manner painlessly sloughed merely a shrivelled skin。
But this silent steady working of the loom of spirit in the inner region of its substance；（3） spirit's
own action being hidden from itself； is merely one side of the realizing of pure insight。 Its expansion
does not only consist in like combining with like； and its realization is not merely an unresisted
expansion。 The action of the principle of negation is just as essentially a developed process of
self…distinction； which； being a conscious action； must set forth its moments in a definitely
manifested expression； and must make its appearance in the form of a great noise； and a violent
struggle with an opposite as such。
We have； therefore； to see how pure insight and pure intention manifests its negative attitude
towards that other which it finds standing opposed to it。
Pure insight and intention； operating negatively； can only be — since its very principle is all
essentiality and there is nothing outside it — the negative of itself。 As insight； therefore； it passes
into the negative of pure insight； it becomes untruth and unreason； and as intention it passes into
the negative of pure intention； becomes a lie and sordid impurity of purpose。
It involves itself in this contradiction by the fact that it engages in a strife and thinks to do battle
with some alien external other。 It merely imagines this； for its nature as absolute negativity lies in
having that otherness within its own self。 The absolute notion is the category； it is the principle that
knowledge and the object of knowledge are the same。 In consequence； what pure insight
expresses as its other； what it pronounces to be an error or a lie； can be nothing else than its own
self； it can only condemn what itself is。 What is not rational has no truth； or what is not
comprehended through a notion； conceptually determined； is not。 When reason thus speaks of
some other than itself is； it in fact speaks merely of itself； it does not therein go beyond itself。
This struggle with the opposite； therefore； combines in its meaning the significance of being insight's
own actualization。 This consists just in the process of unfolding its moments and taking them back
into itself。 One part of this process is the making of the distinction in which the insight of reason
opposes itself as object to itself； so long as it remains in this condition； it is at variance with itself。
Qua pure insight it is without any content； the process of its realization consists in itself becoming
content to itself； for no other can be made its content； because it is the category become
self…conscious。 But since this insight in the first instance thinks of the content as in its opposite； and
knows the content merely as a content； and does not as yet think of it as its own self； pure insight
misconceives itself in it。 The complete attainment of insight； therefore； has the sense of a process of
coming to know that content as its own； which was to begin with opposite to itself。 Its result；
however； will be thereby neither the reestablishment of the errors it fights with； nor merely its
original notion； but an insight which knows the absolute negation of itself to be its own proper
reality to be its self； or an insight which is its self…understanding notion。
This feature of the struggle of enlightenment with errors — that of fighting itself in them； and of
condemning that in them which it asserts — this is something for us who observe the process； or is
what enlightenment and its struggle are in themselves implicitly。 The first aspect of this struggle；
however — the contamination and defilement of enlightenment through its pure self…identity
accepting the attitude and function of destructive negation — this bow belief looks upon it； belief
finds it simply lying unreason and malicious intent； just as enlightenment in the same way regards
belief as error and prejudice。
As regards its content； it is in the first instance empty insight； whose content appears an external
other to it。 It meets this content； consequently； in the shape of something not yet its own； as
something that exists quite independent of it； and is found in belief。
Enlightenment； then； conceives its object in the first instance and generally in such a way as to take
it as pure insight； and failing to recognize itself there； interprets it as error。 In insight as such
consciousness apprehends an object in such a manner that it becomes the inner being of conscious
life； or becomes an object which consciousness permeates； in which consciousness maintains itself；
keeps within itself； and is present to itself； and； by its thus being the process of that object； brings
the object into being。 It is precisely this which enlightenment rightly declares belief to be； when
enlightenment says that the Absolute Reality professed by belief is a being that comes from belief's
own consciousness； is its own thought； something produced from and by consciousness。（4）
Enlightenment； consequently； explains and declares it to be error； to be a made…up invention about
the very same thing as enlightenment itself is。
Enlightenment that seeks to teach belief this new wisdom does not； in doing so； tell it anything new。
For the object of belief itself is just this too； viz。 a pure essential reality of its own peculiar
consciousness； so that this consciousness does not put itself down for lost and negated in that
object； but rather puts trust in it； and this just means that it finds itself there as this particular
consciousness； finds itself therein to be self…consciousness。 If I put my trust in anyone； his certitude
of himself is for me the certitude of myself ； I know my self…existence in him； I know that he
acknowledges it； and that it is for him both his purpose and his real nature。 Belief； however； is
trust； because the believing consciousness has a direct relation to its object； and thus sees at once
that it is one with the object； and in the object。
Further； since what is object for me is something in which I know myself； I am at the same time in
that object really in the form of another self…consciousness； i。e。 one which has become in that
object alienated from its own particular individuation； from its natural and contingent existence； but
which partly continues therein to be self…consciousness； and partly is there an essential
consciousness just like pure insight。
In the notion of insight there lies not merely this； that consciousness knows itself in the object it
looks at； and finds itself directly there； without first quitting the thought element and then returning
into itself； the notion implies as well that consciousness is aware of itself as being also the mediating
process； aware of itself as active； as the agency of production。 Through this it gets the thought of
this unity of self as self and object。
Belief also is this very consciousness。 Obedience and action make a necessary moment； through
which the certainty of existence in Absolute Being comes about。 This action of belief does not
indeed make it appear as if Absolute Being is itself produced thereby。 But the Absolute Being for
belief is essentially not the abstract being that lies beyond the believing consciousness； it is the spirit
of the religious communion； it is the unity of that abstract being and self…consciousness。 The action
of the communion is an essential moment in bringing about that it is this spirit of the communion。
That spirit is what it is by the productive activity of consciousness； or rather it does not exist
without being produced by consciousness。 For essential as this process of production is； it is as
truly not the only basis of Absolute Being； it is merely a moment。 The Absolute Being is at the
same time self…complete and self…contained （an und für sich selbst）。
On the other side the notion of pure insight is seen to be something else than its own object； for
just this negative character constitutes the object。 Thus from the other side it also expresses the
ultimate Being of belief as something foreign to self…consciousness； something that is not a bone of
its bone； but is surreptitiously foisted on it like a changeling child。 But here enlightenment is entirely
foolish； belief experiences it as a way of speaking which does not know what it is saying； and does
not understand the facts of the case when it talks about priestly deception； and deluding the
people。 It speaks about this as if by means of some hocus…pocus of conjuring priestcraft there
were foisted on consciousness as true Reality something that is absolutely foreign； and absolutely
alien to it； and yet says all the while that this is an essential reality for consciousness； that
consciousness believes in it； trusts in it； and seeks to make it favourably disposed towards itself；
i。e。 that consciousness therein sees its pure ultimate Being just as much as its own single and
universal individuality； and creates by its own action this unity of itself with its essential reality。 In
other words； it directly declares that to be the very inmost nature of consciousness which it
declares to be something alien to consciousness。
How； then； can it possibly speak about deception and delusion？ By the fact that it directly
expresses about belief the very opposite of what it asserts of belief； it ipso facto really reveals
itself to belief as the conscious lie。 How are deception and delusion to take place； where
consciousness in its very truth has directly and immediately the certitude of itself； where it
possesses itself in its object； since it just as much finds as produces itself there？ The distinction no
longer exists； even in words。
When the general question has been raised； whether it is permissible to delude a people； the
answer； as a fact； was bound to be that the question is pointless； because it is impossible to
deceive a people in this matter。 Brass in place of gold； counterfeit instead of genuine coin may
doubtless have swindled individuals many a time； lots of people have stuck to it that a battle lost
was a battle won； and lies of all sorts about things of sense and particular events have been
plausible for a time； but in the knowledge