for　anything；　has　been　set　aside　and　done　for。　Were　it　so；　the　history　of　philosophy　would　be；　of
  all　studies；　most　saddening；　displaying；　as　it　does；　the　refutation　of　every　system　which　time　has
  brought　forth。　Now　although　it　may　be　admitted　that　every　philosophy　has　been　refuted；　it　must　be
  in　an　equal　degree　maintained　that　no　philosophy　has　been　refuted。　And　that　in　two　ways。　For　first；
  every　philosophy　that　deserves　the　name　always　embodies　the　Idea：　and　secondly；　every　system
  represents　one　particular　factor　or　particular　stage　in　the　evolution　of　the　Idea。　The　refutation　of　a
  philosophy；　therefore；　only　means　that　its　barriers　are　crossed；　and　its　special　principle　reduced　to
  a　factor　in　the　completer　principle　that　follows。
  Thus　the　history　of　philosophy；　in　its　true　meaning；　deals　not　with　a　past；　but　with　an　eternal　and
  veritable　present：　and；　in　its　results；　resembles　not　a　museum　of　the　aberrations　of　the　human
  intellect；　but　a　Pantheon　of　godlike　figures。　These　figures　of　gods　are　the　various　stages　of　the
  Idea；　as　they　come　forward　one　after　another　in　dialectical　development。
  To　the　historian　of　philosophy　it　belongs　to　point　out　more　precisely　how　far　the　gradual　evolution
  of　his　theme　coincides　with；　or　swerves　from；　the　dialectical　unfolding　of　the　pure　logical　Idea。　It　is
  sufficient　to　mention　here；　that　logic　begins　where　the　proper　history　of　philosophy　begins。
  Philosophy　began　in　the　Eleatic　school；　especially　with　Parmenides。　Parmenides；　who　conceives
  the　absolute　as　Being；　says　that　'Being　alone　is　and　Nothing　is　not'。　Such　was　the　true　starting　point
  of　philosophy；　which　is　always　knowledge　by　thought：　and　here　for　the　first　time　we　find　pure
  thought　seized　and　made　an　object　to　itself。
  Men　indeed　thought　from　the　beginning　（for　thus　only　were　they　distinguished　from　the　animals）。
  But　thousands　of　years　had　to　elapse　before　they　came　to　apprehend　thought　in　its　purity；　and　to
  see　it　in　the　truly　objective。　The　Eleatics　are　celebrated　as　daring　thinkers。　But　this　nominal
  admiration　is　often　accompanied　by　the　remark　that　they　went　too　far；　when　they　made　Being
  alone　true；　and　denied　the　truth　of　every　other　object　of　consciousness。　We　must　go　further　than
  mere　Being；　it　is　true：　and　yet　it　is　absurd　to　speak　of　the　other　contents　of　our　consciousness　as
  somewhat　as　it　were　outside　and　beside　Being；　or　to　say　that　there　are　other　things；　as　well　as
  Being。　The　true　state　of　the　case　is　rather　as　follows。　Being；　as　Being；　is　nothing　fixed　or　ultimate：　it
  yields　to　dialectic　and　sinks　into　its　opposite；　which；　also　taken　immediately；　is　Nothing。　After　all；
  the　point　is　that　Being　is　the　pure　Thought；　whatever　else　you　may　begin　with　（the　I　=　I；　the
  absolute　indifference；　or　God　himself）；　you　begin　with　a　figure　of　materialised　conception；　not　a
  product　of　thought；　and　that；　so　far　as　its　thought…content　is　concerned；　such　beginning　is　merely
  Being。
  §　87
  Nothing
  But　this　mere　Being；　as　it　is　mere　abstraction；　is　therefore　the　absolutely　negative：
  which；　in　a　similarly　immediate　aspect；　is　just　Nothing。
  （1）　Hence　was　derived　the　second　definition　of　the　Absolute：　the　Absolute　is　the
  Nought。　In　fact　this　definition　is　implied　in　saying　that　the　thing…in…itself　is　the
  indeterminate；　utterly　without　form　and　so　without　content　…　or　in　saying　that　God
  is　only　the　supreme　Being　and　nothing　more；　for　this　is　really　declaring　him　to　be
  the　same　negativity　as　above。　The　Nothing　which　the　Buddhists　make　the
  universal　principle；　as　well　as　the　final　aim　and　goal　of　everything；　is　the　same
  abstraction。
  （2）　If　the　opposition　in　thought　is　stated　in　this　immediacy　as　Being　and　Nothing；
  the　shock　of　its　nullity　is　too　great　not　to　stimulate　the　attempt　to　fix　Being　and
  secure　it　against　the　transition　into　Nothing。
  With　this　intent；　reflection　has　recourse　to　the　plan　of　discovering　some　fixed
  predicate　for　Being；　to　mark　it　off　from　Nothing。　Thus　we　find　Being　identified
  with　what　persists　amid　all　change；　with　matter；　susceptible　of　innumerable
  determinations　…　or　even；　unreflectingly；　with　a　single　existence；　any　chance
  object　of　the　senses　or　of　the　mind。　But　every　additional　and　more　concrete
  characterisation　causes　Being　to　lose　that　integrity　and　simplicity　it　had　in　the
  beginning。　Only　in；　and　by　virtue　of；　this　mere　generality　is　it　Nothing；　something
  inexpressible；　whereof　the　distinction　from　Nothing　is　a　mere　intention　or
  meaning。
  All　that　is　wanted　is　to　realise　that　these　beginnings　are　nothing　but　these　empty
  abstractions；　one　as　empty　as　the　other。　The　instinct　that　induces　us　to　attach　a
  settled　import　to　Being；　or　to　both；　is　the　very　necessity　which　leads　to　the
  onward　movement　of　Being　and　Nothing；　and　gives　them　a　true　or　concrete
  significance。　This　advance　is　the　logical　deduction　and　the　movement　of　thought
  exhibited　in　the　sequel。　The　reflection　which　finds　a　profounder　connotation　for
  Being　and　Nothing　is　nothing　but　logical　thought；　through　which　such　connotation
  is　evolved；　not；　however；　in　an　accidental；　but　a　necessary　way。
  Every　signification；　therefore；　in　which　they　afterwards　appear；　is　only　a　more
  precise　specification　and　truer　definition　of　the　Absolute。　And　when　that　is　done；
  the　mere　abstract　Being　and　Nothing　are　replaced　by　a　concrete　in　which　both
  these　elements　form　an　organic　part。　The　supreme　form　of　Nought　as　a　separate
  principle　would　be　Freedom：　but　Freedom　is　negativity　in　that　stage；　when　it　sinks
  self…absorbed　to　supreme　intensity；　and　is　itself　an　affirmation；　and　even　absolute
  affirmation。
  §　87n
  The　distinction　between　Being　and　Nought　is；　in　the　first　place；　only　implicit；　and　not　yet　actually
  made：　they　only　ought　to　be　distinguished。　A　distinction　of　course　implies　two　things；　and　that　one
  of　them　possesses　an　attribute　which　is　not　found　in　the　other。　Being　however　is　an　absolute
  absence　of　attributes；　and　so　is　Nought。　Hence　the　distinction　between　the　two　is　only　meant　to
  be；　it　is　a　quite　nominal　distinction；　which　is　at　the　same　time　no　distinction。　In　all　other　cases　of
  difference　there　is　some　common　point　which　comprehends　both　things。
  Suppose　e。g。　we　speak　of　two　different　species：　the　same　genus　forms　a　common　ground　between
  both。　But　in　the　case　of　mere　Being　and　Nothing；　distinction　is　without　a　bottom　to　stand　upon：
  hence　there　can　be　no　distinction；　both　determinations　being　the　same　bottomlessness。　If　it　be
  replied　that　Being　and　Nothing　are　both　of　them　thoughts；　so　that　thought　may　be　reckoned
  common　ground；　the　objector　forgets　that　Being　is　not　a　particular　or　definite　thought；　and　hence；
  being　quite　indeterminate；　is　a　thought　not　to　be　distinguished　from　Nothing。　It　is　natural　too　for　us
  to　represent　Being　as　absolute　riches；　and　nothing　as　absolute　poverty。　But　if　when　we　wish　to
  view　the　whole　world　we　can　only　say　that　everything　is；　and　nothing　more；　we　are　neglecting　all
  speciality　and；　instead　of　plenitude；　we　have　absolute　emptiness。　The　same　stricture　is　applicable
  to　those　who　define　God　to　be　mere　Being；　a　definition　not　a　whit　better　than　that　of　the
  Buddhists；　who　make　God　to　be　Nought；　and　who　from　that　principle　draw　the　further　conclusion
  that　self…annihilation　is　the　means　by　which　man　becomes　God。
  Becoming
  §　88
  Nothing；　if　it　be　thus　immediate　and　equal　to　itself；　is　also　conversely　the　same　as
  Being　is。　The　truth　of　Being　and　of　Nothing　is　accordingly　the　unity　of　the　two：
  and　this　unity　is　Becoming。
  （1）　The　proposition　that　Being　and　Nothing　is　the　same　seems　so　paradoxical　to
  the　imagination　or　understanding；　that　it　is　perhaps　taken　for　a　joke。　And　indeed　it
  is　one　of　the　hardest　things　thought　expects　itself　to　do：　for　Being　and　Nothing
  exhibit　the　fundamental　contrast　in　all　its　immediacy　…　that　is；　without　the　one
  term　being　invested　with　any　attribute　which　would　involve　its　connection　with
  the　other。　This　attribute　however；　as　the　above　paragraph　points　out；　is　implicit　in
  them　…　the　attribute　which　is　just　the　same　in　both。　So　far　the　deduction　of　their
  unity　is　completely　analytical：　indeed　the　whole　progress　of　philosophising　in
  every　case；　if　it　be　a　methodical；　that　is　to　say　a　necessary；　progress；　merely
  renders　explicit　what　is　implicit　in　a　notion。　It　is　as　correct　however　to　say　that
  Being　and　Nothing　are　altogether　different；　as　to　assert　their　unity。　The　one　is　not
  what　the　other　is。　But　since　the　distinction　has　not　at　this　point　assumed　definite
  shape　（Being　and　Nothing　are　still　the　immediate）；　it　is；　in　the　way　that　they　have
  it；　something　unutterable；　which　we　merely　mean。
  （2）　No　great　expenditure　of　wit　is　needed　to　make　fun　of　the　maxim　that　Being
  and　Nothing　are　the　same；　or　rather　to　adduce　absurdities　which；　it　is　erroneously
  asserted；　are　the　consequences　and　illustrations　of　that　maxim。
  If　Being　and　Nought　are　identical；　say　these　objectors；　it　follows　that　it　makes　no
  difference　whether　my　home；　my　property；　the　air　I　breathe；　this　city；　the　sun；
  the　law；　God；　are　or　ar