<?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: 128	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/128/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/128/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:53:51 +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/128/#comment-3568</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900126#comment-3568</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 128: What distress shows

Distress has taught us something. Right alone is not everything. And welfare alone is not everything either.

Why?

In distress, right can become cruel. Someone who looks only at property lets the hungry man die. Welfare, in turn, can violate right. Someone who looks only at his own survival takes what belongs to others. Both sides are one-sided. Each needs the other.

What follows from this?

We need something that joins both: the right that holds for all, and the welfare of the single person. This union has two sides.

The one side is the good. It is the universal that carries right and welfare within it.

The other side is conscience. It is the inner life of a person, which knows and decides for itself what is good.

Summary: Distress shows that right and welfare are each one-sided on their own. Their unity is the good. Inside the person, conscience matches it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 128: What distress shows</p>
<p>Distress has taught us something. Right alone is not everything. And welfare alone is not everything either.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>In distress, right can become cruel. Someone who looks only at property lets the hungry man die. Welfare, in turn, can violate right. Someone who looks only at his own survival takes what belongs to others. Both sides are one-sided. Each needs the other.</p>
<p>What follows from this?</p>
<p>We need something that joins both: the right that holds for all, and the welfare of the single person. This union has two sides.</p>
<p>The one side is the good. It is the universal that carries right and welfare within it.</p>
<p>The other side is conscience. It is the inner life of a person, which knows and decides for itself what is good.</p>
<p>Summary: Distress shows that right and welfare are each one-sided on their own. Their unity is the good. Inside the person, conscience matches it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/128/#comment-2103</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 1823 08:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900126#comment-2103</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Right – must have life – well-being raised to universality – must raise itself – of a thinking being – passes over into right – opposition and unity come to the fore –&lt;br /&gt;
Transition –&lt;br /&gt;
α) Transition from the right of necessity and the right of life – only life, as that which the &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; has, is a right – &lt;em&gt;in itself&lt;/em&gt; – not opposed in &lt;em&gt;concept&lt;/em&gt; – on the contrary, at this highest point of opposition – raised to identity itself – spirit comes to itself, turns back – finds itself, – the prerogative of spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
Right – the universal concept of the will&lt;br /&gt;
Subjectivity, particularity – life&lt;br /&gt;
Both one-sided – the Idea [is] their unity –&lt;br /&gt;
β) The form of intention as a &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; content. – Toward the universal[:] the universal content is the spiritual [content] of the will, and more closely determined, one that contains within itself the &lt;em&gt;universal&lt;/em&gt; will (concept – personality) and the particular (morality) – concrete freedom. Universality – str[ict] right – determined within itself – particularity. – It [is] subjectivity –&lt;br /&gt;
First of all the &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; – the concept of the will – that which for itself [is] right and existence, – particularity, – at its pure apex – as the universal of the will, determined within itself – and in such a way that this determinacy is the subject&#039;s own –&lt;br /&gt;
Spiritual [determinacy]: α) of the universal, β) subjectivity, γ) content through the concept.&lt;br /&gt;
The good is at first still abstract – because [it is] only abstract as a determinacy&lt;br /&gt;
Conscience – particularity that knows, determines, thinks ends – not something received&lt;br /&gt;
Neither the end of particularity for itself – nor abstract right for itself – but rather the &lt;em&gt;unity&lt;/em&gt; of both – absolute right – the absolute &lt;em&gt;opposition&lt;/em&gt; [of] life, well-being – and abstract right.&lt;br /&gt;
Spirit grasps this unity – grasps itself; a theoretical transition.&lt;br /&gt;
– Subjective&lt;br /&gt;
α) formally, to know absolute right, to will the universal of the action, &lt;em&gt;my interest&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
β) but particular willing – a misapprehension of particularity; only the universal particularity is [the existence] of freedom.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right – must have life – well-being raised to universality – must raise itself – of a thinking being – passes over into right – opposition and unity come to the fore –<br />
Transition –<br />
α) Transition from the right of necessity and the right of life – only life, as that which the <em>person</em> has, is a right – <em>in itself</em> – not opposed in <em>concept</em> – on the contrary, at this highest point of opposition – raised to identity itself – spirit comes to itself, turns back – finds itself, – the prerogative of spirit.<br />
Right – the universal concept of the will<br />
Subjectivity, particularity – life<br />
Both one-sided – the Idea [is] their unity –<br />
β) The form of intention as a <em>particular</em> content. – Toward the universal[:] the universal content is the spiritual [content] of the will, and more closely determined, one that contains within itself the <em>universal</em> will (concept – personality) and the particular (morality) – concrete freedom. Universality – str[ict] right – determined within itself – particularity. – It [is] subjectivity –<br />
First of all the <em>good</em> – the concept of the will – that which for itself [is] right and existence, – particularity, – at its pure apex – as the universal of the will, determined within itself – and in such a way that this determinacy is the subject&#8217;s own –<br />
Spiritual [determinacy]: α) of the universal, β) subjectivity, γ) content through the concept.<br />
The good is at first still abstract – because [it is] only abstract as a determinacy<br />
Conscience – particularity that knows, determines, thinks ends – not something received<br />
Neither the end of particularity for itself – nor abstract right for itself – but rather the <em>unity</em> of both – absolute right – the absolute <em>opposition</em> [of] life, well-being – and abstract right.<br />
Spirit grasps this unity – grasps itself; a theoretical transition.<br />
– Subjective<br />
α) formally, to know absolute right, to will the universal of the action, <em>my interest</em><br />
β) but particular willing – a misapprehension of particularity; only the universal particularity is [the existence] of freedom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
