can　think　something　apart　from　it；　a　something　is　implicitly　the　other　of　itself；　and　the　somewhat
  sees　its　limit　become　objective　to　it　in　the　other。　If　we　now　ask　for　the　difference　between
  something　and　another；　it　turns　out　that　they　are　the　same：　which　sameness　is　expressed　in　Latin　by
  calling　the　pair　aliad…aliud。　The　other；　as　opposed　to　the　something；　is　itself　a　something；　and
  hence　we　say　some　other；　or　something　else；　and　so　on　the　other　hand　the　first　something　when
  opposed　to　the　other；　also　defined　as　something；　is　itself　an　other。　When　we　say　〃something　else〃
  our　first　impression　is　that　something　taken　separately　is　only　something；　and　that　the　quality　of
  being　another　attaches　to　it　only　from　outside　considerations。　Thus　we　suppose　that　the　moon；
  being　something　else　than　the　sun；　might　very　well　exist　without　the　sun。　But　really　the　moon；　as　a
  something；　has　its　other　implicit　in　it。　Plato　says：　God　made　the　world　out　of　the　nature　of　the　〃one〃
  and　the　〃other〃：　having　brought　these　together；　he　formed　from　them　a　third；　which　is　of　the　nature
  of　the　〃one〃　and　the　〃other〃。　In　these　words　we　have　in　general　terms　a　statement　of　the　nature　of
  the　finite；　which；　as　something；　does　not　meet　the　nature　of　the　other　as　if　it　had　no　affinity　to　it；
  but；　being　implicitly　the　other　of　itself；　thus　undergoes　alteration。　Alteration　thus　exhibits　the
  inherent　contradiction　which　originally　attaches　to　determinate　being；　and　which　forces　it　out　of　its
  own　bounds。　To　materialised　conception　existence　stands　in　the　character　of　something　solely
  positive；　and　quietly　abiding　within　its　own　limits：　though　we　also　know；　it　is　true；　that　everything
  finite　（such　as　existence）　is　subject　to　change。　Such　changeableness　in　existence　is　to　the　superficial
  eye　a　mere　possibility；　the　realisation　of　which　is　not　a　consequence　of　its　own　nature。　But　the　fact
  is；　mutability　lies　in　the　notion　of　existence；　and　change　is　only　the　manifestation　of　what　it　implicitly
  is。　The　living　die；　simply　because　as　living　they　bear　in　themselves　the　germ　of　death。
  ？
  §　93
  Something　becomes　an　other；　this　other　is　itself　somewhat；　therefore　it　likewise
  becomes　an　other；　and　so　on　ad　infinitum。
  §　94
  This　Infinity　is　the　wrong　or　negative　infinity：　it　is　only　a　negation　of　a　finite：　but
  the　finite　rises　again　the　same　as　ever；　and　is　never　got　rid　of　and　absorbed。　In
  other　words；　this　infinite　only　expresses　the　ought…to…be　elimination　of　the　finite。
  The　progression　to　infinity　never　gets　further　than　a　statement　of　the　contradiction
  involved　in　the　finite；　viz。　that　it　is　somewhat　as　well　as　somewhat　else。　It　sets　up
  with　endless　iteration　the　alternation　between　these　two　terms；　each　of　which　calls
  up　the　other。
  §　94n
  If　we　let　somewhat　and　another；　the　elements　of　determinate　Being；　fall　asunder；　the　result　is　that
  some　becomes　other；　and　this　other　is　itself　a　somewhat；　which　then　as　such　changes　likewise；　and
  so　on　ad　infinitum。　This　result　seems　to　superficial　reflection　something　very　grand；　the　grandest
  possible。　But　such　a　progression　to　infinity　is　not　the　real　infinite。　That　consists　in　being　at　home
  with　itself　in　its　other；　or；　if　enunciated　as　a　process；　in　coming　to　itself　in　its　other。　Much　depends
  on　rightly　apprehending　the　notion　of　infinity；　and　not　stopping　short　at　the　wrong　infinity　of　endless
  progression。　When　time　and　space；　for　example；　are　spoken　of　as　infinite；　it　is　in　the　first　place　the
  infinite　progression　on　which　our　thoughts　fasten。　We　say；　Now；　This　time；　and　then　we　keep
  continually　going　forwards　and　backwards　beyond　this　limit。　The　case　is　the　same　with　space；　the
  infinity　of　which　has　formed　the　theme　of　barren　declamation　to　astronomers　with　a　talent　for
  edification。　In　the　attempt　to　contemplate　such　an　infinite；　our　thought；　we　are　commonly　informed；
  must　sink　exhausted。　It　is　true　indeed　that　we　must　abandon　the　unending　contemplation；　not
  however　because　the　occupation　is　too　sublime；　but　because　it　is　too　tedious。　It　is　tedious　to
  expatiate　in　the　contemplation　of　this　infinite　progression；　because　the　same　thing　is　constantly
  recurring。　We　lay　down　a　limit：　then　we　pass　it：　next　we　have　a　limit　once　more；　and　so　on　for
  ever。　All　this　is　but　superficial　alternation；　which　never　leaves　the　region　of　the　finite　behind。　To
  suppose　that　by　stepping　out　and　away　into　that　infinity　we　release　ourselves　from　the　finite；　is　in
  truth　but　to　seek　the　release　which　comes　by　flight。　But　the　man　who　flees　is　not　yet　free：　in　fleeing
  he　is　still　conditioned　by　that　from　which　he　flees。　If　it　be　also　said　that　the　infinite　is　unattainable；
  the　statement　is　true；　but　only　because　to　the　idea　of　infinity　has　been　attached　the　circumstance　of
  being　simply　and　solely　negative。　With　such　empty　and　other…world　stuff　philosophy　has　nothing　to
  do。　What　philosophy　has　to　do　with　is　always　something　concrete　and　in　the　highest　sense　present。
  No　doubt　philosophy　has　also　sometimes　been　set　the　task　of　finding　an　answer　to　the　question；
  how　the　infinite　comes　to　the　resolution　of　issuing　out　of　itself。　This　question；　founded；　as　it　is；　upon
  the　assumption　of　a　rigid　opposition　between　finite　and　infinite；　may　be　answered　by　saying　that　the
  opposition　is　false；　and　that　in　point　of　fact　the　infinite　eternally　proceeds　out　of　itself；　and　yet　does
  not　proceed　out　of　itself。　If　we　further　say　that　the　infinite　is　the　not…finite；　we　have　in　point　of　fact
  virtually　expressed　the　truth：　for　as　the　finite　itself　is　the　first　negative；　the　not…finite　is　the　negative
  of　that　negation；　the　negation　which　is　identical　with　itself　and　thus　at　the　same　time　a　true
  affirmation。
  The　infinity　of　reflection　here　discussed　is　only　an　attempt　to　reach　the　true　infinity；　a　wretched
  neither…one…thing…nor…another。　Generally　speaking；　it　is　the　point　of　view　which　has　in　recent　times
  been　emphasised　in　Germany。　The　finite；　this　theory　tells　us；　ought　to　be　absorbed；　the　infinite
  ought　not　to　be　a　negative　merely；　but　also　a　positive。　That　；ought　to　be'　betrays　the　incapacity　of
  actually　making　good　a　claim　which　is　at　the　same　time　recognised　to　be　right。　This　stage　was
  never　passed　by　the　systems　of　Kant　and　Fichte；　so　far　as　ethics　are　concerned。　The　utmost　to
  which　this　way　brings　us　is　only　the　postulate　of　a　never…ending　approximation　to　the　law　of
  Reason：　which　postulate　has　been　made　an　argument　for　the　immortality　of　the　soul。
  §　95
  ＇c＇　What　we　now　in　point　of　fact　have　before　us；　is　that　somewhat　comes　to　be
  an　other；　and　that　the　other　generally　comes　to　be　an　other。　Thus　essentially
  relative　to　another；　somewhat　is　virtually　an　other　against　it：　and　since　what　is
  passed　into　is　quite　the　same　as　what　passes　over；　since　both　have　one　and　the
  same　attribute；　viz。　to　be　an　other；　it　follows　that　something　in　its　passage　into
  other　only　joins　with　itself。　To　be　thus　self…related　in　the　passage；　and　in　the
  other；　is　the　genuine　Infinity。　Or；　under　a　negative　aspect：　what　is　altered　is　the
  other；　it　becomes　the　other　of　the　other。　Thus　Being；　but　as　negation　of　the
  negation；　is　restored　again：　it　is　now　Being…for…self。
  Dualism；　in　putting　an　insuperable　opposition　between　finite　and　infinite；　fails　to
  note　the　simple　circumstance　that　the　infinite　is　thereby　only　one　of　two；　and　is
  reduced　to　a　particular；　to　which　the　finite　forms　the　other　particular。　Such　an
  infinite；　which　is　only　a　particular；　is　conterminous　with　the　finite　which　makes
  for　it　a　limit　and　a　barrier：　it　is　not　what　it　ought　to　be；　that　is；　the　infinite；　but　is
  only　finite。　In　such　circumstances；　where　the　finite　is　on　this　side；　and　the　infinite
  on　that…this　world　as　the　finite　and　the　other　world　as　the　infinite…an　equal　dignity
  of　permanence　and　independence　is　ascribed　to　finite　and　to　infinite。　The　being　of
  the　finite　is　made　an　absolute　being；　and　by　this　dualism　gets　independence　and
  stability。　Touched；　so　to　speak；　by　the　infinite；　it　would　be　annihilated。　But　it
  must　not　be　touched　by　the　infinite。　There　must　be　an　abyss；　an　impassable　gulf
  between　the　two；　with　the　infinite　abiding　on　yonder　side　and　the　finite　steadfast
  on　this。　Those　who　attribute　to　the　finite　this　inflexible　persistence　in　comparison
  with　the　infinite　are　not；　as　they　imagine；　far　above　metaphysic：　they　are　still　on
  the　level　of　the　most　ordinary　metaphysic　of　understanding。　For　the　same　thing
  occurs　here　as　in　the　infinite　progression。　At　one　time　it　is　admitted　that　the　finite
  has　no　independent　actuality；　no　absolute　being；　no　root　and　development　of　its
  own；　but　is　only　a　transient。　But　next　moment　this　is　straightway　forgotten；　the
  finite；　made　a　mere　counterpart　to　the　infinite；　wholly　separated　from　it；　and
  rescued　from　annihilation；　is　conceived　to　be　persistent　in　its　independence。　While
  thought　thus　imagines　itself　elevated　to　the　infinite；　it　meets　with　the　opposite　fate：
  it　comes　to　an　infinite　which　is　only　a　finite；　and　the　finite；　which　it　had　left
  behind；　has　always　to　be　retained　and　made　into　an　absolute。
  After　thi