What does the formality of Ethic mean in the new sense? Nothing but this: that it is not necessary to inquire _what is the ethical principle,_ but that we must be satisfied with saying that _whatever it be, it must be universal._ But that it must be universal is a proposition which belongs, not to Ethic, but to Logic; the principles of all philosophical sciences must possess the character of universality, the logical as the æsthetic, the principle of Ethic as that of Economic, the moral categoric imperative as the utilitarian categoric. Thus the thesis of formality in the new meaning is reduced to placing at the head of Ethic, not the ethical principle, _but the logical exigency of the ethical principle,_ in the same way that a similar claim in Æsthetic would result in placing at the head of that science, not the formal æsthetic principle, as for example, Intuition-expression, but a formal æsthetic principle, the claim for a law, so made that no form of beauty could ever be excluded from it. Instead of constructing the science, the affirmation of logical necessity, which that construction must obey, is infinitely repeated; but the thesis of formality in the new sense would be better called the thesis of _tautologism._ [Sidenote: _Tautological principles: ideal, chief good, duty, etc., and critique of them._] Besides the formulæ to which we have referred, namely those of the _categoric imperative, of the universal law, of the respect for being, of the rational and of conscience,_ the formulæ of the _chief good, of duty (or of law), of the ideal, of true pleasure, of constant pleasure, of spiritual pleasure, of personal dignity, of self-esteem, of the just mean, of harmony, of proportion, of justice, of perfection, of following nature,_ and so on, also belong to the tautological principles of Ethic; they are all tautologies, because they do not determine to what object those logical claims are applicable. To ask what is the form of will that produces a _constant, spiritual and true_ pleasure, which makes _perfect, gives self-esteem, satisfies our conscience, strikes the just mean,_ answers to what _ought_ to be done, attains to _the supreme good,_ and so on, is tantamount to asking, _What is the ethical form?_ This is precisely what must be answered, if we do not wish to fall into tautology, and the reply cannot be the question itself. [Sidenote: _Tautological meaning of certain formulæ, material in appearance._]