Pinkard, S116: Now, this is the way that the thing of perception is constituted, and consciousness is determined as the act of perceiving insofar as this thing is its object. It only has to take the object and conduct itself as pure apprehension, and what thereby emerges for it is the true. If in this taking, it itself were to do something, it would alter the truth by virtue of adding or omitting something. Since the object is the true and the universal, and it is in parity with itself, and since consciousness, in its own eyes, is what is alterable and unessential, it can happen to consciousness that it apprehends the object incorrectly and deceives itself. The one who is perceiving is aware of the possibility of illusion, for in universality, which is the principle, otherness itself exists immediately for him, but as nullity, as what is sublated. His criterion of truth is thus parity-with-itself, and his conduct is to apprehend himself as being in parity with himself. Since as the same time what is diverse exists for him, the perceiver is a relating of the diverse moments of his act of apprehending to each other. But if a disparity stands out in this comparison, then the relating is not an untruth of the object, since the object is what in parity with itself. It is an untruth of the act of perceiving itself.

Baillie, S116: This, then, is the way the “Thing” in perception is constituted, and consciousness is perceptual in character so far as this “Thing” is its object: it has merely to “take” the object (capio-per-ception) and assume the attitude of pure apprehension, and what comes its way in so doing is truth (das Wahre). If it did something when taking the given, it would by such supplementation or elimination alter the truth. Since the object is the true and universal, the self-same, while consciousness is the variable and non-essential, it may happen that consciousness apprehends the object wrongly and deceives itself. The percipient is aware of the possibility of deception; for, in the universality forming the principle here, the percipient is directly aware of otherness, but aware of it as null and naught, as what is superseded. His criterion of truth is therefore self-sameness, and his procedure is that of apprehending what comes before him as self-same. Since, at the same time, diversity is a fact for him, his procedure is a way of relating the diverse moments of his apprehension to one another. If, however, in this comparison a want of sameness comes out, this is not an untruth on the part of the object (for the object is the self-same), but on the part of perception.