^{page 499 note 1} I use feeling as Schleiermacher developed the term in its non-emotive sense. This use should become clear as the discussion progresses.

^{page 499 note 2} The Life of Schleiermacher as Unfolded in His Autobiography and Letters, Vol. II, tr. Rowan, F., Smith, , Elder and Co., 1860, p. 282.Google ScholarSchleiermachers Sendschreiben an Lücke, Topelmann Verlag, Giessen, 1908, p. 65.

^{page 499 note 3} Letters, p. 284

^{page 500 note 1} In order to proceed with the objective of this paper I will not develop Schleiermacher's extensive and often difficult statements supporting the summary points in this paragraph. The first part of the Dialektik, i.e. the Transcendental Deduction, as well as the following pages of Sämmtliche Werke, System der Sittenlhere, may be referred to for material elucidating his contentions: pp. 10 ff., 25–26, 47, 56, 72, 98, 125, 127.

^{page 501 note 1} See Dialektik, pp. 322, 328, 428.

^{page 501 note 2} Schleiermacher's Sendschreiben an Lücke, pp. 21–22.

^{page 501 note 3} Although the philosopher of religion cannot legitimately speak of God, but only of the unconditioned, unless he speaks from piety, on Schleiermacher's terms, I use ‘God’, ‘Unconditioned’, and ‘Infinite’ interchangeably, since Schleiermacher speaks on the basis of Christian piety in his philosophy of religion. Where I deal with his strictly systematic position, I will usually not use ‘God’ in order to indicate that no purely religious claim is intended.

^{page 502 note 1} The Christian Faith, Sec. 3; Sendschreiben, p. 15.

^{page 502 note 2} Sittenlehre, p. 140.

^{page 503 note 1} The ramifications of Schleiennacher's concept of man's immediacy to himself are much more far reaching that I can indicate for the purposes of this article. R. R. Niebuhr's discussion of this topic in Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion, Scribners, 1964, Ch. II, sec. 5, is excellent and should be referred to by anyone interested in following Schleiermacher's thoughts through his many discussions of the self vis-à-vis feeling.

^{page 503 note 2} P. 71.

^{page 503 note 3} P. 279.

^{page 503 note 4} Sittenlehre, pp. 175 ff.

^{page 504 note 1} Sittenlehre, p. 166.

^{page 504 note 2} Ibid. pp. 138–39.

^{page 504 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 504 note 4} Both the Dialektik and the Sittenlehre carry out the task of discussing the nature of organic unity. In part they may thus be considered suggestive in nature, since they reflect what Schleiermacher considers to be the key to understanding the nature of all relations.

^{page 504 note 5} See Sittenlehre, pp. 13–16, 27, 31, 129–30; also Dialektik, pp. 130 ff. I do not know how self-conscious Schleiermacher was when he made claims about the universe on the suggestive basis of the model of consciousness. My point is that these claims are based on the suggestiveness of human consciousness even though Schleiermacher does not always acknowledge that fact.

^{page 504 note 6} The Christian Faith, p. 132.

^{page 504 note 7} Ibid. pp. 5–6.

^{page 504 note 8} Ibid. p. 16.

^{page 505 note 1} The Christian Faith, pp. 8, 16.

^{page 505 note 2} The feeling of absolute dependence is universal for all men. The Christian Faith, sec. 33. Self-consciousness, on the other hand, is historically, communally, and individually determined. Thus, while the feeling of absolute dependence is a mode of pre-cognitive awareness, it is not a form of self-consciousness. The individual must act upon it or in conscious terms of it before it gains direct relevance for self-consciousness.

^{page 505 note 3} The Christian Faith, p. 126.

Sendschreiben, pp. 21–22.

^{page 506 note 1} This conformity is possible according to Schleiermacher only through the redemption of Christ.

^{page 506 note 2} Jesus of Nazareth enjoyed this perfection, but Schleiermacher does not expect a repetition of his sinless perfection. Hence, we are reliant, historically, on him in order to see what such a unity would be like. I am unclear how this unity of passive feeling and conscious action is possible at all in a human being on Schleiermacher's terms.

^{page 508 note 1} Jesus' religious self-consciousness seems to me to exceed the possibility of human consciousness as Schleiermacher has defined it and thus this argument appears to call into question his full humanity.

^{page 509 note 1} Encyclopaedia, sec. 446.