Strictly speaking, it is only this second reflection which is ‘reflection-into-itself of the essence, reflection in which the essence redoubles itselfand thus reflects itselfin itself, not only in appearance. This is why thissecond reflection is reflection redoubled: on the level of ‘elementary’reflection, reflection in sense (1), essence is simply opposed to appearanceas the power of absolute negativity which, by mediating-sublating-positing every positive immediacy, makes it ‘mere appearance’; whileon the level of the redoubled reflection, reflection in sense (2), essencereflects itselfm the form of its own presupposition, of a given- immediatesubstance. Reflection of the essence into itself is an immediacy whichis not ‘mere appearance’ but an inverse-alienated image of the veryessence, essence itself in the form of its otherness, in other words, a
presupposition which is not simply posited by the essence: in it, essencepresupposes itself as positing.
As we have already indicated, the relationship between these tworeflections is not that ofa simple succe土ssion; the first, elementary reflection(1) is not simply followed by the second, redoubled reflection (2). Thesecond reflection is, strictly speaking, the condition of the first - it is onlythe redoubling of the essence, the reflection of the essence into itself,which opens the space for the appearance in which the hidden essencecan reflect itself By taking into consideration this necessity of theredoubled reflection, we can also demonstrate what is amiss with theFeuerbachian model of surpassing the external reflection.
