<?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: 61	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/61/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/61/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:40 +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/61/#comment-3501</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4713#comment-3501</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 61: Whoever owns the whole use owns the thing

What is a thing that belongs to me, really, in itself? We already know: It has no end of its own. It exists wholly so that someone uses it.

Something important follows from this: Whoever has the whole use of a thing has the thing itself.

An image for this:

A field is only a field because it bears something. A force is only a force because it has an effect. Take away everything the field brings forth, now and forever. What remains then? Nothing that could still belong to someone else.

So it is an empty idea to say: The use is yours, but the thing is mine.

Summary: The whole use and the thing are one and the same. Whoever has all the use at his disposal is the owner.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 61: Whoever owns the whole use owns the thing</p>
<p>What is a thing that belongs to me, really, in itself? We already know: It has no end of its own. It exists wholly so that someone uses it.</p>
<p>Something important follows from this: Whoever has the whole use of a thing has the thing itself.</p>
<p>An image for this:</p>
<p>A field is only a field because it bears something. A force is only a force because it has an effect. Take away everything the field brings forth, now and forever. What remains then? Nothing that could still belong to someone else.</p>
<p>So it is an empty idea to say: The use is yours, but the thing is mine.</p>
<p>Summary: The whole use and the thing are one and the same. Whoever has all the use at his disposal is the owner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eduard Gans (Additions)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/61/#comment-2007</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eduard Gans (Additions)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 1833 13:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4713#comment-2007</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;The relation of use to property is the same as that of substance to accident, of the inner to the outer, of force to its manifestation. This latter exists only insofar as it manifests itself; a field is only a field insofar as it bears yield. Whoever, then, has the use of a field is the owner of the whole, and it is an empty abstraction to recognize yet another property in the object itself.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The relation of use to property is the same as that of substance to accident, of the inner to the outer, of force to its manifestation. This latter exists only insofar as it manifests itself; a field is only a field insofar as it bears yield. Whoever, then, has the use of a field is the owner of the whole, and it is an empty abstraction to recognize yet another property in the object itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/61/#comment-2008</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1822 08:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4713#comment-2008</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[zu § 61/62] In use – as annihilation of the singular – the objective nature of the thing emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Using-up&lt;/em&gt; – I can take possession of the universal only in &lt;em&gt;representation&lt;/em&gt;; if it is to be mine – then taking possession too holds only &lt;em&gt;for others&lt;/em&gt; –&lt;br /&gt;
The initially immediate modes recede – toward the determinacy of the singularity of immediate existence – as against the universal – toward sign as such.&lt;br /&gt;
α) &lt;em&gt;Physical&lt;/em&gt; relation of use to the property of the whole; – use is&lt;br /&gt;
α) &lt;em&gt;consumption&lt;/em&gt; of the whole in the case of individual things, β) in the case of elemental and organic things, air, current – replenishes itself – animal – birds&#039; feathers – a horse&#039;s strength replenishes itself through rest – propagation of game, domestic animals – the individual is consumed, the species is preserved – γ) use of &lt;em&gt;talents&lt;/em&gt; – talents, skills are by their nature a whole – is αα) their &lt;em&gt;formation, generation&lt;/em&gt;, ββ) production – working – not merely growing – like animals, which need only feed for that.&lt;br /&gt;
β) &lt;em&gt;Legal&lt;/em&gt; relation, &lt;em&gt;difference&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;relation, connection&lt;/em&gt; of singularity and universality to one another. – Use, consuming of the singular, but α) singularity is β) universality, force, capacity, substance, the abiding. Possession of both, of use and of the whole, the abiding – property can differ – to the extent that the two are separable – (like whole and part) –&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[zu § 61/62] In use – as annihilation of the singular – the objective nature of the thing emerges.<br />
<em>Using-up</em> – I can take possession of the universal only in <em>representation</em>; if it is to be mine – then taking possession too holds only <em>for others</em> –<br />
The initially immediate modes recede – toward the determinacy of the singularity of immediate existence – as against the universal – toward sign as such.<br />
α) <em>Physical</em> relation of use to the property of the whole; – use is<br />
α) <em>consumption</em> of the whole in the case of individual things, β) in the case of elemental and organic things, air, current – replenishes itself – animal – birds&#8217; feathers – a horse&#8217;s strength replenishes itself through rest – propagation of game, domestic animals – the individual is consumed, the species is preserved – γ) use of <em>talents</em> – talents, skills are by their nature a whole – is αα) their <em>formation, generation</em>, ββ) production – working – not merely growing – like animals, which need only feed for that.<br />
β) <em>Legal</em> relation, <em>difference</em> and <em>relation, connection</em> of singularity and universality to one another. – Use, consuming of the singular, but α) singularity is β) universality, force, capacity, substance, the abiding. Possession of both, of use and of the whole, the abiding – property can differ – to the extent that the two are separable – (like whole and part) –</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
