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　this　examination　（with　which　it　were　well　to　compare　…Plato's　Philebus）；
  tending　to　show　the　nullity　of　the　distinction　made　by　understanding　between　the
  finite　and　the　infinite；　we　are　liable　to　glide　into　the　statement　that　the　infinite　and
  the　finite　are　therefore　one；　and　that　the　genuine　infinity；　the　truth；　must　be
  defined　and　enunciated　as　the　unity　of　the　finite　and　infinite。　Such　a　statement
  would　be　to　some　extent　correct；　but　is　just　as　open　to　perversion　and　falsehood
  as　the　unity　of　Being　and　Nothing　already　noticed。　Besides　it　may　very　fairly　be
  charged　with　reducing　the　infinite　to　finitude　and　making　a　finite　infinite。　For；　so
  far　as　the　expression　goes；　the　finite　seems　left　in　its　place…it　is　not　expressly
  stated　to　be　absorbed。　Or；　if　we'　reflect　that　the　finite；　when　identified　with　the
  infinite；　certainly　cannot　remain　what　it　was　out　of　such　unity；　and　will　at　least
  suffer　some　change　in　its　characteristics　（as　an　alkali；　when　combined　with　an
  acid；　loses　some　of　its　properties）；　we　must　see　that　the　same　fate　awaits　the
  infinite；　which；　as　the　negative；　will　on　its　part　likewise　have　its　edge；　as　it　were；
  taken　off　on　the　other。　And　this　does　really　happen　with　the　abstract　one…sided
  infinite　of　understanding。　The　genuine　infinite　however　is　not　merely　in　the
  position　of　the　one…sided　acid；　and　so　does　not　lose　itself。　The　negation　of
  negation　is　not　a　neutralisation：　the　infinite　is　the　affirmative；　and　it　is　only　the
  finite　which　is　absorbed。
  In　Being…for…self　enters　the　category　of　Ideality。　Being…there…and…then；　as　in　the
  first　instance　apprehended　in　its　being　or　affirmation；　has　reality　（§　91）；　and　thus
  even　finitude　in　the　first　instance　is　in　the　category　of　reality。　But　the　truth　of　the
  finite　is　rather　its　ideality。　Similarly；　the　infinite　of　understanding；　which　is
  coordinated　with　the　finite；　is　itself　only　one　of　two　finites；　no　whole　truth；　but　a
  non…substantial　element。　This　ideality　of　the　finite　is　the　chief　maxim　of
  philosophy；　and　for　that　reason　every　genuine　philosophy　is　idealism。　But
  everything　depends　upon　not　taking　for　the　infinite　what；　in　the　very　terms　of　its
  characterisation；　is　at　the　same　time　made　a　particular　and　finite。　For　this；　reason
  we　have　bestowed　a　greater　amount　of　attention　on　this。　distinction。　The
  fundamental　notion　of　philosophy；　the　genuine　infinite；　depends　upon　it。　The
  distinction　is　cleared　up　by　the　simple；　and　for　that　reason　seemingly　insignificant；
  but　incontrovertible　reflections　contained　in　the　first　paragraph　of　this　section。
  （c）　Being…for…self
  §　96
  Being…for…self；　as　reference　to　itself；　is　immediacy；　and　as　reference　of　the
  negative　to　itself；　is　a　self…subsistent；　the　One。　This　unit；　being　without　distinction
  in　itself；　thus　excludes　the　other　from　itself。
  §　96n
  To　be　for　self　…　to　be　one　…　is　completed　Quality；　and　as　such；　contains　abstract　Being　and　Being
  modified　a　non…substantial　elements。　As　simple　Being；　the　One　is　simple　self…reference；　as　Being
  modified　it　is　determinate：　but　the　determinateness　is　not　in　this　case　a　finite　determinateness　…　a
  somewhat　in　distinction　from　an　other　…　but　infinite；　because　it　contains　distinction　absorbed　and
  annulled　in　itself。
  The　readiest　instance　of　Being…for…self　is　found　in　the　'I'。　We　know　ourselves　as　existents；
  distinguished　in　the　first　place　from　other　existents；　and　with　certain　relations　thereto。　But　we　also
  come　to　know　this　expansion　of　existence　（in　these　relations）　reduced；　as　it　were；　to　a　point　in　the
  simple　form　of　being…for…self。　When　we　say　'I'；　we　express　this　reference…to…self　which　is　infinite；
  and　at　the　same　time　negative。　Man；　it　may　be　said；　is　distinguished　from　the　animal　world；　and　in
  that　way　from　our　nature　altogether；　by　knowing　himself　as　'I'：　which　amounts　to　saying　that　natural
  things　never　attain　free　Being…for…self；　but　as　limited　to　Being…there…and…then；　are　always　and　only
  Being　for　another。
  Again；　Being…for…self　may　be　described　as　ideality；　just　as　Being…there…and…then　was　described　as
  reality。　It　is　said　that　besides　reality　there　is　also　an　ideality。　Thus　the　two　categories　are　made
  equal　and　parallel。　Properly　speaking；　ideality　is　not　somewhat　outside　of　and　beside　reality：　the
  notion　of　ideality　just　lies　in　its　being　the　truth　of　reality。　That　is　to　say；　when　reality　is　explicitly　put
  as　what　it　implicitly　is；　it　is　at　once　seen　to　be　ideality。　Hence　ideality　has　not　received　its　proper
  estimation；　when　you　allow　that　reality　is　not　all　in　all；　but　that　an　ideality　must　be　recognised
  outside　of　it。　Such　an　ideality；　external　to　or　it　may　even　be　beyond　reality；　would　be　no　better
  than　an　empty　name。　Ideality　only　has　a　meaning　when　it　is　the　ideality　of　something：　but　this
  something　is　not　a　mere　indefinite　this　or　that；　but　existence　characterised　as　reality；　which；　if
  retained　in　isolation；　possesses　no　truth。　The　distinction　between　Nature　and　Mind　is　not
  improperly　conceived；　when　the　former　is　traced　back　to　reality；　and　the　latter　so　fixed　and
  complete　as　to　subsist　even　without　Mind：　in　Mind　it　first；　as　it　were；　attains　its　goal　and　its　truth。
  And　similarly；　Mind　on　its　part　is　not　merely　a　world　beyond　Nature　and　nothing　more：　it　is　really；
  and　with　full　proof；　seen　to　be　mind；　only　when　it　involves　Nature　as　absorbed　in　itself。　Apropos
  of　this；　we　should　note　the　double　meaning　of　the　German　word　aufheben　（to　put　by　or　set　aside）。
  We　mean　by　it　（1）　to　clear　away；　or　annul：　thus；　we　say；　a　law　or　regulation　is　set　aside；　（2）　to
  keep；　or　preserve：　in　which　sense　we　use　it　when　we　say：　something　is　well　put　by。　This　double
  usage　of　language；　which　gives　to　the　same　word　a　positive　and　negative　meaning；　is　not　an
  accident；　and　gives　no　ground　for　reproaching　language　as　a　cause　of　confusion。　We　should　rather
  recognise　in　it　the　speculative　spirit　of　our　language　rising　above　the　me　'either…or'　of
  understanding。
  §97
  ＇b＇　The　relation　of　the　negative　to　itself　is　a　negative　relation；　and　so　a
  distinguishing　of　the　One　from　itself；　the　repulsion　of　the　One；　that　is；　it　makes
  Many　Ones。　So　far　as　regards　the　immediacy　of　the　self…existents；　these　Many
  are：　and　the　repulsion　of　every　One　of　them　becomes　to　that　extent　their
  repulsion　against　each　other　as　existing　units　…　in　other　words；　their　reciprocal
  exclusion。
  §97n
  Whenever　we　speak　of　the　One；　the　Many　usually　come　into　our　mind　at　the　same　time。　Whence；
  then；　we　are　forced　to　ask；　do　the　Many　come？　This　question　is　unanswerable　by　the
  consciousness　which　pictures　the　Many　as　a　primary　datum；　and　treats　the　One　as　only　one　among
  the　Many。　But　the　philosophic　notion　teaches；　contrariwise；　that　the　One　forms　the　presupposition
  of　the　Many：　and　in　the　thought　of　the　One　is　implied　that　it　explicitly　make　itself　Many。　。。。
  ？
  The　One；　as　already　remarked；　just　is　self…exclusion　and　explicit　putting　itself　as　the　Many。　Each　of
  the　Many　however　is　itself　a　One；　and　in　virtue　of　its　so　behaving；　this　all　rounded　repulsion　is　by
  one　stroke　converted　into　its　opposite　…　Attraction。
  §　98
  Attraction　and　Repulsion
  ＇c＇　But　the　Many　are　one　the　same　as　another：　each　is　One；　or　even　one　of　the
  Many；　they　are　consequently　one　and　the　same。　Or　when　we　study　all　that
  Repulsion　involves；　we　see　that　as　a　negative　attitude　of　many　Ones　to　one
  another；　it　is　just　as　essentially　a　connective　reference　of　them　to　each　other；　and
  as　those　to　which　the　One　is　related　in　its　act　of　repulsion　are　ones；　it　is　in　them
  thrown　into　relation　with　itself。　The　repulsion　therefore　has　an　equal　right　to　be
  called　Attraction；　and　the　exclusive　One；　or　Being…for…self；　suppresses　itself。　The
  qualitative　character；　which　in　the　One　or　unit　has　reached　the　extreme　point　of　its
  characterisation；　has　thus　passed　over　into　determinateness　（quality）　suppressed；
  i。e。　into　Being　as　Quantity。
  The　philosophy　of　the　Atomists　is　the　doctrine　in　which　the　Absolute　is
  formulated　as　Being…for…self；　as　One；　and　many　ones。　And　it　is　the　repulsion；
  which　shows　itself　in　the　notion　of　the　One；　which　is　assumed　as　the　fundamental
  force　in　these　atoms。　But　instead　of　attraction；　it　is　Accident；　that　is；　mere
  unintelligence；　which　is　expected　to　bring　them　together。　So　long　as　the　One　is
  fixed　as　one；　it　is　certainly　impossible　to　regard　its　congression　with　others　as
  anything　but　external　and　mechanical。　The　Void；　which　is　assumed　as　the
  complementary　principle　to　the　atoms；　is　repulsion　and　nothing　else；　presented
  under　the　image　of　the　nothing　existing　between　the　atoms。　Modern　Atomism　…
  and　physics　is　still　in　principle　atomistic　…　has　surrendered　the　atoms　so　far　as　to
  pin　its　faith　on　molecules　or　particles。　In　doing　so；　science　has　come　closer　to
  sensuous　conception；　at　the　cost　of　losing　the　precision　of　thought。　To　put　an