<?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: 179	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/179/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/179/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:55:54 +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/179/#comment-3619</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900176#comment-3619</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 179: The will

When the families drift apart, the freedom of the individual grows. He can deal with his resources as he likes. He can also put friends and acquaintances in place of the family. He does this in a will.

Is this good?

It is allowed. But it has its dark sides. In a will, someone declares whom he favors. Affection is fickle. People can gain it by cunning. It often hangs on silly reasons. A will can become a tool of vanity. Some attach conditions to their inheritance that torment and humiliate the heirs. And they do this beyond their own death, when the property no longer belongs to them anyway.

Summary: As the family falls apart, the freedom to leave one’s property by will grows. This freedom is allowed, but it is full of chance and arbitrary will. It easily leads to vanity and dependence.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 179: The will</p>
<p>When the families drift apart, the freedom of the individual grows. He can deal with his resources as he likes. He can also put friends and acquaintances in place of the family. He does this in a will.</p>
<p>Is this good?</p>
<p>It is allowed. But it has its dark sides. In a will, someone declares whom he favors. Affection is fickle. People can gain it by cunning. It often hangs on silly reasons. A will can become a tool of vanity. Some attach conditions to their inheritance that torment and humiliate the heirs. And they do this beyond their own death, when the property no longer belongs to them anyway.</p>
<p>Summary: As the family falls apart, the freedom to leave one’s property by will grows. This freedom is allowed, but it is full of chance and arbitrary will. It easily leads to vanity and dependence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/179/#comment-2175</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1823 08:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900176#comment-2175</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Amicis omnia communia&lt;/em&gt;. – An abstract gift – not yet carried out, the testator still remains in enjoyment [of the property] and even retains the capacity to dispose of it freely – the last &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; has &lt;em&gt;binding force&lt;/em&gt; only insofar as one, i.e. society, is willing to let it stand – an external existence – not [an existence] through itself – existence&lt;br /&gt;
The horror of empty formalities truly has its field to range in when it comes to testament-making – hedging with clauses – English courts – an entirely moral assessment of what the last will may be –&lt;br /&gt;
Because of contingency – arbitrary will – it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be so, it would be &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; – contingency is to be recognized from its connections – its circumstances, such and such – Stryk – the more of these there are, the more probable it is – no circumstance makes the matter necessary – it too is contingent –&lt;br /&gt;
On such formalities the actuality of this valid will is made dependent – it is once again made into something contingent of another kind – I am supposed to fulfill everything it pleases them to demand, –&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Imposing conditions&lt;/em&gt; on the heir&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Amicis omnia communia</em>. – An abstract gift – not yet carried out, the testator still remains in enjoyment [of the property] and even retains the capacity to dispose of it freely – the last <em>will</em> has <em>binding force</em> only insofar as one, i.e. society, is willing to let it stand – an external existence – not [an existence] through itself – existence<br />
The horror of empty formalities truly has its field to range in when it comes to testament-making – hedging with clauses – English courts – an entirely moral assessment of what the last will may be –<br />
Because of contingency – arbitrary will – it <em>could</em> be so, it would be <em>possible</em> – contingency is to be recognized from its connections – its circumstances, such and such – Stryk – the more of these there are, the more probable it is – no circumstance makes the matter necessary – it too is contingent –<br />
On such formalities the actuality of this valid will is made dependent – it is once again made into something contingent of another kind – I am supposed to fulfill everything it pleases them to demand, –<br />
<em>Imposing conditions</em> on the heir</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
