<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: 113	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/113/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/113/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:52:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Simple)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/113/#comment-3553</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900111#comment-3553</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 113: What an action is

Now we can say what an action is. An action is the outward expression of the moral will.

Three features belong to it. I know the deed as mine. It faces the question whether it is right. And it concerns the will of others.

Why only now?

In right, there were no actions in this sense yet. Whoever took property simply did something. No one asked about his inner life. Right only forbade. In contract and in wrong, other people did come into play. But only in such a way that each should keep what is his.

With crime, we now ask anew. Not only: What happened? But: What went on inside the wrongdoer? What did he want?

A difference:

When someone sues in court, people also call this an action. But the rules prescribe what he has to do. That has little in common with a moral action.

Summary: An action is the outward expression of the moral will. I know it as mine, it should be right, and it concerns others. It exists only on the standpoint of morality.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 113: What an action is</p>
<p>Now we can say what an action is. An action is the outward expression of the moral will.</p>
<p>Three features belong to it. I know the deed as mine. It faces the question whether it is right. And it concerns the will of others.</p>
<p>Why only now?</p>
<p>In right, there were no actions in this sense yet. Whoever took property simply did something. No one asked about his inner life. Right only forbade. In contract and in wrong, other people did come into play. But only in such a way that each should keep what is his.</p>
<p>With crime, we now ask anew. Not only: What happened? But: What went on inside the wrongdoer? What did he want?</p>
<p>A difference:</p>
<p>When someone sues in court, people also call this an action. But the rules prescribe what he has to do. That has little in common with a moral action.</p>
<p>Summary: An action is the outward expression of the moral will. I know it as mine, it should be right, and it concerns others. It exists only on the standpoint of morality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/113/#comment-2081</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1822 08:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900111#comment-2081</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Right [is] the &lt;em&gt;immediate doing&lt;/em&gt; of the free will.&lt;br /&gt;
Moral willing as something that I &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;; it stands beforehand in me, set before me, &lt;em&gt;prior to&lt;/em&gt; utterance – theoretical.&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective will –&lt;br /&gt;
α) is, § 110, infinite reflection into itself – for it, in its utterance, to be &lt;em&gt;reflected into itself&lt;/em&gt; – relation – to &lt;em&gt;existence&lt;/em&gt; in general – that an &lt;em&gt;end&lt;/em&gt; – intention – &lt;em&gt;purpose&lt;/em&gt;, which I have attained&lt;br /&gt;
β) opposition – &lt;em&gt;universality&lt;/em&gt; – § 111 – difference, in &lt;em&gt;intention&lt;/em&gt; –&lt;br /&gt;
γ) existence – will of others – the &lt;em&gt;subjective&lt;/em&gt; will utters itself – it relates itself, presupposes an &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; – is &lt;em&gt;therein&lt;/em&gt; immediately &lt;em&gt;reflected into itself&lt;/em&gt; – i.e. this presupposed [other] is &lt;em&gt;subjects&lt;/em&gt; –&lt;br /&gt;
Whereby an alteration in the &lt;em&gt;condition&lt;/em&gt; of others is brought about, or my welfare, my condition – the condition of a &lt;em&gt;subject&lt;/em&gt;. In right, only the existence of &lt;em&gt;personality&lt;/em&gt;. Here, existence of particularity –&lt;br /&gt;
α) and β) are formal, &lt;em&gt;γ&lt;/em&gt;) reflection into me, as determinate content – not abstract personality.&lt;br /&gt;
– The presupposed [other], determined as reflected into itself – subject – particular subject – i.e. determinate subject – whether I or another subject – subjective particularity – particularity is objectivity – in right, only a thing –&lt;br /&gt;
The particular – reflected into itself – welfare in general – particular will – existence – will reflected into itself – is to hold&lt;br /&gt;
[in the margin, in pencil:] enter into determinacy – determinacy reflected into itself.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right [is] the <em>immediate doing</em> of the free will.<br />
Moral willing as something that I <em>know</em>; it stands beforehand in me, set before me, <em>prior to</em> utterance – theoretical.<br />
Subjective will –<br />
α) is, § 110, infinite reflection into itself – for it, in its utterance, to be <em>reflected into itself</em> – relation – to <em>existence</em> in general – that an <em>end</em> – intention – <em>purpose</em>, which I have attained<br />
β) opposition – <em>universality</em> – § 111 – difference, in <em>intention</em> –<br />
γ) existence – will of others – the <em>subjective</em> will utters itself – it relates itself, presupposes an <em>other</em> – is <em>therein</em> immediately <em>reflected into itself</em> – i.e. this presupposed [other] is <em>subjects</em> –<br />
Whereby an alteration in the <em>condition</em> of others is brought about, or my welfare, my condition – the condition of a <em>subject</em>. In right, only the existence of <em>personality</em>. Here, existence of particularity –<br />
α) and β) are formal, <em>γ</em>) reflection into me, as determinate content – not abstract personality.<br />
– The presupposed [other], determined as reflected into itself – subject – particular subject – i.e. determinate subject – whether I or another subject – subjective particularity – particularity is objectivity – in right, only a thing –<br />
The particular – reflected into itself – welfare in general – particular will – existence – will reflected into itself – is to hold<br />
[in the margin, in pencil:] enter into determinacy – determinacy reflected into itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
