<?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: 204	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/204/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/204/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:56:36 +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/204/#comment-3644</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900201#comment-3644</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 204: The estate of trade

The second estate works up the materials of nature. It lives from its labor, its understanding and its exchange with others. What it has, it owes above all to itself.

Three groups:

The craftsman works to order, for single customers. A tailor sews a suit to measure.

The manufacturer produces goods in large amounts, for many people he does not know.

The merchant exchanges goods. He works above all with money. Money contains the value of all goods.

Freedom and the city:

Whoever stands on his own like this gains a strong sense of self. He calls for right and order. That is why the sense of freedom arose above all in the cities.

The farmer, by contrast, receives his goods from nature. He is used to dependence. He more readily puts up with whatever comes. So the first estate leans more toward submission. The second leans more toward freedom.

Summary: The estate of trade lives from its own labor, understanding and exchange. It divides into craft, factory and commerce. In this estate, in the cities, the sense of freedom grew.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 204: The estate of trade</p>
<p>The second estate works up the materials of nature. It lives from its labor, its understanding and its exchange with others. What it has, it owes above all to itself.</p>
<p>Three groups:</p>
<p>The craftsman works to order, for single customers. A tailor sews a suit to measure.</p>
<p>The manufacturer produces goods in large amounts, for many people he does not know.</p>
<p>The merchant exchanges goods. He works above all with money. Money contains the value of all goods.</p>
<p>Freedom and the city:</p>
<p>Whoever stands on his own like this gains a strong sense of self. He calls for right and order. That is why the sense of freedom arose above all in the cities.</p>
<p>The farmer, by contrast, receives his goods from nature. He is used to dependence. He more readily puts up with whatever comes. So the first estate leans more toward submission. The second leans more toward freedom.</p>
<p>Summary: The estate of trade lives from its own labor, understanding and exchange. It divides into craft, factory and commerce. In this estate, in the cities, the sense of freedom grew.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eduard Gans (Additions)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/204/#comment-2192</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eduard Gans (Additions)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 1833 13:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900201#comment-2192</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;The individual in the estate of trade is thrown back upon himself, and this self-feeling is most closely bound up with the demand for a lawful condition. The sense for freedom and order has therefore chiefly arisen in the towns. The first estate, by contrast, has little to think for itself: what it acquires is the gift of a stranger, of nature; this feeling of dependence is, for it, something primary, and with this there easily combines also this, on the part of human beings, of letting come upon oneself whatever may come. The first estate is therefore more inclined toward submissiveness, the second more toward freedom.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The individual in the estate of trade is thrown back upon himself, and this self-feeling is most closely bound up with the demand for a lawful condition. The sense for freedom and order has therefore chiefly arisen in the towns. The first estate, by contrast, has little to think for itself: what it acquires is the gift of a stranger, of nature; this feeling of dependence is, for it, something primary, and with this there easily combines also this, on the part of human beings, of letting come upon oneself whatever may come. The first estate is therefore more inclined toward submissiveness, the second more toward freedom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Natural Right Essay 1803)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/204/#comment-2665</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Natural Right Essay 1803)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jan 1803 11:06:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900201#comment-2665</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hegel, On the Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Right (Critical Journal of Philosophy, vol. 2, part 3, 1803), &lt;a href=&quot;https://grundlinien.de/en/natural-right-essay/47/&quot; rel=&quot;ugc&quot;&gt;p. 469&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There must also be a reflex of the same in his empirical consciousness, and such a reflex must constitute the ethical nature of the second estate, which is in fixed reality, in possession and property, and outside of valor. It is this reflex of ethical life, then, for which the ordinary meaning of morality can more or less fit; the &lt;em&gt;formal&lt;/em&gt; indifference-positing of the determinacies of the relationship, that is, the ethical life of the &lt;em&gt;bourgeois&lt;/em&gt; or of the private person, for whom the difference of relationships is fixed, and who depends on them and is in them.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Hegel, On the Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Right (Critical Journal of Philosophy, vol. 2, part 3, 1803), <a href="https://grundlinien.de/en/natural-right-essay/47/" rel="ugc">p. 469</a>:</em></p>
<p>There must also be a reflex of the same in his empirical consciousness, and such a reflex must constitute the ethical nature of the second estate, which is in fixed reality, in possession and property, and outside of valor. It is this reflex of ethical life, then, for which the ordinary meaning of morality can more or less fit; the <em>formal</em> indifference-positing of the determinacies of the relationship, that is, the ethical life of the <em>bourgeois</em> or of the private person, for whom the difference of relationships is fixed, and who depends on them and is in them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
