Forthatmatter，thereisabsolutelynoneedtobealarmedatthefactthatthestageofknowledgewhichwehavenowreachedisaslittlefinalasallthathaveprecededit。Italreadyembracesavastmassofjudgmentsandrequiresverygreatspecialisationofstudyonthepartofanyonewhowantstobecomeconversantwithanyparticularscience。Butamanwhoappliesthemeasureofgenuine，immutable，finalandultimatetruthtoknowledgewhich，byitsverynature，musteitherremainrelativeformanygenerationsandbecompletedonlystepbystep，orwhich，asincosmogony，geologyandthehistoryofmankind，mustalwayscontaingapsandbeincompletebecauseoftheinadequacyofthehistoricalmaterial——suchamanonlyprovestherebyhisownignoranceandperversity，eveniftherealthingbehinditallisnot，asinthiscase，theclaimtopersonalinfallibility。Truthanderror，likeallthought-conceptswhichmoveinpolaropposites，haveabsolutevalidityonlyinanextremelylimitedfield，aswehavejustseen，andasevenHerrDühringwouldrealiseifhehadanyacquaintancewiththefirstelementsofdialectics，whichdealpreciselywiththeinadequacyofallpolaropposites。Assoonasweapplytheantithesisbetweentruthanderroroutsideofthatnarrowfieldwhichhasbeenreferredtoaboveitbecomesrelativeandthereforeunserviceableforexactscientificmodesofexpression，andifweattempttoapplyitasabsolutelyvalidoutsidethatfieldwereallyfindourselvesaltogetherbeaten:bothpolesoftheantithesisbecometransformedintotheiropposites，truthbecomeserroranderrortruth。Letustakeasanexamplethewell-knownBoyle’slaw。Accordingtoit，ifthetemperatureremainsconstant，thevolumeofagasvariesinverselywiththepressuretowhichitissubjected。
Regnaultfoundthatthislawdoesnotholdgoodincertaincases。Hadhebeenaphilosopherofrealityhewouldhavehadtosay:Boyle’slawismutable，andishencenotagenuinetruth，henceitisnotatruthatall，henceitisanerror。ButhadhedonethishewouldhavecommittedanerrorfargreaterthantheonethatwascontainedinBoyle’slaw;hisgrainoftruthwouldhavebeenlostsightofinasand-hilloferror;hewouldhavedistortedhisoriginallycorrectconclusionintoanerrorcomparedwithwhichBoyle’slaw，alongwiththelittleparticleoferrorthatclingstoitwouldhaveseemedliketruth。ButRegnault，beingamanofscience，didnotindulgeinsuchchildishness，butcontinuedhisinvestigationsanddiscoveredthatingeneralBoyle’slawisonlyapproximatelytrue，andinparticularlosesitsvalidityinthecaseofgaseswhichcanbeliquefiedbypressure，namely，assoonasthepressureapproachesthepointatwhichliquefactionbegins。Boyle’slawthereforewasprovedtobetrueonlywithindefinitelimits。Butisitabsolutelyandfinallytruewithinthoselimits？Nophysicistwouldassertthat。Hewouldmaintainthatitholdsgoodwithincertainlimitsofpressureandtemperatureandforcertaingases;andevenwithinthesemorerestrictedlimitshewouldnotexcludethepossibilityofastillnarrowerlimitationoralteredformulationastheresultoffutureinvestigations。*2Thisishowthingsstandwithfinalandultimatetruthsinphysics，forexample。
Reallyscientificworkstherefore，asarule，avoidsuchdogmaticallymoralexpressionsaserrorandtruth，whiletheseexpressionsmeetuseverywhereinworkssuchasthephilosophyofreality，inwhichemptyphrasemongeringattemptstoimposeitselfonusasthemostsovereignresultofsovereignthought。
But，anaivereadermayask，wherehasHerrDühringexpresslystatedthatthecontentofhisphilosophyofrealityisfinalandevenultimatetruth{D。Ph。2}？Where？Well，forexample，inthedithyrambonhissystempage13，apartofwhichwecitedinChapterII。Orwhenhesays，inthepassagequotedabove:Moraltruths，insofarastheirultimatebasesareunderstood，claimthesamevalidityasmathematicalinsights。
AnddoesnotHerrDühringassertthat，workingfromhisreallycriticalstandpoint{D。Ph。404}andbymeansofthoseresearchesofhiswhichgototherootofthings{200}，hehasforcedhiswaythroughtotheseultimatefoundations，thebasicschemata，andhasthusbestowedfinalandultimatevalidityonmoraltruths？Or，ifHerrDühringdoesnotadvancethisclaimeitherforhimselforforhisage，ifheonlymeanttosaythatperhapssomedayinthedarkandnebulousfuturefinalandultimatetruthsmaybeascertained，ifthereforehemeanttosaymuchthesame，onlyinamoreconfusedway，asissaidby“mordantscepticism“and“hopelessconfusion“
{194}——then，inthatcase，whatisallthenoiseabout，whatcanwedoforyou，HerrDühring？[Goethe，Faust，ActI，SceneIII“Faust’sStudy“——Ed。]
If，then，wehavenotmademuchprogresswithtruthanderror，wecanmakeevenlesswithgoodandevil。Thisoppositionmanifestsitselfexclusivelyinthedomainofmorals，thatis，adomainbelongingtothehistoryofmankind，anditispreciselyinthisfieldthatfinalandultimatetruthsaremostsparselysown。Theconceptionsofgoodandevilhavevariedsomuchfromnationtonationandfromagetoagethattheyhaveoftenbeenindirectcontradictiontoeachother——Butallthesame，someonemayobject，goodisnotevilandevilisnotgood，ifgoodisconfusedwithevilthereisanendtoallmorality，andeveryonecandoashepleases——
Thisisalso，strippedofalloracularphrases，HerrDühring’sopinion。Butthemattercannotbesosimplydisposedof。Ifitweresuchaneasybusinesstherewouldcertainlybenodisputeatallovergoodandevil;everyonewouldknowwhatwasgoodandwhatwasbad。Buthowdothingsstandtoday？Whatmoralityispreachedtoustoday？ThereisfirstChristian-feudalmorality，inheritedfromearlierreligioustimes;andthisisdivided，essentially，intoaCatholicandaProtestantmorality，eachofwhichhasnolackofsubdivisions，fromtheJesuit-CatholicandOrthodox-Protestanttoloose“enlightened“moralities。Alongsidethesewefindthemodern-bourgeoismoralityandbesideitalsotheproletarianmoralityofthefuture，sothatinthemostadvancedEuropeancountriesalonethepast，presentandfutureprovidethreegreatgroupsofmoraltheorieswhichareinforcesimultaneouslyandalongsideeachother。Which，then，isthetrueone？
Notoneofthem，inthesenseofabsolutefinality;butcertainlythatmoralitycontainsthemaximumelementspromisingpermanencewhich，inthepresent，representstheoverthrowofthepresent，representsthefuture，andthatisproletarianmorality。
Butwhenweseethatthethreeclassesofmodernsociety，thefeudalaristocracy，thebourgeoisieandtheproletariat，eachhaveamoralityoftheirown，wecanonlydrawtheoneconclusion:thatmen，consciouslyorunconsciously，derivetheirethicalideasinthelastresortfromthepracticalrelationsonwhichtheirclasspositionisbased——fromtheeconomicrelationsinwhichtheycarryonproductionandexchangeButneverthelessthereisgreatdealwhichthethreemoraltheoriesmentionedabovehaveincommon——isthisnotatleastaportionofamoralitywhichisfixedonceandforall？——Thesemoraltheoriesrepresentthreedifferentstagesofthesamehistoricaldevelopment，havethereforeacommonhistoricalbackground，andforthatreasonalonetheynecessarilyhavemuchincommon。Evenmore。Atsimilarorapproximatelysimilarstagesofeconomicdevelopmentmoraltheoriesmustofnecessitybemoreorlessinagreement。Fromthemomentwhenprivateownershipofmovablepropertydeveloped，allsocietiesinwhichthisprivateownershipexistedhadtohavethismoralinjunctionincommon:Thoushaltnotsteal。[Exodus20:15;Deuteronomy5:19——Ed。]Doesthisinjunctiontherebybecomeaneternalmoralinjunction？Bynomeans。Inasocietyinwhichallmotivesforstealinghavebeendoneawaywith，inwhichthereforeattheverymostonlylunaticswouldeversteal，howthepreacherofmoralswouldbelaughedatwhotriedsolemnlytoproclaimtheeternaltruth:Thoushaltnotsteal！
Wethereforerejecteveryattempttoimposeonusanymoraldogmawhatsoeverasaneternal，ultimateandforeverimmutableethicallawonthepretextthatthemoralworld，too，hasitspermanentprincipleswhichstandabovehistoryandthedifferencesbetweennations。Wemaintainonthecontrarythatallmoraltheorieshavebeenhithertotheproduct，inthelastanalysis，oftheeconomicconditionsofsocietyobtainingatthetime。Andassocietyhashithertomovedinclassantagonisms，moralityhasalwaysbeenclassmorality;ithaseitherjustifiedthedominationandtheinterestsoftherulingclass，oreversincetheoppressedclassbecamepowerfulenough，ithasrepresenteditsindignationagainstthisdominationandthefutureinterestsoftheoppressed。Thatinthisprocesstherehasonthewholebeenprogressinmorality，asinallotherbranchesofhumanknowledge，noonewilldoubt。Butwehavenotyetpassedbeyondclassmorality。Areallyhumanmoralitywhichstandsaboveclassantagonismsandaboveanyrecollectionofthembecomespossibleonlyatastageofsocietywhichhasnotonlyovercomeclassantagonismsbuthasevenforgottentheminpracticallife。AndnowonecangaugeHerrDühring’spresumptioninadvancinghisclaim，fromthemidstoftheoldclasssocietyandontheeveofasocialrevolution，toimposeonthefutureclasslesssocietyaneternalmoralityindependentoftimeandchangesinreality。Evenassuming——whatwedonotknowuptonow——thatheunderstandsthestructureofthesocietyofthefutureatleastinitsmainoutlines。
Finally，onemorerevelationwhichis“fromthegrounduporiginal“
{D。Ph。525}butforthatreasonnoless“goingtotherootofthings“
{200}:Withregardtotheoriginofevil，“thefactthatthetypeofthecatwiththeguileassociatedwithitisfoundinanimalform，standsonanevenplanewiththecircumstancethatasimilartypeofcharacterisfoundalsoinhumanbeings……Thereisthereforenothingmysteriousaboutevil，unlesssomeonewantstoscentoutsomethingmysteriousintheexistenceofacatorofanyanimalofprey“{210-11}。
Evilis——thecat。Thedevilthereforehasnohornsorclovenhoof，butclawsandgreeneyes。AndGoethecommittedanunpardonableerrorinpresentingMephistophelesasablackdoginsteadofablackcat。Evilisthecat！
Thatismorality，notonlyforallworlds，butalso——forcats。
[Thisis，inGerman，aplayonwords:fürdieKatzeforthecatdenotessomethingutterlyuselessorwastedeffort——Ed。]
X。
MORALITYANDLAW。
EQUALITYWehavealreadyhadmorethanoneoccasiontomakeourselvesacquaintedwithHerrDühring’smethod。Itconsistsindissectingeachgroupofobjectsofknowledgetowhatisclaimedtobetheirsimplestelements，applyingtotheseelementssimilarlysimpleandwhatareclaimedtobeself-evidentaxioms，andthencontinuingtooperatewiththeaidoftheresultssoobtained。Evenaprobleminthesphereofsociallife“istobedecidedaxiomatically，inaccordancewithparticular，simplebasicforms，justasifweweredealingwiththesimple……basicformsofmathematics“{D。Ph。224}。
Andthustheapplicationofthemathematicalmethodtohistory，moralsandlawistogiveusalsointhesefieldsmathematicalcertaintyofthetruthoftheresultsobtained，tocharacterisethemasgenuine，immutabletruths。
Thisisonlygivinganewtwisttotheoldfavouriteideologicalmethod，alsoknownastheapriorimethod，whichconsistsinascertainingthepropertiesofanobject，bylogicaldeductionfromtheconceptoftheobject，insteadoffromtheobjectitself。Firsttheconceptoftheobjectisfabricatedfromtheobject;thenthespitisturnedround，andtheobjectismeasuredbyitsreflexion，theconcept。Theobjectisthentoconformtotheconcept，nottheconcepttotheobject。WithHerrDühringthesimplestelements，theultimateabstractionshecanreach，doservicefortheconcept，whichdoesnotaltermatters;thesesimplestelementsareatbestofapurelyconceptualnature。Thephilosophyofreality，therefore，proveshereagaintobepureideology，thedeductionofrealitynotfromitselfbutfromaconcept。
Andwhensuchanideologistconstructsmoralityandlawfromtheconcept，ortheso-calledsimplestelementsof“society“，insteadoffromtherealsocialrelationsofthepeopleroundhim，whatmaterialisthenavailableforthisconstruction？Materialclearlyoftwokinds:first，themeagreresidueofrealcontentwhichmaypossiblysurviveintheabstractionsfromwhichhestartsand，secondly，thecontentwhichourideologistoncemoreintroducesfromhisownconsciousness。Andwhatdoeshefindinhisconsciousness？Forthemostpart，moralandjuridicalnotionswhichareamoreorlessaccurateexpressionpositiveornegative，corroborativeorantagonisticofthesocialandpoliticalrelationsamidstwhichhelives;perhapsalsoideasdrawnfromtheliteratureonthesubject;and，asafinalpossibility，somepersonalidiosyncrasies。Ourideologistmayturnandtwistashelikes，butthehistoricalrealitywhichhecastoutatthedoorcomesinagainatthewindow，andwhilehethinksheisframingadoctrineofmoralsandlawforalltimesandforallworlds，heisinfactonlyfashioninganimageoftheconservativeorrevolutionarytendenciesofhisday——animagewhichisdistortedbecauseithasbeentornfromitsrealbasisand，likeareflectioninaconcavemirror，isstandingonitshead。
HerrDühringthusdissectssocietyintoitssimplestelements，anddiscoversindoingsothatthesimplestsocietyconsistsofatleasttwopeople。Withthesetwopeoplehethenproceedstooperateaxiomatically。
Andsothebasicmoralaxiomnaturallypresentsitself:
“Twohumanwillsareassuchentirelyequaltoeachother，andinthefirstplacetheonecandemandnothingpositiveoftheother“{D。
Ph。200}。This“characterisesthebasicformofmoraljustice“{201}，andalsothatoflegaljustice，for“weneedonlythewhollysimpleandelementaryrelationoftwopersonsforthedevelopmentofthefundamentalconceptsoflaw“{228}。
Thattwopeopleortwohumanwillsareassuchentirelyequaltoeachotherisnotonlynotanaxiombutisevenagreatexaggeration。Inthefirstplace，twopeople，evenassuch，maybeunequalinsex，andthissimplefactleadsusonatoncetotheideathatthesimplestelementsofsociety——ifweacceptthischildishnessforamoment——arenottwomen，butamanandawoman，whofoundafamily，thesimplestandfirstformofassociationforthepurposeofproduction。ButthiscannotinanywaysuitHerrDühring。Forontheonehandthetwofoundersofsocietymustbemadeasequalaspossible;andsecondlyevenHerrDühringcouldnotsucceedinconstructingfromtheprimitivefamilythemoralandlegalequalityofmanandwoman。Onethingortheother:eithertheDühringiansocialmolecule，bythemultiplicationofwhichthewholeofsocietyistobebuiltup，isdoomedbeforehandtodisaster，becausetwomencanneverbythemselvesbringachildintotheworld;orwemustconceivethemastwoheadsoffamilies。Andinthatcasethewholesimplebasicschemeisturnedintoitsopposite:insteadoftheequalityofpeopleitprovesatmosttheequalityofheadsoffamilies，andaswomenarenotconsidered，itfurtherprovesthattheyaresubordinate。
Wehavenowtomakeanunpleasantannouncementtothereader:
thatfromthispointonforsomeconsiderabletimehewillnotgetridofthesefamoustwomen。Inthesphereofsocialrelationstheyplayasimilarroletothathithertoplayedbytheinhabitantsofothercelestialbodies，withwhomitistobehopedwehavenowfinished。Wheneveraquestionofeconomics，politicsetc。，istobesolved，thetwomeninstantlymarchupandsettlethematterinthetwinklingofaneye“axiomatically“{224}。
Anexcellent，creativeandsystem-creatingdiscoveryonthepartofourphilosopherofreality。Butunfortunately，ifwewanttopaydueregardtotruth，thetwomenarenothisdiscovery。Theyarethecommonpropertyofthewholeeighteenthcentury。TheyarealreadytobefoundinRousseau’sdiscourseoninequality1754，[47]where，bytheway，theyproveaxiomaticallytheoppositeofHerrDühring’scontentions。
Theyplayaleadingpartwiththeeconomists，fromAdamSmithtoRicardo;
butinthesetheyareatleastunequalinthateachofthetwocarriesonadifferenttrade——asaruleoneisahunterandtheotherafisherman——andthattheymutuallyexchangetheirproducts。Besides，throughouttheeighteenthcentury，theyserveinthemainasapurelyillustrativeexample，andHerrDühring’soriginalityconsistsonlyinthatheelevatesthismethodofillustrationintoabasicmethodforallsocialscienceandameasureofallhistoricalforms。Certainlyitwouldbeimpossibletosimplifyfurtherthe“strictlyscientificconceptionofthingsandmen“
{387}。
Inordertoestablishthefundamentalaxiomthattwopeopleandtheirwillsareabsolutelyequaltoeachotherandthatneitherlordsitovertheother，wecannotuseanycoupleofmenatrandom。Theymustbetwopeoplewhoaresothoroughlyfreefromallreality，fromallnational，economic，politicalandreligiousrelationswhicharefoundintheworld，fromallsexualandpersonalpeculiarities，thatnothingisleftofeitherofthembeyondthemereconcept:humanbeing，andthentheyareofcourse“entirelyequal“。TheyarethereforetwocompletephantomsconjuredupbythatveryHerrDühringwhoiseverywherescentinganddenouncing“spiritistic“tendencies。Thesetwophantomsareofcourseobligedtodoeverythingwhichthemanwhoconjuredthemintoexistencewantsthemtodo，andforthatveryreasonalltheirartificesareofnointerestwhatevertotherestoftheworld。
ButletuspursueHerrDühring’saxiomaticsalittlefurther。
Thetwowillscandemandnothingpositiveofeachother。Ifneverthelessoneofthemdoesso，andhasitswaybyforce，thisgivesrisetoastateofinjustice;andthisfundamentalschemeservesHerrDühringtoexplaininjustice，tyranny，servitude——inshort，thewholereprehensiblehistoryofthepast。NowRousseau，intheessayreferredtoabove，hadalreadymadeuseoftwomentoprove，likewiseaxiomatically，theveryopposite:
thatis，giventwomen，AcannotenslaveBbyforce，butonlybyputtingBintoapositioninwhichthelattercannotdowithoutA，aconceptionwhich，however，ismuchtoomaterialisticforHerrDühring。Letusputthesamethinginaslightlydifferentway。Twoshipwreckedpeoplearealoneonanisland，andformasociety。Theirwillsare，formally，entirelyequal，andthisisacknowledgedbyboth。Butfromamaterialstandpointthereisgreatinequality。Ahasdeterminationandenergy，Bisirresolute，lazyandflabby。Aisquick-witted，Bstupid。HowlongwillitbebeforeAregularlyimposeshiswillonB，firstbypersuasion，subsequentlybydintofhabit，butalwaysinformvoluntarily？Servituderemainsservitude，whetherthevoluntaryformisretainedoristrampledunderfoot。VoluntaryentryintoservitudewasknownthroughouttheMiddleAges，inGermanyuntilaftertheThirtyYears’War。[48]WhenserfdomwasabolishedinPrussiaafterthedefeatsof1806and1807，andwithittheobligationofthegraciouslordstoprovidefortheirsubjectsinneed，illnessandoldage，thepeasantspetitionedthekingaskingtobeleftinservitude——forotherwisewhowouldlookafterthemwhenindistress？
Thetwo-menschemeisthereforejustas“appropriate“toinequalityandservitudeastoequalityandmutualhelp;andinasmuchasweareforced，onpainofextinctionofsociety，toassumethattheyareheadsoffamilies，hereditaryservitudeisalsoprovidedforintheideafromthestart。
Butletthisentirematterrestforthemoment。LetusassumethatHerrDühring’saxiomaticshaveconvincedusandthatweareenthusiasticsupportersoftheentireequalityofrightsasbetweenthetwowills，of“generalhumansovereignty“{D。Ph。229}，ofthe“sovereigntyoftheindividual“
{268}——veritableverbalcolossi，comparedwithwhomStirner’s“Ego“togetherwithhisOwn[49]isameredwarf，althoughhealsocouldclaimamodestpartinthem。Well，then，wearenowallentirelyequal{200}andindependent。All？No，notquiteall。
Therearealsocasesof“permissibledependence“，butthesecanbeexplained“ongroundswhicharetobesoughtnotintheactivityofthetwowillsassuch，butinathirdsphere，asforexampleinregardtochildren，intheirinadequateself-determination“{200}。
Indeed！Thegroundsofdependencearenottobesoughtintheactivityofthetwowillsassuch！Naturallynot，fortheactivityofoneofthewillsisactuallyrestricted。Butinathirdsphere！Andwhatisthisthirdsphere？Theconcretedeterminationofone，thesubjected，willasinadequate！
Ourphilosopherofrealityhassofardepartedfromrealitythat，asagainsttheabstractterm“will“，whichisdevoidofcontent，heregardstherealcontent，thecharacteristicdeterminationofthiswill，asa“thirdsphere“。
Bethatasitmay，weareobligedtostatethattheequalityofrightshasanexception。Itdoesnotholdgoodforawillafflictedwithinadequateself-determination。RetreatNo。1。
Toproceed。
“Wherebeastandmanareblendedinonepersonthequestionmaybeasked，onbehalfofasecond，entirelyhuman，person，whetherhismodeofactionshouldbethesameasifpersonswho，sotospeak，areonlyhumanwereconfrontingeachother{201}……ourhypothesisoftwomorallyunequalpersons，oneofwhominsomesenseorotherhassomethingoftherealbeastinhischaracter，isthereforethetypicalbasicformforallrelationswhich，inaccordancewiththisdifference，maycomeabout……withinandbetweengroupsofpeople“{202}。
Andnowletthereaderseeforhimselfthepitifuldiatribethatfollowstheseclumsysubterfuges，inwhichHerrDühringturnsandtwistslikeaJesuitpriestinordertodeterminecasuisticallyhowfarthehumanmancangoagainstthebestialman，howfarhemayshowdistrustandemploystratagemsandharsh，eventerroristmeans，aswellasdeceptionagainsthim，withouthimselfdeviatinginanywayfromimmutablemorality。
So，whentwopersonsare“morallyunequal“{202}，thereagainisnolongerequality。Butthenitwassurelynotworthwhiletoconjureuptwoentirelyequalpeople，fortherearenotwopersonswhoaremorallyentirelyequal——Buttheinequalityissupposedtoconsistinthis:thatonepersonishumanandtheotherhasastreakofthebeastinhim。Itis，however，inherentinthedescentofmanfromtheanimalworldthathecanneverentirelyridhimselfofthebeast，sothatitcanalwaysbeonlyaquestionofmoreorless，ofadifferenceinthedegreeofbestialityorofhumanity。Adivisionofmankindintotwosharplydifferentiatedgroups，intohumanmenandbeastmen，intogoodandbad，sheepandgoats，isonlyfound——apartfromthephilosophyofreality——inChristianity，whichquitelogicallyalsohasitsjudgeoftheuniversetomaketheseparation。
Butwhoistobethejudgeoftheuniverseinthephilosophyofreality？
PresumablytheprocedurewillhavetobethesameasinChristianpractice，inwhichthepiouslambsthemselvesassumetheofficeofjudgeoftheuniverseinrelationtotheirmundanegoat-neighbours，anddischargethisdutywithnotorioussuccess。Thesectofphilosophersofreality，ifitevercomesintobeing，willassuredlynotyieldprecedenceinthisrespecttothepiousoftheland。This，however，isofnoconcerntous;whatinterestsusistheadmissionthat，asaresultofthemoralinequalitybetweenmen，equalityhasvanishedoncemore。RetreatNo。2。
But，again，letusproceed。
“Ifoneactsinaccordancewithtruthandscience，andtheotherinaccordancewithsomesuperstitionorprejudice，then……asarulemutualinterferencemustoccur{216}……Atacertaindegreeofincompetence，brutalityorperversityofcharacter，conflictisalwaysinevitable……ItisnotonlychildrenandmadmeninrelationtowhomtheultimateresourceisforceThecharacterofwholenaturalgroupsandculturedclassesinmankindmaymakethesubjectionoftheirwill，whichishostilebecauseofitsperversity，aninevitablenecessity，inordertoguideitbacktothetiesheldincommon。Eveninsuchcasesthealienwillisstillrecognisedashavingequalrights;buttheperversityofitsinjuriousandhostileactivityhasprovokedanequalisation，andifitissubjectedtoforce，itisonlyreapingthereactiontoitsownunrighteousness“{D。
Ph。217}。Sonotonlymoralbutalsomentalinequalityisenoughtoremovethe“entireequality“ofthetwowillsandtocallintobeingamoralitybywhichalltheinfamousdeedsofcivilisedrobberstatesagainstbackwardpeoples，downtotheRussianatrocitiesinTurkestan，canbejustified。Wheninthesummerof1873，GeneralKaulmannorderedtheTatartribeoftheYomudstobeattacked，theirtentstobeburntandtheirwivesandchildrenbutchered——“inthegoodoldCaucasianway“，astheorderwasworded——he，too，declaredthatthesubjectionofthehostile，becauseperverted，willoftheYomuds，withtheobjectofguidingitbacktothetiesheldincommon，hadbecomeaninevitablenecessity，thatthemeansemployedbyhimwerebestsuitedtothepurpose，[50]andthatwhoeverwilledtheendmustalsowillthemeans。OnlyhewasnotsocruelastoinsulttheYomudsontopofitallandtosaythatitwasjustbymassacringthemforpurposesofequalisationthathewasrecognisingtheirwillashavingequalrights。Andonceagaininthisconflictitistheelect，thosewhoclaimtobeactinginaccordancewithtruthandscienceandthereforeinthelastresortthephilosophersofreality，whohavetodecidewhataresuperstition，prejudice，brutalityandperversityofcharacterandwhenforceandsubjectionarenecessaryforpurposesofequalisation。Equality，therefore，isnow——equalisationbyforce;andthesecondwillisrecognisedbythefirsttohaveequalrightsthroughsubjection。RetreatNo。3，herealreadydegeneratingintoignominiousflight。
Incidentally，thephrasethatthealienwillisrecognisedashavingequalrightpreciselythroughequalisationbymeansofforceisonlyadistortionoftheHegeliantheory，accordingtowhichpunishmentistherightofthecriminal;
“punishmentisregardedascontainingthecriminal’srightandhencebybeingpunishedheishonouredasarationalbeing“Rechtsphilosophie，§100，Note。
Withthatwecanbreakoff。ItwouldbesuperfluoustofollowHerrDühringfurtherinhispiecemealdestructionoftheequalitywhichhesetupsoaxiomatically{224}，ofhisgeneralhumansovereignty{229}andsoon;
toobservehowhemanagestosetupsocietywithhistwomen，butinordertocreatethestateherequiresathirdbecause——toputthematterbriefly——withoutathirdnomajoritydecisionscanbearrivedat，andwithoutthese，andsoalsowithouttheruleofthemajorityovertheminority，nostatecanexist;andthenhowhegraduallysteersintocalmerwaterswhereheconstructshissocialitarianstateofthefuturewhereonefinemorningweshallhavethehonourtolookhimup。Wehavesufficientlyobservedthattheentireequalityofthetwowillsexistsonlysolongasthesetwowillswillnothing;thatassoonastheyceasetobehumanwillsassuch，andaretransformedintoreal，individualwills，intothewillsoftworealpeople，equalitycomestoanend;thatchildhood，madness，so-calledbestiality，supposedsuperstition，allegedprejudiceandassumedincapacityontheonehand，andfanciedhumanityandknowledgeoftruthandscienceontheotherhand——thatthereforeeverydifferenceinthequalityofthetwowillsandinthatoftheintelligenceassociatedwiththem——justifiesaninequalityoftreatmentwhichmaygoasfarassubjection。
Whatmorecanweask，whenHerrDühringhassodeep-rootedly，fromthegroundup，demolishedhisownedificeofequality？
ButeventhoughwehavefinishedwithHerrDühring’sshallow，botchedtreatmentoftheideaofequality，thisdoesnotmeanthatwehavefinishedwiththeideaitself，whichespeciallythankstoRousseauplayedatheoretical，andduringandsincethegreatrevolutionapracticalpoliticalrole，andeventodaystillplaysanimportantagitationalroleinthesocialistmovementofalmosteverycountry。Theestablishmentofitsscientificcontentwillalsodetermineitsvalueforproletarianagitation。
Theideathatallmen，asmen，havesomethingincommon，andthattothatextenttheyareequal，isofcourseprimeval。Butthemoderndemandforequalityissomethingentirelydifferentfromthat;thisconsistsratherindeducingfromthatcommonqualityofbeinghuman，fromthatequalityofmenasmen，aclaimtoequalpoliticalresp。socialstatusforallhumanbeings，oratleastforallcitizensofastateorallmembersofasociety。
Beforethatoriginalconceptionofrelativeequalitycouldleadtotheconclusionthatmenshouldhaveequalrightsinthestateandinsociety，beforethatconclusioncouldevenappeartobesomethingnaturalandself-evident，thousandsofyearshadtopassanddidpass。Inthemostancient，primitivecommunities，equalityofrightscouldapplyatmosttomembersofthecommunity;
women，slavesandforeignerswereexcludedfromthisequalityasamatterofcourse。AmongtheGreeksandRomanstheinequalitiesofmenwereofmuchgreaterimportancethantheirequalityinanyrespect。ItwouldnecessarilyhaveseemedinsanitytotheancientsthatGreeksandbarbarians，freemenandslaves，citizensandperegrines，RomancitizensandRomansubjectstouseacomprehensivetermshouldhaveaclaimtoequalpoliticalstatus。
UndertheRomanEmpireallthesedistinctionsgraduallydisappeared，exceptthedistinctionbetweenfreemenandslaves，andinthiswaytherearose，forthefreemenatleast，thatequalityasbetweenprivateindividualsonthebasisofwhichRomanlawdeveloped——thecompletestelaborationoflawbasedonprivatepropertywhichweknow。Butsolongastheantithesisbetweenfreemenandslavesexisted，therecouldbenotalkofdrawinglegalconclusionsfromgeneralequalityofmen;wesawthisevenrecently，intheslave-owningstatesoftheNorthAmericanUnion。
Christianityknewonlyonepointinwhichallmenwereequal:thatallwereequallyborninoriginalsin——whichcorrespondedperfectlytoitscharacterasthereligionoftheslavesandtheoppressed。
Apartfromthisitrecognised，atmost，theequalityoftheelect，whichhoweverwasonlystressedattheverybeginning。Thetracesofcommunityofgoodswhicharealsofoundintheearlystagesofthenewreligioncanbeascribedtosolidarityamongtheproscribedratherthantorealequalitarianideas。WithinaveryshorttimetheestablishmentofthedistinctionbetweenpriestsandlaymenputanendeventothisincipientChristianequality——
TheoverrunningofWesternEuropebytheGermansabolishedforcenturiesallideasofequality，throughthegradualbuildingupofsuchacomplicatedsocialandpoliticalhierarchyashadneverexistedbefore。ButatthesametimetheinvasiondrewWesternandCentralEuropeintothecourseofhistoricaldevelopment，createdforthefirsttimeacompactculturalarea，andwithinthisareaalsoforthefirsttimeasystemofpredominantlynationalstatesexertingmutualinfluenceoneachotherandmutuallyholdingeachotherincheck。Therebyitpreparedthegroundonwhichalonethequestionoftheequalstatusofmen，oftherightsofman，couldatalaterperiodberaised。
ThefeudalMiddleAgesalsodevelopedintheirwombtheclasswhichwasdestined，inthecourseofitsfurtherdevelopment，tobecomethestandard-bearerofthemoderndemandforequality:thebourgeoisie。
Originallyitselfafeudalestate，thebourgeoisiedevelopedthepredominantlyhandicraftindustryandtheexchangeofproductswithinfeudalsocietytoarelativelyhighlevel，whenattheendofthefifteenthcenturythegreatmaritimediscoveriesopenedtoitanewcareerofwiderscope。TradebeyondtheconfinesofEurope，whichhadpreviouslybeencarriedononlybetweenItalyandtheLevant，wasnowextendedtoAmericaandIndia，andsoonsurpassedinimportanceboththemutualexchangebetweenthevariousEuropeancountriesandtheinternaltradewithineachindividualcountry。
AmericangoldandsilverfloodedEuropeandforceditswaylikeadisintegratingelementintoeveryfissure，rentandporeoffeudalsociety。Handicraftindustrycouldnolongersatisfytherisingdemand，intheleadingindustriesofthemostadvancedcountriesitwasreplacedbymanufacture。
Butthismightyrevolutionintheconditionsoftheeconomiclifeofsocietywas，however，notfollowedbyanyimmediatecorrespondingchangeinitspoliticalstructure。Thepoliticalorderremainedfeudal，whilesocietybecamemoreandmorebourgeois。Tradeonalargescale，thatistosay，particularlyinternationaland，evenmoreso，worldtrade，requiresfreeownersofcommoditieswhoareunrestrictedintheirmovementsandassuchenjoyequalrights;whomayexchangetheircommoditiesonthebasisoflawsthatareequalforthemall，atleastineachparticularplace。
Thetransitionfromhandicrafttomanufacturepresupposestheexistenceofanumberoffreeworkers——freeontheonehandfromthefettersoftheguildandontheotherfromthemeanswherebytheycouldthemselvesutilisetheirlabour-power——workerswhocancontractwiththemanufacturerforthehireoftheirlabour-power，andhence，aspartiestothecontract，haverightsequaltohis。Andfinallytheequalityandequalstatusofallhumanlabour，becauseandinsofarasitishumanlabour，founditsunconsciousbutclearestexpressioninthelawofvalueofmodernbourgeoispoliticaleconomy，accordingtowhichthevalueofacommodityismeasuredbythesociallynecessarylabourembodiedinit。*3——However，whereeconomicrelationsrequiredfreedomandequalityofrights，thepoliticalsystemopposedthemateverystepwithguildrestrictionsandspecialprivileges。Localprivileges，differentialduties，exceptionallawsofallkindsaffectedintradenotonlyforeignersandpeoplelivinginthecolonies，butoftenenoughalsowholecategoriesofthenationalsofthecountryconcerned;everywhereandeveranewtheprivilegesoftheguildsbarredthedevelopmentofmanufacture。Nowherewastheroadclearandthechancesequalforthebourgeoiscompetitors——andyetthatthisbesowastheprimeandevermorepressingdemand。
Thedemandforliberationfromfeudalfettersandtheestablishmentofequalityofrightsbytheabolitionoffeudalinequalitieswasboundsoontoassumewiderdimensions，oncetheeconomicadvanceofsocietyhadplaceditontheorderoftheday。Ifitwasraisedintheinterestsofindustryandtrade，itwasalsonecessarytodemandthesameequalityofrightsforthegreatmassofthepeasantrywho，ineverydegreeofbondage，fromtotalserfdomonwards，werecompelledtogivethegreaterpartoftheirlabour-timetotheirgraciousfeudallordwithoutcompensationandinadditiontorenderinnumerableotherduestohimandtothestate。Ontheotherhand，itwasinevitablethatademandshouldalsobemadefortheabolitionofthefeudalprivileges，ofthefreedomfromtaxationofthenobility，ofthepoliticalprivilegesoftheseparateestates。AndaspeoplewerenolongerlivinginaworldempiresuchastheRomanEmpirehadbeen，butinasystemofindependentstatesdealingwitheachotheronanequalfootingandatapproximatelythesamelevelofbourgeoisdevelopment，itwasamatterofcoursethatthedemandforequalityshouldassumeageneralcharacterreachingoutbeyondtheindividualstate，thatfreedomandequalityshouldbeproclaimedhumanrightsAnditissignificantofthespecificallybourgeoischaracterofthesehumanrightsthattheAmericanconstitution，[51]thefirsttorecognisetherightsofman，inthesamebreathconfirmstheslaveryofthecolouredracesexistinginAmerica:classprivilegesareproscribed，raceprivilegessanctified。
Asiswellknown，however，fromthemomentwhenthebourgeoisieemergedfromfeudalburgherdom，whenthisestateoftheMiddleAgesdevelopedintoamodernclass，itwasalwaysandinevitablyaccompaniedbyitsshadow，theproletariat。Andinthesamewaybourgeoisdemandsforequalitywereaccompaniedbyproletariandemandsforequality。Fromthemomentwhenthebourgeoisdemandfortheabolitionofclassprivilegeswasputforward，alongsideitappearedtheproletariandemandfortheabolitionoftheclassesthemselves——atfirstinreligiousform，leaningtowardsprimitiveChristianity，andlaterdrawingsupportfromthebourgeoisequalitariantheoriesthemselves。Theproletarianstookthebourgeoisieatitsword:
equalitymustnotbemerelyapparent，mustnotapplymerelytothesphereofthestate，butmustalsobereal，mustalsobeextendedtothesocial，economicsphere。AndespeciallysincetheFrenchbourgeoisie，fromthegreatrevolutionon，broughtcivilequalitytotheforefront，theFrenchproletariathasansweredblowforblowwiththedemandforsocial，economicequality，andequalityhasbecomethebattle-cryparticularlyoftheFrenchproletariat。
Thedemandforequalityinthemouthoftheproletariathasthereforeadoublemeaning。Itiseither——aswasthecaseespeciallyattheverystart，forexampleinthePeasantWar——thespontaneousreactionagainstthecryingsocialinequalities，againstthecontrastbetweenrichandpoor，thefeudallordsandtheirserfs，thesurfeitersandthestarving;assuchitissimplyanexpressionoftherevolutionaryinstinct，andfindsitsjustificationinthat，andinthatonly。Or，ontheotherhand，thisdemandhasarisenasareactionagainstthebourgeoisdemandforequality，drawingmoreorlesscorrectandmorefar-reachingdemandsfromthisbourgeoisdemand，andservingasanagitationalmeansinordertostiruptheworkersagainstthecapitalistswiththeaidofthecapitalists’ownassertions;
andinthiscaseitstandsorfallswithbourgeoisequalityitself。Inbothcasestherealcontentoftheproletariandemandforequalityisthedemandfortheabolitionofclasses。Anydemandforequalitywhichgoesbeyondthat，ofnecessitypassesintoabsurdity。Wehavegivenexamplesofthis，andshallfindenoughadditionaloneswhenwecometoHerrDühring’sfantasiesofthefuture。
Theideaofequality，bothinitsbourgeoisandinitsproletarianform，isthereforeitselfahistoricalproduct，thecreationofwhichrequireddefinitehistoricalconditionsthatinturnthemselvespresupposealongprevioushistory。Itisthereforeanythingbutaneternaltruth。Andiftodayitistakenforgrantedbythegeneralpublic——inonesenseoranother——if，asMarxsays，it“alreadypossessesthefixityofapopularprejudice“，[52]thisisnottheeffectofitsaxiomatictruth，buttheeffectofthegeneraldiffusionandthecontinuedappropriatenessoftheideasoftheeighteenthcentury。IfthereforeHerrDühringisablewithoutmoreadotolethisfamoustwomenconducttheireconomicrelationsonthebasisofequality，thisissobecauseitseemsquitenaturaltopopularprejudice。AndinfactHerrDühringcallshisphilosophynaturalbecauseitisderivedsolelyfromthingswhichseemtohimquitenatural。Butwhytheyseemnaturaltohimisaquestionwhichofcoursehedoesnotask。
XI。
MORALITYANDLAW。
FREEDOMANDNECESSITY“Inthesphereofpoliticsandlawtheprinciplesexpoundedinthiscoursearebasedonthemostexhaustivespecialisedstudies。Itistherefore……necessarytoproceedfromthefactthatwhatwehavehere……isaconsistentexpositionoftheconclusionsreachedinthesphereoflegalandpoliticalscience。JurisprudencewasmyoriginalspecialsubjectandInotonlydevotedtoitthecustomarythreeyearsoftheoreticaluniversitypreparation，butalso，duringafurtherthreeyearsofcourtpracticecontinuedtostudyitparticularlywithaviewtothedeepeningofitsscientificcontent……Andcertainlythecritiqueofprivatelawrelationshipsandthecorrespondinglegalinadequaciescouldnothavebeenputforwardwithsuchconfidencebuttheconsciousnessthatalltheweaknessesofthesubjectwereknowntoitaswellasitsstrongersides“{D。Ph。537}。
Amanwhoisjustifiedinsayingthisofhimselfmustfromtheoutsetinspireconfidence，especiallyincontrastwiththe“one-time，admittedlyneglected，legalstudiesofHerrMarx“{D。K。
G。503}。
Andforthatreasonitmustsurpriseustofindthatthecritiqueofprivatelawrelationshipswhichstepsontothestagewithsuchconfidenceisrestrictedtotellingusthat“thescientificcharacterofjurisprudencehasnotdevelopedfar“{D。
Ph。222-23}，thatpositivecivillawisinjusticeinthatitsanctionspropertybasedonforce{219}andthatthe“naturalbasis“ofcriminallawisrevenge{224}，——anassertionofwhichinanycasetheonlythingnewisitsmysticalwrappingof“naturalbasis“。Theconclusionsinpoliticalsciencearelimitedtothetransactionsofthefamousthreemen，oneofwhomhashithertohelddowntheothersbyforce，withHerrDühringinallseriousnessconductinganinvestigationintowhetheritwasthesecondorthethirdwhofirstintroducedviolenceandsubjection{265-66}。
However，letusgoalittlemoredeeplyintoourconfidentjurist’smostexhaustivespecialisedstudiesandhiseruditiondeepenedbythreeyearsofcourtpractice。
HerrDühringtellsusofLassallethathewasprosecutedfor“incitingtoanattempttostealacash-box“
butthat“nosentencebythecourtcouldberecorded，astheso-calledacquittalforlackofevidence，whichwasthenstillpossible，supervened……thishalfacquittal“{D。K。G。510}。
TheLassallecasereferredtoherecameupinthesummerof1848，beforetheassizesatCologne，[53]where，asinalmostthewholeoftheRhineProvince，Frenchcriminallawwasinforce。Prussianlawhadbeenintroducedbywayofexceptiononlyforpoliticaloffencesandcrimes，butalreadyinApril1848thisexceptionalapplicationhadbeenabrogatedbyCamphausen。FrenchlawhasnoknowledgewhateveroftheloosePrussianlegalcategoryof“inciting“toacrime，letaloneincitingtoanattempttocommitacrime。Itknowsonlyinstigationtocrime，andthis，tobepunishable，musthavebeencommitted“bymeansofgifts，promises，threats，abuseofauthorityorofpower，culpableincitementsorartifices“Codepenal，art。60。[54]TheMinistryofState，steepedinPrussianlaw，overlooked，justasHerrDühringdid，theessentialdifferencebetweenthesharplydefinedFrenchcodeandthevagueindefinitenessofPrussianlawand，subjectingLassalletoatendentiouslyconductedtrial，egregiouslyfailedinthecase。OnlyapersonwhoiscompletelyignorantofmodernFrenchlawcanventuretoassertthatFrenchcriminalprocedurepermittedthePrussianlegalformofanacquittalforlackofevidence，thishalfacquittal;
criminalprocedureunderFrenchlawprovidesonlyforconvictionoracquittal，nothingbetween。
AndsoweareforcedtosaythatHerrDühringwouldcertainlynothavebeenabletoperpetratethis“historicaldepictioninthegrandstyle“{556}againstLassalleifhehadeverhadtheCodeNapoléon[55]inhishands。WemustthereforestateasafactthatmodernFrenchlaw，theonlymoderncivilcode，whichrestsonthesocialachievementsofthegreatFrenchRevolutionandtranslatesthemintolegalform，iscompletelyunknowntoHerrDühring。
Inanotherplace，inthecriticismoftrialbyjurywithmajoritydecisionwhichwasadoptedthroughouttheContinentinaccordancewiththeFrenchmodel，wearetaught:
“Yes，itwillevenbepossibletofamiliariseoneselfwiththeidea，whichforthatmatterisnotwithoutprecedentinhistory，thataconvictionwhereopinionisdividedshouldbeoneoftheimpossibleinstitutionsinaperfectcommunity{D。Ph。402}……Thisimportantandprofoundlyintelligentmodeofthought，however，asalreadyindicatedabove，mustseemunsuitableforthetraditionalforms，becauseitistoogoodforthem{D。Ph。403}。
Onceagain，HerrDühringisignorantofthefactthatunderEnglishcommonlaw，i。e。，theunwrittenlawofcustomwhichhasbeeninforcesincetimeimmemorial，certainlyatleastsincethefourteenthcentury，unanimityofthejuryisabsolutelyessential，notonlyforconvictionsincriminalcasesbutalsoforjudgmentsincivilsuits。Thustheimportantandprofoundlyintelligentmodeofthought，whichaccordingtoHerrDühringistoogoodforthepresent-dayworld，hadhadlegalvalidityinEnglandasfarbackasthedarkestMiddleAges，andfromEnglanditwasbroughttoIreland，theUnitedStatesofAmericaandalltheEnglishcolonies。AndyetthemostexhaustivespecialisedstudiesfailedtorevealtoHerrDühringeventhefaintestwhisperofallthis！TheareainwhichaunanimousverdictbythejuryisrequiredisthereforenotonlyinfinitelygreaterthanthetinyareawherePrussianlawisinforce，butisalsomoreextensivethanalltheareastakentogetherinwhichjuriesdecidebymajorityvote。NotonlyisFrenchlaw，theonlymodernlaw，totallyunknowntoHerrDühring;
heisequallyignorantoftheonlyGermaniclawwhichhasdevelopedindependentlyofRomanauthorityuptothepresentdayandspreadtoallpartsoftheworld——Englishlaw。AndwhydoesHerrDühringknownothingofit？
BecausetheEnglishbrandofthejuridicalmodeofthought“wouldanyhownotbeabletostandupagainsttheschoolinginthepureconceptsoftheclassicalRomanjuristsgivenonGermansoil“{D。
K。G。456}，saysHerrDühring;andhesaysfurther:
“whatistheEnglish-speakingworldwithitschildishhodgepodgelanguageascomparedwithournaturallanguagestructure？”{D。Ph。315。}
TowhichwemightanswerwithSpinoza:Ignorantianonestargumentum。Ignoranceisnoargument。[56]
WecanaccordinglycometonootherfinalconclusionthanthatHerrDühring’smostexhaustivespecialisedstudiesconsistedinhisabsorptionforthreeyearsinthetheoreticalstudyoftheCorpusjuris，[57]andforafurtherthreeyearsinthepracticalstudyofthenoblePrussianlaw。Thatiscertainlyquitemeritorious，andwouldbeampleforareallyrespectabledistrictjudgeorlawyerinoldPrussia。Butwhenapersonundertakestocomposealegalphilosophyforallworldsandallages，heshouldatleasthavesomedegreeofacquaintancewithlegalsystemslikethoseoftheFrench，EnglishandAmericans，nationswhichhaveplayedquiteadifferentroleinhistoryfromthatplayedbythelittlecornerofGermanyinwhichPrussianlawflourishes。Butletusfollowhimfurther。
“Thevariegatedmedleyoflocal，provincialandnationallaws，whichruncountertooneanotherinthemostvariousdirections，inveryarbitraryfashion，sometimesascommonlaw，sometimesaswrittenlaw，oftencloakingthemostimportantissuesinapurelystatutoryform——thispattern-bookofdisorderandcontradiction，inwhichparticularpointsoverridegeneralprinciples，andthenattimesgeneralprinciplesoverrideparticularpoints——isreallynotcalculatedtoenableanyonetoformaclearconceptionofjurisprudence“{278}。
Butwheredoesthisconfusionexist？Onceagain，withintheareawherePrussianlawholdssway，wherealongside，overorunderthislawthereareprovinciallawsandlocalstatutes，hereandtherealsocommonlawandothertrash，rangingthroughthemostdiversedegreesofrelativevalidityandelicitingfromallpracticingjuriststhatscreamforhelpwhichHerrDühringheresosympatheticallyechoes。HeneednotevengooutsidehisbelovedPrussia——heneedonlycomeasfarastheRhinetoconvincehimselfthatallthisceasedtobeanissuethereforthelastseventyyears——nottospeakofothercivilisedcountries，wheretheseantiquatedconditionshavelongsincebeenabolished。
Further:
“Inalessbluntformthenaturalresponsibilityofindividualsisscreenedbymeansofsecretandthereforeanonymouscollectivedecisionsandactionsonthepartofcollegiaorotherinstitutionsofpublicauthority，whichmaskthepersonalshareofeachseparatemember“{218}。
Andinanotherpassage:
“Inourpresentsituationitwillberegardedasanastonishingandextremelysterndemandifoneopposestheglossingoverandcoveringupofindividualresponsibilitythroughthemediumofcollectivebodies“
{402}。
PerhapsHerrDühringwillregarditasanastonishingpieceofinformationwhenwetellhimthatinthesphereofEnglishlaweachmemberofajudicialbenchhastogivehisdecisionseparatelyandinopencourt，statingthegroundsonwhichitisbased;thatadministrativecollectivebodieswhicharenotelectedanddonottransactbusinessorvotepubliclyareessentiallyaPrussianinstitutionandareunknowninmostothercountries，andthatthereforehisdemandcanberegardedasastonishingandextremelysternonly——inPrussia。
Similarly，hiscomplaintsaboutthecompulsoryintroductionofreligiouspracticesinbirth，marriage，deathandburial{407}applytoPrussiaaloneofallthegreatercivilisedcountries，andsincetheadoptionofcivilregistrationtheynolongerapplyeventhere。[58]WhatHerrDühringcanaccomplishonlybymeansofafuture“socialitarian“
stateofthings，evenBismarckhasmeanwhilemanagedbymeansofasimplelaw——Itisjustthesamewithhis“plaintovertheinadequatepreparationofjuristsfortheirprofession“{501}，aplaintwhichcouldbeextendedtocoverthe“administrativeofficials“{503}——itisaspecificallyPrussianjeremiad;andevenhishatredoftheJews，whichhecarriestoridiculousextremesandexhibitsoneverypossibleoccasion，isafeaturewhichifnotspecificallyPrussianisyetspecifictotheregioneastoftheElbe。
ThatsamephilosopherofrealitywhohasasovereigncontemptforallprejudicesandsuperstitionsishimselfsodeeplyimmersedinpersonalcrotchetsthathecallsthepopularprejudiceagainsttheJews，inheritedfromthebigotryoftheMiddleAges，a“naturaljudgment“basedon“naturalgrounds“，andherisestothepyramidalheightsoftheassertionthat“socialismistheonlypowerwhichcanopposepopulationconditionswitharatherstrongJewishadmixture“{D。Ph。393}。ConditionswithaJewishadmixture！What“natural“German！
Enoughofthis。Thegrandiloquentboastsoflegaleruditionhaveastheirbasis——atbest——onlythemostcommonplaceprofessionalknowledgeofquiteanordinaryjuristofoldPrussia。Thesphereoflegalandpoliticalscience，theattainmentsinwhichHerrDühringconsistentlyexpounds，“coincides“withtheareawherePrussianlawholdssway。ApartfromtheRomanlaw，withwhicheveryjuristisfairlyfamiliar，noweveninEngland，hisknowledgeoflawisconfinedwhollyandentirelytoPrussianlaw——
thatlegalcodeofanenlightenedpatriarchaldespotismwhichiswritteninaGermansuchasHerrDühringappearstohavebeentrainedin，andwhich，withitsmoralglosses，itsjuristicvaguenessandinconsistency，itscaningasameansoftortureandpunishment，belongsentirelytothepre-revolutionaryepoch。WhateverexistsbeyondthisHerrDühringregardsasevil[Matthew5:37——Ed。]——bothmoderncivilFrenchlaw，andEnglishlawwithitsquitepeculiardevelopmentanditssafeguardingofpersonalliberty，unknownanywhereontheContinent。Thephilosophywhich“doesnotallowthevalidityofanymerelyapparenthorizon，butinitspowerfullyrevolutionisingmovementunfoldsallearthsandheavensofouterandinnernature“{430}——hasasitsrealhorizon——theboundariesofthesixeasternprovincesofoldPrussia，[59]andinadditionperhapsthefewotherpatchesoflandwherethenoblePrussianlawholdssway;andbeyondthishorizonitunfoldsneitherearthsnorheavens，neitherouternorinnernature，butonlyapictureofthecrassestignoranceofwhatishappeningintherestoftheworld。
Itishardtodealwithmoralityandlawwithoutcomingupagainstthequestionofso-calledfreewill，ofman’smentalresponsibility，oftherelationbetweennecessityandfreedom。Andthephilosophyofrealityalsohasnotonlyonebuteventwosolutionsofthisproblem。
“Allfalsetheoriesoffreedommustbereplacedby，whatweknowfromexperienceisthenatureoftherelationbetweenrationaljudgmentontheonehandandinstinctiveimpulsesontheother，arelationwhichsotospeakunitesthemintoaresultantforce。Thefundamentalfactsofthisformofdynamicsmustbedrawnfromobservation，andforthecalculationinadvanceofeventswhichhavenotyetoccurredmustalsobeestimated，ascloselyaspossible，ingeneralbothastotheirnatureandmagnitude。
Inthismannerthesillydelusionsofinnerfreedom，whichpeoplehavechewedonandfedonforthousandsofyears，arenotonlyclearedawayinthoroughgoingfashion，butarereplacedbysomethingpositive，whichcanbemadeuseofforthepracticalregulationoflife“{187}。
Viewedthusfreedomconsistsinrationaljudgmentpullingamantotherightwhileirrationalimpulsespullhimtotheleft，andinthisparallelogramofforcestheactualmovementproceedsinthedirectionofthediagonal。
Freedomisthereforethemeanbetweenjudgmentandimpulse，reasonandunreason，anditsdegreeineachindividualcasecanbedeterminedonthebasisofexperiencebya“personalequation“，touseanastronomicalexpression。[60]Butafewpageslateronwefind:
“Webasemoralresponsibilityonfreedom，whichhowevermeansnothingmoretousthansusceptibilitytoconsciousmotivesinaccordancewithournaturalandacquiredintelligence。Allsuchmotivesoperatewiththeinevitabilityofnaturallaw，notwithstandinganawarenessofpossiblecontraryactions;butitispreciselyonthisunavoidablecompulsionthatwerelywhenweapplythemorallevers“{218}。
Thisseconddefinitionoffreedom，whichquiteunceremoniouslygivesaknock-outblowtothefirstone，isagainnothingbutanextremevulgarisationoftheHegelianconception。Hegelwasthefirsttostatecorrectlytherelationbetweenfreedomandnecessity。Tohim，freedomistheinsightintonecessity{dieEinsichtindieNotwendigheit}。“Necessityisblindonlyinsofarasitisnotunderstood[begriffen]。”
Freedomdoesnotconsistinanydreamt-ofindependencefromnaturallaws，butintheknowledgeoftheselaws，andinthepossibilitythisgivesofsystematicallymakingthemworktowardsdefiniteends。Thisholdsgoodinrelationbothtothelawsofexternalnatureandtothosewhichgovernthebodilyandmentalexistenceofmenthemselves——twoclassesoflawswhichwecanseparatefromeachotheratmostonlyinthoughtbutnotinreality。Freedomofthewillthereforemeansnothingbutthecapacitytomakedecisionswithknowledgeofthesubject。Thereforethefreeraman’sjudgmentisinrelationtoadefinitequestion，thegreateristhenecessitywithwhichthecontentofthisjudgmentwillbedetermined;
whiletheuncertainty，foundedonignorance，whichseemstomakeanarbitrarychoiceamongmanydifferentandconflictingpossibledecisions，showspreciselybythisthatitisnotfree，thatitiscontrolledbytheveryobjectitshoulditselfcontrol。Freedomthereforeconsistsinthecontroloverourselvesandoverexternalnature，acontrolfoundedonknowledgeofnaturalnecessity;
itisthereforenecessarilyaproductofhistoricaldevelopment。Thefirstmenwhoseparatedthemselvesfromtheanimalkingdomwereinallessentialsasunfreeastheanimalsthemselves，buteachstepforwardinthefieldofculturewasasteptowardsfreedom。Onthethresholdofhumanhistorystandsthediscoverythatmechanicalmotioncanbetransformedintoheat:
theproductionoffirebyfriction;atthecloseofthedevelopmentsofargonethroughstandsthediscoverythatheatcanbetransformedintomechanicalmotion:thesteam-engine——And，inspiteofthegiganticliberatingrevolutioninthesocialworldwhichthesteam-engineiscarryingthrough，andwhichisnotyethalfcompleted，itisbeyondalldoubtthatthegenerationoffirebyfrictionhashadanevengreatereffectontheliberationofmankind。Forthegenerationoffirebyfrictiongavemanforthefirsttimecontroloveroneoftheforcesofnature，andtherebyseparatedhimforeverfromtheanimalkingdom。Thesteam-enginewillneverbringaboutsuchamightyleapforwardinhumandevelopment，howeverimportantitmayseeminoureyesasrepresentingallthoseimmenseproductiveforcesdependentonit——forceswhichalonemakepossibleastateofsocietyinwhichtherearenolongerclassdistinctionsoranxietyoverthemeansofsubsistencefortheindividual，andinwhichforthefirsttimetherecanbetalkofrealhumanfreedom，ofanexistenceinharmonywiththelawsofnaturethathavebecomeknown。Buthowyoungthewholeofhumanhistorystillis，andhowridiculousitwouldbetoattempttoascribeanyabsolutevaliditytoourpresentviews，isevidentfromthesimplefactthatallpasthistorycanbecharacterisedasthehistoryoftheepochfromthepracticaldiscoveryofthetransformationofmechanicalmotionintoheatuptothatofthetransformationofheatintomechanicalmotion。
True，HerrDühring’streatmentofhistoryisdifferent。Ingeneral，beingarecordoferror，ignoranceandbarbarity，ofviolenceandsubjugation，historyisarepulsiveobjecttothephilosophyofreality;
butconsideredindetailitisdividedintotwogreatperiods，namely1
fromtheself-equalstateofmatteruptotheFrenchRevolution，2fromtheFrenchRevolutionuptoHerrDühring;thenineteenthcenturyremains“stillinessencereactionary，indeedfromtheintellectualstandpointevenmoreso“！“thantheeighteenth“。Nevertheless，itbearssocialisminitswomb，andtherewith“thegermofamightierregenerationthanwasfancied“！“bytheforerunnersandtheheroesoftheFrenchRevolution“
{D。Ph。301}。
Thephilosophyofreality’scontemptforallpasthistoryisjustifiedasfollows:
“Thefewthousandyears，thehistoricalretrospectionofwhichhasbeenfacilitatedbyoriginaldocuments，are，togetherwiththeconstitutionofmankindsofar，oflittlesignificancewhenonethinksofthesuccessionofthousandsofyearswhicharestilltocome……Thehumanraceasawholeisstillveryyoung，andwhenintimetocomescientificretrospectionhastensofthousandsinsteadofthousandsofyearstoreckonwith，theintellectuallyimmaturechildhoodofourinstitutionsbecomesaself-evidentpremiseundisputedinrelationtoourepoch，whichwillthenbereveredashoaryantiquity“{302}。
Withoutdwellingonthereally“naturallanguagestructure“ofthelastsentence，weshallnoteonlytwopoints。Firstly，thatthis“hoaryantiquity“
willinanycaseremainahistoricalepochofthegreatestinterestforallfuturegenerations，becauseitformsthebasisofallsubsequenthigherdevelopment，becauseithasforitsstarting-pointthemouldingofmanfromtheanimalkingdom，andforitscontenttheovercomingofobstaclessuchaswillneveragainconfrontassociatedmankindofthefuture。Andsecondly，thatthecloseofthishoaryantiquity——incontrasttowhichthefutureperiodsofhistory，whichwillnolongerbekeptbackbythesedifficultiesandobstacles，holdthepromiseofquiteotherscientific，technicalandsocialachievements——isinanycaseaverystrangemomenttochoosetolaydownthelawforthesethousandsofyearsthataretocome，intheformoffinalandultimatetruths，immutabletruthsanddeep-rootedconceptionsdiscoveredonthebasisoftheintellectuallyimmaturechildhoodofoursoextremely“backward“and“retrogressive“century。OnlyaRichardWagnerinphilosophy——butwithoutWagner’stalents——couldfailtoseethatallthedepreciatoryepithetsslungatprevioushistoricaldevelopmentremainstickingalsoonwhatisclaimedtobeitsfinaloutcome——theso-calledphilosophyofreality。
Oneofthemostsignificantmorselsofthenewdeep-rootedscience{219}isthesectiononindividualisationandincreasingthevalueoflife。
Inthissectionoracularcommonplacesbubbleupandgushforthinanirresistibletorrentforthreefullchapters。Unfortunatelywemustlimitourselvestoafewshortsamples。
“Thedeeperessenceofallsensationandthereforeofallsubjectiveformsofliferestsonthedifferencebetweenstates……Butforafull“！“lifeitcanbeshownwithoutmuchtrouble“！“thatitsappreciationisheightenedandthedecisivestimuliaredeveloped，notbypersistenceinaparticularstate，butbyatransitionfromonesituationinlifetoanother……Theapproximatelyself-equalstatewhichissotospeakinpermanentinertiaandasitwerecontinuesinthesamepositionofequilibrium，whateveritsnaturemaybe，hasbutlittlesignificanceforthetestingofexistence……Habituationandsotospeakinurementmakesitsomethingofabsoluteindifferenceandunconcern，somethingwhichisnotverydistinctfromdeadness。Atmostthetormentofboredomalsoentersintoitasakindofnegativelifeimpulse……
Alifeofstagnationextinguishesallpassionandallinterestinexistence，bothforindividualsandforpeoples。Butitisourlawofdifferencethroughwhichallthesephenomenabecomeexplicable“{D。Ph。362-63}。
TherapiditywithwhichHerrDühringestablisheshisfromthegrounduporiginalconclusionspassesallbelief。Thecommonplacethatthecontinuedstimulationofthesamenerveorthecontinuationofthesamestimulusfatigueseachnerveoreachnervoussystem，andthatthereforeinanormalconditionnervestimulimustbeinterruptedandvaried——whichforyearshasbeenstatedineverytextbookofphysiologyandisknowntoeveryphilistinefromhisownexperience——isfirsttranslatedintothelanguageofthephilosophyofreality。Nosoonerhasthisplatitudewhichisasoldasthehills，beentranslatedintothemysteriousformulathatthedeeperessenceofallsensationrestsonthedifferencebetweenstates，thanitisfurthertransformedinto“ourlawofdifference“。Andthislawofdifferencemakes“absolutelyexplicable“awholeseriesofphenomenawhichinturnarenothingmorethanillustrationsandexamplesofthepleasantnessofvarietyandwhichrequirenoexplanationwhateverevenforthemostcommonphilistineunderstandingandgainnotthebreadthofanatominclaritybyreferencetothisallegedlawofdifference。
Butthisfarfromexhauststhedeep-rootednessof“ourlawofdifference“{219}。
“Thesequenceofagesinlife，andtheemergenceofdifferentconditionsoflifeboundupwithit，furnishaveryobviousexamplewithwhichtoillustrateourprincipleofdifference……Child，boy，youthandmanexperiencetheintensityoftheirappreciationoflifeateachstagenotsomuchwhenthestateinwhichtheyfindthemselveshasalreadybecomefixed，asintheperiodsoftransitionfromonetoanother“{363}。
Eventhisisnotenough。
“Ourlawofdifferencecanbegivenanevenmoreextendedapplicationifwetakeintoconsiderationthefactthatarepetitionofwhathasalreadybeentriedordonehasnoattraction“{365}。
Andnowthereadercanhimselfimaginetheoraculartwaddleforwhichsentencesofthedepthanddeep-rootednessofthosecitedformthestarting-point。
HerrDühringmaywellshouttriumphantlyattheendofhisbook:
“Thelawofdifferencehasbecomedecisivebothintheoryandinpracticefortheappraisementandheighteningofthevalueoflife！“{558}
ThisislikewisetrueofHerrDühring’sappraisementoftheintellectualvalueofhispublic:hemustbelievethatitiscomposedofsheerassesorphilistines。
Wearefurthergiventhefollowingextremelypracticalrulesoflife:
“Themethodwherebytotalinterestinlifecanbekeptactive“afittingtaskforphilistinesandthosewhowanttobecomesuch！“consistsinallowingtheparticularandsotospeakelementaryinterests，ofwhichthetotalinterestiscomposed，todeveloporsucceedeachotherinaccordancewithnaturalperiodsoftime。Simultaneously，forthesamestatethesuccessionofstagesmaybemadeuseofbyreplacingthelowerandmoreeasilysatisfiedstimulibyhigherandmorepermanentlyeffectiveexcitationsinordertoavoidtheoccurrenceofanygapsthatareentirelydevoidofinterest。
However，itwillbenecessarytoensurethatthenaturaltensionsorthosearisinginthenormalcourseofsocialexistencearenotarbitrarilyaccumulatedorforcedor——theoppositeperversion——satisfiedbythelighteststimulation，andthuspreventedfromdevelopingawantwhichiscapableofgratification。
Inthisasinothercasesthemaintenanceofthenaturalrhythmisthepreconditionofallharmoniousandagreeablemovement。Norshouldanyonesetbeforehimselftheinsolubleproblemoftryingtoprolongthestimuliofanysituationbeyondtheperiodallottedthembynatureorbythecircumstances“
{375}——andsoon。
Thesimpletonwhotakesashisruleforthe“testingoflife“thesesolemnoraclesofphilistinepedantrysubtilisingovertheshallowestplatitudeswillcertainlynothavetocomplainof“gapsentirelydevoidofinterest“。
Itwilltakehimallhistimetopreparehispleasuresandgetthemintherightorder，sothathewillnothaveamomentlefttoenjoythem。
Weshouldtryoutlife，fulllife。ThereareonlytwothingswhichHerrDühringprohibitsus:
first“theuncleanlinessofindulgingintobacco“，andsecondlydrinksandfoodswhich“havepropertiesthatrousedisgustorareingeneralobnoxioustothemorerefinedfeelings“{261}。
Inhiscourseofpoliticaleconomy，however，HerrDühringwritessuchadithyrambonthedistillingofspiritsthatitisimpossiblethatheshouldincludespirituousliquorinthiscategory;wearethereforeforcedtoconcludethathisprohibitioncoversonlywineandbeer。Hehasonlytoprohibitmeat，too，andthenhewillhaveraisedthephilosophyofrealitytothesameheightasthatonwhichthelateGustavStruvemovedwithsuchgreatsuccess——theheightofpurechildishness。
Fortherest，HerrDühringmightbeslightlymoreliberalinregardtospirituousliquors。Amanwho，byhisownadmissionstillcannotfindthebridgefromthestatictothedynamic{D。Ph。80}hassurelyeveryreasontobeindulgentinjudgingsomepoordevilwhohasforoncedippedtoodeepinhisglassandasaresultalsoseeksinvainthebridgefromthedynamictothestatic。
XII。
DIALECTICS。
QUANTITYANDQUALITY“Thefirstandmostimportantprincipleofthebasiclogicalpropertiesofbeingreferstotheexclusionofcontradiction。Contradictionisacategorywhichcanonlyappertaintoacombinationofthoughts，butnottoreality。Therearenocontradictionsinthings，or，toputitanotherway，contradictionacceptedasrealityisitselftheapexofabsurdity{D。Ph。30}……Theantagonismofforcesmeasuredagainsteachotherandmovinginoppositedirectionsisinfactthebasicformofallactionsmthelifeoftheworldanditscreatures。Butthisoppositionofthedirectionstakenbytheforcesofelementsandindividualsdoesnotintheslightestdegreecoincidewiththeideaofabsurdcontradictions{31}……Wecanbecontentherewithhavingclearedthefogswhichgenerallyrisefromthesupposedmysteriesoflogicbypresentingaclearpictureoftheactualabsurdityofcontradictionsinrealityandwithhavingshowntheuselessnessoftheincensewhichhasbeenburnthereandtheremhonourofthedialecticsofcontradiction——theveryclumsilycarvedwoodendollwhichissubstitutedfortheantagonisticworldschematism“{32}
ThisispracticallyallwearetoldaboutdialecticsintheCursusderPhilosophie。InhisKritischeGeschichte，ontheotherhand，thedialecticsofcontradiction，andwithitparticularlyHegel，istreatedquitedifferently。
“Contradiction，accordingtotheHegelianlogic，orratherLogosdoctrine，isobjectivelypresentnotinthought，whichbyitsnaturecanonlybeconceivedassubjectiveandconscious，butinthingsandprocessesthemselvesandcanbemetwithinsotospeakcorporealform，sothatabsurditydoesnotremainanimpossiblecombinationofthoughtbutbecomesanactualforce。