the disappearance of the particular Now and Here that we 〃mean〃 is prevented by the fact that I
keep hold on them。 The Now is daytime； because I see it； the Here is a tree for a similar reason。
Sense…certainty； however； goes through； in this connection； the same dialectic process as in the
former case。 I； this I； see the tree； and assert the tree to be the Here； another I； however； sees
the house and maintains the Here is not a tree but a house。 Both truths have the same authenticity
— the immediacy of seeing and the certainty and assurance both have as to their specific way of
knowing； but the one certainty disappears in the other。
In all this； what does not disappear is the I qua universal； whose seeing is neither the seeing of this
tree nor of this house； but just seeing simpliciter； which is mediated through the negation of this
house； etc。； and； in being so； is all the same simple and indifferent to what is associated with it； the
house； the tree； and so on。 I is merely universal； like Now； Here； or This in general。 No doubt I
〃mean〃 an individual I； but just something as little as I am able to say what I 〃mean〃 by Now；
Here； so it is impossible in the case of the I too。 By saying 〃this Here〃； 〃this Now〃； 〃an individual
thing〃； I say all Thises； Heres； Nows； or Individuals。 In the same way when I say 〃I〃； 〃this
individual I〃； I say quite generally 〃all I's〃； every one is 〃I〃； this individual I。 When philosophy
is。requested； by way of putting it to a crucial test — a test which it could not possibly sustain — to
〃deduce〃； to 〃construe〃； 〃to find a priori〃； or however it is put； a so…called this thing； or this
particular man；（4） it is reasonable that the person making this demand should say what 〃this
thing〃； or what 〃this I〃； he means： but to say this is quite impossible。
Sense…certainty discovers by experience； therefore； that its essential nature lies neither in the
object nor in the I； and that the immediacy peculiar to it is neither an immediacy of the one nor of
the other。 For； in the case of both； what I 〃mean〃 is rather something non…essential； and the object
and the I are universals； in which that Now and Here and I； which I 〃mean〃； do not hold out； do
not exist。 We arrive in this way at the result； that we have to put the whole； of sense…certainty as
its essential reality； and no longer merely one of its moments； as happened in both cases； where
first the object as against the I； and then the I； was to be its true reality。 Thus it is only the whole
sensecertainty itself which persists therein as immediacy； and in consequence excludes from itself
all the opposition which in the foregoing had a place there。
This pure immediacy； then； has nothing more to do with the fact of otherness； with Here in the
form of a tree passing into a Here that is not a tree； with Now in the sense of day…time changing
into a Now that is night…time； or with there being an other I to which something else is object。 Its
truth stands fast as a self…identical relation making no distinction of essential and non…essential；
between I and object； and into which； therefore； in general； no distinction can find its way。 I； this
I； assert； then； the Here as tree； and do not turn round so that for me Here might become not a
tree； and I take no notice of the fact that another I finds the Here as not…tree； or that I myself at
some other time take the Here as not…tree； the Now as not…day。 I am directly conscious； I intuit
and nothing more； I am pure intuition； I am…seeing； looking。 For myself I stand by the fact； the
Now is day…time； or； again； by the fact the Here is tree； and； again； do not compare Here and
Now themselves with one another； I take my stand on one immediate relation： the Now is day。
2。 The Subject of Sense Certainty
Since； then； this certainty wholly refuses to come out if we direct its attention to a Now that is night
or an I to whom it is night； we will go to it and let ourselves point out the Now that is asserted。 We
must let ourselves point it out for the truth of this immediate relation is the truth of this ego which
restricts itself to a Now or a Here。 Were we to examine this truth afterwards； or stand at a
distance from it；。 it would have no meaning at all； for that would do away with the immediacy；
which is of its essence。 We have therefore to enter the same point of time or of space； indicate
them； point them out to ourselves； i。e。 we must let ourselves take the place of the very same I； the
very same This； which is the subject knowing with certainty。 Let us； then； see how that immediate
is constituted； which is shown to us。
The Now is pointed out； this Now。 〃Now〃； it has already ceased to be when it is pointed out。 The
Now that is； is other than the one indicated； and we see that the Now is just this — to be no longer
the very time when it is。 The Now as it is shown to us is one that has been； and that is its truth； it
does not have the truth of being； of something that is。 No doubt this is true； that it has been； but
what has been is in point of fact not genuinely real； it is not； and the point in question concerned
what is； concerned being。
In thus pointing out the Now we see then merely a process which takes the following course： First
I point out the Now； and it is asserted to be the truth。 I point it out； however； as something that
has been； or as something cancelled and done away with。 I thus annul and pass beyond that first
truth and in the second place I now assert as the second truth that it has been； that it is
superseded。 But； thirdly； what has been is not； I then supersede； cancel； its having been； the fact
of its being annulled； the second truth； negate thereby the negation of the Now and return in so
doing to the first position： that Now is。 The Now and pointing out the Now are thus so constituted
that neither the one nor the other is an immediate simple fact； but a process with diverse moments
in it。 A This is set up； it is； however； rather an other that is set up； the This is superseded： and this
otherness； this cancelling of the former； is itself again annulled； and so turned back to the first。 But
this first； reflected thus into itself； is not exactly the same as it was to begin with； namely something
immediate： rather it is a something reflected into…self； a simple entity which remains in its otherness；
what it is： a Now which is any number of Nows。 And that is the Genuinely true Now； the Now is
simple day…time which has many Nows within it — hours。 A Now of that sort； again — an hour —
is similarly many minutes； and this Now — a minute — in the same way many Nows and so on。
Showing； indicating； pointing out ＇the Now＇ is thus itself the very process which expresses what
the Now in truth really is： namely a result； or a plurality of Nows all taken together。 And the
pointing； out is the way of getting to know； of experiencing； that Now is a universal。
The Here pointed out； which I keep hold of； is likewise a this Here which； in fact； is not this
Here； but a Before and Behind； an Above and Below； a Right and Left。 The Above is itself
likewise this manifold otherness — above； below； etc。 The Here； which was to be pointed out；
disappears in other Heres； and these disappear similarly。 What is pointed out； held fast； and is
permanents a negative This； which only is so when the Heres are taken as they should be； but
therein cancel one another； it is a simple complex of many Heres。 The Here that is 〃meant〃 would
be the point。 But it is not： rather； when it is pointed out as being； as having existence； that very act
of pointing out proves to be not immediate knowledge； but a process； a movement from the Here
〃meant〃 through a plurality of Heres to the universal Here； which is a simple plurality of Heres； just
as day is a simple plurality of Nows。
3。 The Concrete Experience of Sense Certainty
It is clear from all this that the dialectic process involved in sense…certainty is nothing else than the
mere history of its process…of its experience； and sense…certainty itself is nothing else than simply
this history。 The na？ve consciousness； too； for that reason； is of itself always coming to this result；
which is the real truth in this case； and is always having experience of it： but is always forgetting it
again and beginning the process all over。 It is therefore astonishing when； in defiance of this
experience； it is announced as 〃universal experience〃 — nay； even as a philosophical doctrine； the
outcome； in fact； of scepticism — that the reality or being of external things in the sense of 〃Thises〃；
particular sense objects； has absolute validity and truth for consciousness。 One who makes such
an assertion really does not know what he is saying； does not know that he is stating the opposite
of what he wants to say。 The truth for consciousness of a 〃This〃 of sense is said to be universal
experience； but the very opposite is universal experience。 Every consciousness of itself cancels
again； as soon as made； such a truth as e。g。 the Here is a tree； or the Now is noon； and expresses
the very opposite： the Here is not a tree but a house。 And similarly it straightway cancels again the
assertion which here annuls the first； and which is also just such an assertion of a sensuous This。
And in all sense…certainty what we find by experience is in truth merely； as we have seen； that
〃This〃 is a universal； the very opposite of what that assertion maintained to be universal
experience。
We may be permitted here； in this appeal to universal experience； to anticipate（5） with a reference
to the practical sphere。 In this connection we may answer those who thus insist on the truth and
certainty of the reality of objects of sense； by saying that they had better be sent back to the most
elementary school of wisdom； the ancient Eleusinian mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus； they have
not yet learnt the inner secret of the eating of bread and the drinking of wine。 For one who is
initiated into these mysteries not only comes to doubt the being of things of sense； but gets into a
state of despair about it altogether； and in dealing with them he partly himself brings about the
nothingness of