and its essence。 Its being in that case would mean its existence in general。 But in that definition the
necessity of its existence is not contained； it exists either because we find it； i。e。 its existence is not
necessary at all； or else it exists through other forces； i。e。 the necessity of its existence is an
external necessity。 But in that the determinateness of being through another is what the necessity
consists in； we are back again to the plurality of determinate laws； which we have just left in order
to consider law； as law。 It is only with the latter that we can compare its notion as notion； or its
necessity。 This necessity； however； has in all these forms shown itself to be just an empty phrase。
There is still another way than that just indicated in which the indifference of law and force； or of
notion and being； is found。 In the law of motion； e。g。； it is necessary for motion to be broken up
into the elements time and space； or again； into distance and velocity。 Since motion is merely the
relation of these f actors； motion； the universal； has in this way certainly distinct parts in its own
self。 But now these parts； time and space； or distance and velocity； do not express in themselves
this origination from a single unity。 They are indifferent the one to the other。 Space is thought of as
able to be without。 time； time without space； and distance at least without velocity — just as their
magnitudes are indifferent the one to the other； since they are not related like positive and negative；
and consequently do not refer to one another by their very nature。 The necessity of partition into
distinct factors； then； we certainly do have here； but not the necessity of the parts as such for one
another。 On that account； however； that first necessity too is itself a merely delusory false
necessity。 For motion is not itself thought of as something simple or as bare essence； but as； from
the first； divided into elements； time and space are in themselves its independent parts or its real
elements： in other words； distance and velocity are modes of being； or ways of thinking； each of
which can very well be without the other； and motion is consequently no more than their superficial
relation； not their true nature。 If it is represented as simple essence or as force； motion is no doubt
gravity； but this does not contain these distinctions at all。
The distinction is； then； in both cases no distinction of an inherent or essential kind。 Either the
universal； force； is indifferent to the division into parts； which is found in the law； or else the
distinctions； the parts of the law； are indifferent to one another。 Understanding； however； does
have the notion of this distinction per se； just by the fact that law is in part the inner being； the
inherent nature； but is at the same time something distinguished within the notion。 That this
distinction is thereby inner distinction is shown by the fact that law is bare and simple force； or is
the notion of that distinction； and thus is a distinction of the notion。 But still this inner distinction falls
to begin with only within understanding； and is not yet established in the fact itself。 It is thus only its
own necessity to which understanding gives expression — the distinction； that is to say； is one
which it makes only so as at the same time to express that the distinction is not to be a distinction
in the nature of the fact itself。 This necessity； which is merely verbal； is thus a rehearsal of the
moments which make up the cycle of necessity。 They are no doubt distinct； but their distinction is
at the same time explicitly stated to be not a distinction of the fact itself； and consequently is itself
again straightway cancelled and transcended。
（3） Explanation
This process is called Explanation。 A law is expressed； from this its inherently universal element
or ground is distinguished as force； but regarding this distinction； it is asserted that it is no
distinction； rather that the ground has entirely the same constitution as the law。 For example； the
particular occurrence of lightning is apprehended as universal； and this universal is expressed as
the law of electricity； the explanation thereupon merges the law in force as the essence of the law。
This force is； then； so constituted that； when it finds expression； opposite electrical discharges
appear； and these again disappear into one another。 In other words； force has exactly the same
constitution as law； both are thus declared to be in no way distinct。 The distinctions are pure
universal expression or law and pure force； but both have the same content； the same constitutive
character； thus the distinction between them qua distinction of content； i。e。 of fact； is also again
withdrawn。
In this tautological process understanding； as the above shows； holds fast to the changeless unity
of its object； and the process takes effect solely within understanding itself； not in the object。 It is
an explanation that not only explains nothing； but is so plain that； while it makes as if it would say
something different from what is already said； it really says nothing at all； but merely repeats the
same thing over again。 So far as the fact itself goes； this process gives rise to nothing new； the
process is only of account as a process of understanding。 In it； however； we now get acquainted
with just what we missed in the case of the law — absolute change itself： for this process； when
looked at more narrowly； is directly the opposite of itself。 It sets up； that is。 a distinction which is
not only for us no distinction； but which it itself cancels as distinction。 This is the same process of
change which was formerly manifested as the play of forces。 In the latter we found the distinction
of inciting and incited force； or force expressing itself； and force withdrawn into itself； but these
were distinctions which in reality were no distinctions； and therefore were also immediately
cancelled again。 We have here not merely the naked unity； so that no distinction could be set up at
all； the process we have is rather this； that a distinction is certainly made； but because it is no
distinction； it is again superseded。
Thus； then； with the process of explaining； we see the ebb and flow of change； which was formerly
characteristic of the sphere of appearance； and lay outside the inner world； finding its way into the
region of the supersensible itself。 Our consciousness； however； has passed from the inner being as
an object over to understanding on the other side； and finds the changing process there。
The change is in this way not yet a process of the fact itself； but rather presents itself before us as
pure change； just by the content of the moments of change remaining the same。 Since； however；
the notion qua notion of understanding is the same as the inner nature of things； this change
becomes for understanding the law of the inner world。 Understanding thus learns that it is a law in
the sphere of appearance for distinctions to come about which are no distinctions。 In other words；
it learns that what is self…same is self…repulsive； and； similarly； that the distinctions are only such as
in reality are none and cancel one another； or that what is not self…same is self…attractive。 Here we
have a second law； whose content is the opposite of what formerly was called law； viz。 the
invariable and unchanging self…identical distinction； for this new law expresses rather the process of
like becoming unlike； and unlike becoming like。 The notion demands of the unreflective mind to
bring both laws together； and become conscious of their opposition。 Of course the second is also
a law； an inner self…identical being； but it is rather a self…sameness of the unlike； a constancy of
inconstancy。 In the play of forces this law proved to be just this absolute transition and pure
change； the selfsame； force； split into an opposition； that in the first instance appeared as a
substantial independent distinction； which； however； in point of fact proved to be none。 For it is
the selfsame which repels itself from itself； and this element repelled is in consequence essentially
self…attracted； for it is the same； the distinction made； since it is none； thus cancels itself again。 The
distinction is hence set forth as a distinction on the part of the fact itself； or as an absolute
（objective） distinction； and this distinction on the part of the fact is thus nothing but the selfsame；
that which has repelled itself from itself； and consequently only set up an opposition which is none。
By means of this principle； the first supersensible world； the changeless kingdom of laws； the
immediate ectype and copy of the world of perception； has turned round into its opposite。 The law
was in general； like its differences； self…identical； now； however； it is established that each side is；
on the contrary； the opposite of itself。 The self…identical repels itself from itself； and the
self…discordant sets up to be selfsame。 In truth only with a determination of this kind is distinction
inner distinction； or immanent distinction； when the like is unlike itself； and the unlike lik