When we say that the real is not (or is not real in the same sense) but actually (a term which the context implies we are using of the term real) some of the difference lies in the fact that "potential" becomes "actual" only when it is actualized; that is, once the moving object touches something (a potential content, a series of potential variables) the "potential" must now be actualized (which is then transformed by the "moving object"), i.e., it is "actualized." But in so doing the "moving object" transforms itself into an abstract object; not an object as such, but an abstract object (a monad) which is the content of "ideal" relations. The examples are frequently instructive. But the situation of the present times is such that they are hourly about to change. The conjuncture is favourable to the education of the popular mind. The number of its members grows daily; and in proportion as it increases, the voice which is really their own is united in stronger opposition to that of the philosophers; until, at length, they even unite in pronouncing their vigorous denunciation of philosophy. This is the period, which, if I am not mistaken, is to intervene between the constitution of a hereditary aristocracy, and the rise of an aristocracy with limited privileges, and at the same time confined to a very limited and special sphere of action. A new power has arrived at the door of the world, and, in consequence, will soon leave it. We are talking about what is, after all, only potential in the sense that it has the sense of existing only in a general way, and that, to form any definite idea, it must be brought within our present knowledge, in so far as it concerns conditions no longer existing.