Cambridge 1868 March 16
I have received the proof sheets of your very courteous reply to my queries. I have strong reasons for thinking that you have understood me as using the adjectives abstract and concrete in the senses of general or very general and singular; whereas, in fact, by an abstract name I mean such as entitas, whiteness, immediacy and by a concrete one such as ens, white, Immediate. Further reflection and a reference to your own statement on p. 117 and to Hegel's very careful remarks under the head of Daseyn, will I think convince you that being, as I defined it, is not determinate, the reflection that all which is is by negation and determination, not being involved in that definition. Far less, is it existence, which you certainly will not maintain to be the same as Daseyn. I have thought proper to defer making any remarks upon your reply until you have had an opportunity to amend it in these respects.
There are two unimportant errata in my letter. p 59 2nd column 6th line from the bottom. The dash should be a hyphen. p 60 2nd col. 11th and 12th lines from the top. Omit the words "or that being in the sense intended is humanity."
I have read Mr. Kroeger's pamphlet on Politics with great attention, interest, and general approval. It seems to me that it is in the sphere of morals and politics that the school of Fichte is strongest. I should have been glad to have had more said about the theory of checks and balances which has lately been powerfully attacked and also upon the peculiar modification of the theory of the state of nature contained in the Declaration.
I remain, with great regard