
does
aesthetic,
logical,
was driven
the standards of these realms?
with
to
Parmenides
this conclusion
to avoid
in order
the paradoxical
idea of "negative
existence."
The
Kantians
of
existence
and maintained
error.
In other words,
and
epistemological
as they denied
meaning
the
19th century
also ruled out negative
that negation
always rejects falsity or
dealt
with
in an
they
negativity
only
and denied
its ontological
logical way
altogether.
ontology
they
Consequently,
also denied any gradation
of reality.
they thought,
Negativity,
has only a subjective
it
function;
reality itself cannot be negative,
is always and entirely positive.
In that way
the Kantians
iron
on the
than to Plato,
ically were nearer to Parmenides
although
whole
themselves
believed
they rightly
than to Parmenides.
There is a sense in which
Parmenides
right.
The
thoroughly
real
really
true.
It does
is
thoroughly
not tolerate
to be
and
positive,
negativity
nearer
to Plato
the Kantians
are
because
it is
as it also does
WHAT ISREALLYREAL?
not
355
If the opposition
of truth and falsity
is
falsity.
to
that
is
the
human
finite
mind,
say by
by
thinking,
and if the real and the true are inseparably
then indeed
connected,
tolerate
occasioned
But finite sub
reality is rooted in finite subjectivity.
own
so
has
and
has
world
in which
itself
its
the
reality
jectivity
we live, this world of ours in which
truth and falsity, beauty and
This world
is
up.
ugliness,
good and bad are strangely mixed
negative
not really real, precisely because of this mixture,
but, nevertheless,
And since it is real only
it is real in a sense and to some degree.
to some degree, we must conclude
that the negative
also has some
or
are
of
that
there
lower
which
contain
stages
reality
reality
is not only caused by the
finally that negativity
that
false
but
the
itself has a negative
false,
rejection
existence.
And so Plato is right in the last analysis.
But Plato did not see that this finite world
of ours has a
root.
not
is
the rejection
Although
negativity
merely
subjective
a symptom of falsity.
of the false, it is, nevertheless,
Only in a
can
in which
world
exists
also
for the
exist,
negativity
falsity
false is itself the negative
of the true.
Since there is truth and
and
negativity,
of
the
of ours, there is also
up in this world
falsity mixed
and
in
and
value
there is
it,
reality
consequently
of
and
existence.
Gradation
negative
reality
as
to
real
the
the
which
top of
approximation
really
gradation
of
and
positive
value
imply
the hierarchy
of truth and falsity.
and beyond
the alternative
are finite precisely
and we ourselves
because
Our world
of
of positivity
and negativity
which
the antagonism
the
govern
as the validity
of everything
in this
that exists
reality as well
we
world
ourselves
and all that
Since the
including
perform.
contrast
of truth and error is generated
by our own thinking,
is above
to our world
is subjective
and everything
belonging
a
taint.
and
tinge
subjective
Only the really
consequently
It is, therefore, not only above
real is exempt from this destiny.
of value and disvalue,
of positivity
and beyond
the antagonism
but it is also beyond and above all finite existence.
and negativity,
real and positive,
It is absolutely
infinite, as it is also absolutely
finiteness
has
It is thus separated by an
and good.
true, beautiful
absolutely
and from our world.
the
It is beyond
abyss from our existence
our will and our intentions.
our creativity,
reach of our knowledge,
RICHARDKRONER
356
But the paradox of negative
existence
reappears when we put
the finite,
how
is the really real compatible
with
the question:
the subjective,
the relative,
if it is true that the
the phenomenal,
and badness?
Compatible
really real is free from falsity, ugliness
it
should
existence,
in reality
this
since
existence,
antagonistic
and
nevertheless
finite,
though
negative
participates
as it also participates
in truth, beauty
and goodness.
be with
this
its
it does participate
in the really
It is real to the degree to which
a
a
on
lower level and only to
certain degree.
real, although
If the really real represents
the full and perfect truth, it must
the reason of that antagonism;
it must
conceal
the
itself contain
of negativity
and subjectivity;
it must
be the key
of finitude and of its own counterpart,
the realm in
the true is mixed up with
the false, the beautiful with
the
so
as
even
the bad. We may be
to say
the good with
bold
precondition
to the riddle
which
ugly,
or the cause of the partly
that the really real must be the ground
and relatively
the origin of the
real, the source of the negative,
and badness.
finite and so of falsity, ugliness
Or to put it even
more boldly: we must
conclude
that the really real partly negates
as
to
account
for this finite world
inasmuch
it
has
and our
itself,
But if we have gone
finite existence.
thus far, we would
be
in being
because we
frightened
by our own boldness,
justified
even
met
the abyss of incomprehensibility,
have
of absurdity.
How can the Infinite, the truth, the really real negate itself?
Does
this not imply that it contradicts
itself?
And how can we ever
hope
to understand
the whole
beyond
and the positive
that
sphere
taints what
is above and
contradiction
in which
the antagonism
of the negative
prevails?
we
cannot
since
boldness,
up our own
give
us
we
not
and
to
leads
If
do
this
conclusion.
consistency
caprice
not abandon the idea of the really real altogether,
we are logically
statement
coerced to accept the contradictory
that truth contradicts
However,
that reality pure and unalloyed
that the
itself,
itself,
negates
Infinite is the ground of the finite, the self-sufficient
the cause of
the insufficient
and the perfect the origin of the imperfect.
With
re
we
admiration
but also with
great
emphatic
disagreement
member
the
thesis
of
who
the
Parmenides
avoided
again
proud
absurd by denying
the reality of the negative,
the finite,
the
WHAT ISREALLYREAL?
357
could
But even Parmenides
altogether.
imperfect
a
back-door
excluded
in
the
sphere through
help bringing
truth which nevertheless
under the title of a second-class
persuades
the human mind.
and
deficient
not
we are ultimately
of Parmenides,
avoid the rigorism
to the extremity
introduced
of Hegel who
contradiction
but insisted that this procedure
leads
into his system of ontology,
a perfect circle ending where
to a solution,
if the system is made
If we
driven
I do not believe
it begins.
so much
a
as
solution,
an
that
acute
this can be done.
and
accurate
It offers
formulation.
not
Taken
as it is desperate and self-destructive
it is as ingenious
If this
adventure.
the whole metaphysical
for it really destroys
then Hegel
is the only possible way of building
up an ontology,
in theory,
in practice what
Kant demonstrated
has but shown
as a solution
that ontology
namely
the range
transcends
possibility
we have
is an impossible
possibility;
If there
of the human mind.
of the really
of attaining knowledge
renounce
to
altogether.
ontology
its problem
is no other
real than Hegel's,
Ill
it still might
dealt with
insoluble problems,
Even if ontology
an
most
to
of all
and
harbor
truth
the
important
worthy
point
out
cannot
if
Even
carried
the
be
ontology
topics.
philosophical
it could, the problem of ontol
thought
is the gradation
of
be
avoided.
There
ogy
ours:
at
is
the really real,
the top of its scale
reality in this world of
no matter
in
how hidden
it may be and how great the obstacles
way
Parmenides
is real
and
and Plato
cannot
the way of ascertaining
it.
The really real is also the standard of all truth, beauty and
in some way,
too, it is the source of all that exists, at
goodness;
the creative,
the constructive,
the lasting
least of the positive,
But it is true
values.
This at least we know about the really real.
that
define
even
this knowledge
the nature of what
is hedged
about by our inability
I have called "source" or the nature
the really
the activity by which
unreal
forever
world
and
partly
real generates
to which we
the finite,
belong.
to
of
relative
And
our
RICHARDKRONER
358
is even more
seriously endangered
knowledge
to comprehend
this generation
any attempt
of
into
the
contradiction,
impasse
inevitably
to destroy
that threatens
tion
knowledge.
But a more
give us a clue
ultimate
all positive
by the insight that
or production
leads
even of a contradic
value
of our ontological
careful study of the nature of contradiction
may
some further
I said that the
clarification.
we
we arrive when
at which
conclusion
try to think
the relation between
the really real and this world would
to
through
of the really
and finally the self-contradiction
be the self-negation
was
can
too
We
rash.
But this conclusion
real.
speak about
to conceive of the really real
self-negation
only if we are permitted
as a kind of self.
is not warranted
Such a conception
by the
true
the absolutely
really real with
as
to
I
difficult
understand
is,
admit,
long as
to the really real a kind of selfhood.
We are
to the really real because
to attribute
selfhood
it is our
The unity
and good
beautiful
we do not attribute
data.
tempted
subjectivity,
i.e.,
of
our
the
own
selfhood,
which
alone
secures
us
an
even
access
to the true, the beautiful,
and the good.
But
so, all
our real and potential
acts of actualizing
truth, beauty and good
ness, are finite, relative and to that degree mixed
up with
falsity,
is
to
It
and
badness.
and
adventurous
very
ugliness
risky
transfer our self and our actions to the really real which
is infinite,
absolute
and self-sufficient.
We
abstain from attributing
selfhood to the
therefore,
may,
we
we
must
state
and
in
that
ourselves
Infinite;
trying to think
we
meant
when
what
is
of
conceive
the
Infinite as the
through
source of the finite, fall into the trap of contradiction.
After all,
means
and ultimately
contradiction
originally
or that the human mind
contradicts
that we
contradict
ourselves
the
itself, whereby
human mind
the
is
which
self
the
self
represents
thinking
always
of a concrete
individual person.
Only in this sense is subjectivity
existence
and of the finitude of the world
the source of negative
in which we live.
This world
is finite, because
the human
self
and can never
attain to absolute
truth, beauty and good
but only to their broken copies.
contradict
We
ourselves,
we aim at the understanding
the very moment
of the
therefore,
in
real.
We
fail
absolute
the
unbroken,
undisturbed,
grasping
is finite
ness,
WHAT ISREALLYREAL?
359
are finite in thinking,
of the Infinite, because we ourselves
in
and
and
the logical, the aesthetic
too,
creating
acting?finite,
our
the moral
fields of
activity.
nature
the wall
that separates us
is, as it were,
This
of
free and unencumbered
the
sight
really real.
of ours we can understand
In
contradiction
well.
fact, we
very
we
not
could
understand
the
could not understand
ourselves,
if our knowledge
broken status of our existence,
did not lead into
The
from
contradiction
the
us from seeing the Infinite
in
that prevents
From the outset we conceive
purity, splendour and glory.
Only because we
really real from our own point of view.
a broken world,
we ourselves
are entangled
because
only
this
all
impasse
its
of the
live in
in the
we
as
do
of
conceive
the
real
the
finite,
really
as the Self-sufficient
Infinite
and the Absolute,
and the Self
can never take the place of the Infinite itself and
We
existent.
are
from
look
that place upon
the Infinite.
Contradictions
and
relative
therefore
knowledge
This
the
the necessary,
of the really
the
inevitable
restrictions
laid upon
our
real.
in and by our self
finds its clarification
knowledge
our
In
self-under standing can grant us
fact, only
understanding.
we
in which
have to assess and to interpret
the right perspective
our knowledge
of the Infinite.
is reasonable
only on
Ontology
the ground of "heautology"
(if I may use a word that I first used
or logic of the self.
a doctrine
about 30 years
i.e.,
ago),
is always in the last analysis our own self-contradic
a
self can contradict
itself, and only the human,
i.e.,
Only
the finite self does contradict
it cannot arrive at
itself, because
Contradiction
tion.
the absolute
rooted
self.
and perfect
is
truth, beauty and goodness.
Logic
of the thinking
last analysis upon the self-identity
so-called
law of contradiction
is a law for the sake of
in the
The
the self-preservation
of this self.
and badness negate not only the positive
Falsehood,
ugliness,
also
the
values,
negate
they
reality and the integrity of the self.
The self, therefore,
is always
wherever
concerned,
reality and
truth are concerned.
The human self being a finite self is involved
as long as it is entangled
in negative
in a life and death struggle
for negative
that the self exists only
existence means
existence,
on a lower level and to a lesser degree; its existence
is encumbered
360
RICHARDKRONER
or dispro
sphere, by disharmony
or
and
aesthetic
depravity
sphere
by wickedness
to
in the moral
existence means
writh respect
Negative
sphere.
Its own reality is at stake
the self that it is not really real itself.
in the
by contradiction
in the
portion
logical
its integrity,
and moral.
logical, aesthetic
together with
state that the human or finite self
One might
thus rightfully
itself, as long as it lives and acts in this world for in that
negates
world
the really real is no longer really real but partly negated.
the real
The human
self, not the really real as such, is therefore
source
of negativity.
and faultiness diminish
Error, insensitivity,
in which we
the reality and the value of the world
live.
They
the
man's
real
their
make
degrade
really
by
imperfection.
They
and finite.
negative
altogether
thus necessarily
and self
leads to contradiction
Negativity
or
The merely
formal negation
of a proposition
contradiction.
as
which
the negative
the
Kantians
took
the
model
proposition
existence
as rejecting
and pattern of all negation,
falsity, is itself based upon
of
the ontological
formal
contradicts
negation
falsity;
negativity
to
to
the false in order
and
the truth.
rectify thinking
approach
in the merely
Contradiction
formal sense is nothing
but gainsay
ing.
But we
would
not
have
contradiction
ontological
alarms us and provokes
and its very reality.
Ontological
therefore,
always
self-contradiction
which
action
to gainsay,
if it were not that the
is originally
self-contradiction
for the sake of the self's
or the negativity
negativity
at the same time ontological
of
integrity
existence
is,
i.e.,
contradiction,
of the thinking
self. Heautology
is not merely
it is the ontology
of the finite self.
the logic,
All ontology
an ontology
ontology
is finally ontology
of self. We cannot establish
as we have seen, such an
of the really real, because
leads into the impasse of unavoidable
and insoluble
contradictions,
contradictions
real.
supremely
to unavoidable
and because
to the
it would
be
absurd
to ascribe
these
and self-negation
of the
the ontology
of the self also leads
but these contradictions
constitute
self-contradiction
It is true,
contradictions,
the very essence and substance of the finite
is bound
to be only partly real or positive
self which
and partly
being finite
unreal or
WHAT ISREALLYREAL?
it is bound
negative;
logically.
The world
361
to contradict
or heauto
itself ontologically
we
in which
of this finite self
live is the world
and imperfect
broken,
contradictory
it without
ourselves
mending
by re
our
the
of
wholeness
self
which
is
and
construing
degraded
our
own
debased
and
But
by
deficiency
insufficiency.
being
we can never hope to
finite and deficient,
what we are, namely
so that our and the
mend
and our world
ourselves
sufficiently
and
is, therefore,
cannot
itself. We
finite,
mend
deficiencies
would be completely
world's
erased and compensated.
can never hope
to
illusion,
escape
ignorance,
completely
fallacies and deceptions
in the logical realm as we can never hope
to make up for our lack of sensitivity
and imaginative
creativity
We
or for our faultiness,
negligence
are definitely
self-contradictory
realm.
frailty in the moral
who
in the
beings
participate
but
in
real
it
and
really
partly negate
thinking,
creating,
acting.
to the very root of our
We
contradict
ourselves
down
If we state that our finite nature is the source or pre
existence.
we contradict
of our deficiencies,
because we
condition
ourselves,
and
We
that being what we are we cannot help doing what
presuppose
we do, i.e., diminishing
our selfhood,
our value, our reality and
the
distance
between
and the really
ourselves
thereby magnifying
real.
know
that the really
But on the other hand we morally
for this diminu
real cannot and should not be made
responsible
tion
and
that
but
degradation
we
rather
or
ourselves,
more
precisely each of us in his own way and to his own degree, brings
about this diminution
and degradation.
At the bottom we thus
have
can
a
self-diminution
say
consequent
But
selfhood,
are
because
negative
dictory,
does not
and
the
paradoxically,
its
and,
self-degradation,
effect
produces
we
therefore,
its
cause
or
the
ground.
is just the root and the origin of our
this contradiction
as it is also its nature and substance.
We are what we
we
are
not
really
real,
in its ultimate
constitution
so that no statement
about
contain
this stigma.
or
because
our
is
existence
self-contra
and, therefore,
can be made
ourselves
that
1 am not what
a real self, but always only on the way
goal of full and true selfhood.
My real
I am, for I am not
toward or away from the
status
is not
Being
but
362
RICHARDKRONER
which
of positivity
and negati
Becoming,
implies the alternative
even
construction
and
destruction.
And
I act
when
vity,
a
still
of
is
in
immanent
the action.
positively,
portion
negativity
No finite ego can ever get rid of this portion altogether.
No finite
a really real ego or self.
ego can ever hope to become
Only an
infinite self, should such a self exist, can say about itself: I am
I am.
who
Every finite self has always to admit that it is not
a self in the unstinted
sense of the word.
it is, namely
Of the three realms of self-contradiction
the moral
realm
comes nearest to the root of the finite self, because the self is there
concerned with its own integrity directly.
self
Therefore, moral
or should I say, the
is not only the most
contradiction
personal,
most
central contradiction,
but it is also the most
It
original.
and illuminates
in all the other
the contradictions
interprets
what
realms
of
life and world.
realm does the self
Only in the moral
in the logical and the aesthetic
spheres the self
exist
that
itself.
outside
the moral
contemplates
objects
Only
to
the
nature
clue
the
of
the
and
gives
experience
original
constitutional
and
self-contradiction
of
the
finite ego.
self-negation
We must
conclude,
therefore,
that, if there is any solution
of this basic problem,
it has to be of a moral kind.
Only what
know
itself, while
morally
resolves
ontological
real
and
the
problem
basic
self-contradiction,
the relation
concerning
resolves
between
the
basic
the
really
ourselves.
Union
Theological
Seminary.