grundlinien.de

24

It is universal because all limitation and particular singularity are sublated within it – limitation and singularity which consist solely in the difference between the concept and its object or content, or, in another form, in the difference between its subjective being-for-itself and its being-in-itself, between its exclusive and resolving singularity, and its universality itself.

The various determinations of universality emerge in the Logic (see Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, §§ 118–126)1. At this expression, representational thought first hits upon the abstract and external kind; but with the universality that is in and for itself, as it has been determined here, one must think neither of the universality of reflection – commonality or allness – nor of the abstract universality that stands over against the individual on the other side, the abstract identity of the understanding (§ 6, Remark). |32| It is the universality that is concrete within itself and thus is for itself, which is the substance, the immanent genus or immanent Idea of self-consciousness – the concept of the free will as the universal that encompasses its object, that runs through its own determination, and that in this determination is identical with itself. – The universal that is in and for itself is, in general, what is called the rational, and what can be grasped only in this speculative way.

  1. Encyclopaedia, 3rd ed. § 166–180 ↩︎

DE ES

Comments

2 responses to “24”

  1. Hegel (Notes) Avatar
    Hegel (Notes)

    [zu § 24] Content itself universal — hence universal in itself

  2. Hegel (Simple) Avatar
    Hegel (Simple)

    § 24: Universal, but not empty

    The free will is universal. This word easily leads us astray.

    When we hear “universal”, we first think of two things. First, of what everyone has in common: All people have a nose. Second, of something empty and pale that floats above the individuals: “man in general”. We mean neither of these here.

    Why is the will universal? Because nothing limits it. It would only have a limit if it and its content were apart: here I, there what I want. In the free will, the two coincide. It wants itself.

    So the universal we are talking about is not empty. It is full. It reaches across its object and stays itself within it.

    A comparison: a melody. It consists of many notes, and each one is different. But the melody is not one more note next to them. It is present in every note and holds them all together.

    This universal is like that. It is the core of the will, and it runs through all its determinations. We call such a universal the rational. You cannot count it off in examples. You must grasp it by thinking.

    Summary: Universal here does not mean “the same in everyone”. Nor does it mean “empty and abstract”. It means a whole that stays true to itself in all its parts. That is the rational.

Leave a Reply