expound philosophy and history, proceeding from the centre of the logos or Logic, and those who wish to expound them, proceeding from the periphery of facts, are both right and wrong, because the centre is periphery and the periphery centre. [Sidenote: _Non-existence of a general philosophy outside the particular philosophic sciences:_] By adopting this view, which affirms the most complete immanence, it has never happened that in any part of the Real we have discovered a division between idea and fact, between general and particular, between primary and secondary reality and the like, but we have found, in every part, relation and correlation, unity and distinction in unity. There is no general philosophy opposed to, or consequent on, or alongside particular philosophies; particular philosophy is general, and the general is the particular; nor is there a general history, which is not also particular history, and _vice versa._ History is always the history of man as artist, thinker, economic producer, and moral agent, and in distinguishing these various aspects, it gives their unity, which does not transcend these various aspects, but _is_ these various aspects themselves. [Sidenote: _and consequently of a History of general philosophy outside the histories of particular philosophic sciences._] In like manner, the History of thought, or the History of Philosophy, which is one of these determinate aspects, is distinguished in the histories of particular philosophic concepts, as the history of Æsthetic, of Logic, of Economics and of Ethics; but it is also unified in them and _consists in nothing but them,_ completely resolving itself into them. There is no _general History of Philosophy,_ in the sense of a history of _general Philosophy,_ or of _Metaphysics,_ or whatever else it may be called, outside particular histories (which are unity in particularity).