always acting in accordance with that precept which you can also wish were universally established as law--this is the only condition under which a man's will can never be in antagonism with itself." From what has been said above, it will be apparent that the true meaning of the word "antagonism" may be thus explained: if a man should sanction the precept of injustice and hard-heartedness, he would subsequently, in the event of his playing a =passive= part, recall it, and so his will would =contradict= itself. From this analysis it is abundantly clear that Kant's famous leading principle is not--as he maintains with tireless repetition--a =categorical=, but in reality a =hypothetical= Imperative; because it tacitly presupposes the condition that the law to be established for what I do--inasmuch as I make it universal--shall also be a law for what is done to me; and because I, under this condition, as the _eventualiter_ non-active party, =cannot= possibly =wish= for injustice and hard-heartedness. But if I strike out this proviso, and, trusting perhaps to my surpassing strength of mind and body, think of myself as always =active=, and never =passive=; then, in choosing the precept which is to be universally valid, if there exists no basis for ethics other than Kant's, I can perfectly well wish that injustice and hard-heartedness should be the general rule, and consequently order the world Upon the simple plan, That they should take, who have the power, And they should keep, who can. --(WORDSWORTH.)