Omniscience naturally demands. In this development, the actual constitution of the empirical unity of consciousness, as we human beings know it, has everywhere been taken into account. That the Absolute is an Absolute Experience, I still deliberately maintain. That even in order to be such an experience, it must involve other elements besides experience, that is, besides the mere presentation of data, or of immediate contents, is what has been shown, and what was very obviously implied in the original discussion. In other words, along with immediacy, there must be mediation; and what kind of mediation, has now been defined, — not with any pretence to exhaustiveness, but with an effort to give to the abstract considerations of the original paper something of the concreteness which was from the outset regarded as necessary for the completion of the theory, even in the most tentative statement. I submit, however, that my conception of the Absolute must be judged by its developments, as well as in the light of its original deduction. For such developments were predicted from the outset of the argument.
As to the Antithesis, on the contrary, I assert that it embodies a natural, and, in advance of analysis, an inevitable illusion, just in so far as it uses the true conception of moral freedom as a proof of the false separation of the individuals. This is the illusion that the category of Individuality is definable in terms of the segmentation of contents, and therefore implies such segmentation, be these contents empirical or ideal. I assert that two individuals need not
