grundlinien.de

63

The thing, in use, is a single thing, determinate in quality and quantity, and related to a specific need. But its specific usefulness is, at the same time, quantitatively determinate and comparable with other things of the same usefulness, just as the specific need which it serves is at once need in general, and, according to its particularity, likewise comparable with other needs — and, correspondingly, so is the thing comparable with those things useful for other needs. This universality of the thing, whose simple determinacy emerges from the particularity of the thing, such that its specific quality is at the same time abstracted from, is the value of the thing, in which its true substantiality is determined and becomes an object of consciousness. As full owner of the thing, I am owner just as much of its value as of its use.

The feudal tenant has this distinction within his ownership, that he is meant to be owner only of the use, and not of the value, of the thing.

DE ES

Comments

2 responses to “63”

  1. Hegel (Notes) Avatar
    Hegel (Notes)

    [zu § 63] Progress of thought – the raising-out of the universal –
    immediate takings of possession – in the sign, distinction of immediate singularity and substance.
    What is for me – in use – is the specific immediate quality of the thing – the universal – the possibility [is] use –
    α) Use distinguishes transient singularity and substance, the universal of the thing.
    β) Another distinction. Use is relation to a determinate, specific need – this relation itself represented in a universal manner – as usefulness – and the specific qualitative determinacy converted into a quantitative one – (circle, ellipse, parabola – algebraic expression such that the specific difference falls into the merely quantitative difference of a coefficient). – The specific thing is here too a sign, represents value – wealth in money or in fields.
    – a mere difference of more or less – What money is can only be understood if one knows what value is –
    Much becomes clear once one has a firm determination of what value is.
    Value, the self-preserving possibility of satisfying a need.
    Value – expressed in money – represented for itself. Money cannot be used immediately for itself, but must be converted – into specific things.
    What the determinate value is composed of is another matter.
    α) necessary need – but this at its cheapest – because often thus[?] the means of satisfaction – only in times of want.
    Quantity, rarity – time, the talent required to produce a thing – i.e. the quantity, the amount of means it represents –
    Pretium affectionis – a particular need, an intuition that I have in it – not the abstract [need] of needs in general
    § 63. Remark. Possession of the family in perpetuity, but not to be sold – no credit upon it – turned into allodium nowadays [just as] life [itself has been], already under Frederick William I. – restriction of property, such that the free concept was not real, not in accordance with reason, that is, not free – restriction neither rational nor irrational.

  2. Eduard Gans (Additions) Avatar
    Eduard Gans (Additions)

    The qualitative here disappears into the form of the quantitative. For when I speak of need, this is the heading under which the most manifold things can be brought together, and it is their commonality that enables me to measure them. The progress of thought here thus runs from the specific quality of the thing to the indifference of this determinacy, that is, to quantity. Something similar occurs in mathematics. If, for example, I define what the circle is, what the ellipse and the parabola are, we see that they are found to be specifically different. Nevertheless the difference between these various curves is determined merely quantitatively, in that it comes down only to a quantitative difference bearing solely on the coefficient, on the merely empirical magnitude. In property, the quantitative determinacy that emerges from the qualitative is value. Here the qualitative supplies the quantum for the quantity, and as such is just as much preserved as it is sublated. If one considers the concept of value, the thing itself is regarded only as a sign, and it counts not as itself but as what it is worth. A bill of exchange, for example, does not present its paper-nature, but is only a sign of another universal, of value. The value of a thing can be very diverse in relation to need; but if one wishes to express not the specific but the abstract [aspect] of value, then this is money. Money represents all things, but since it does not present the need itself, but is only a sign for it, it is itself in turn governed by the specific value that, as something abstract, it merely expresses. One can in general be the owner of a thing without at the same time being the owner of its value. A family that cannot sell or pledge its estate is not master of the value. But since this form of property is inadequate to its concept, such restrictions (fiefs, fideicommissa) are for the most part disappearing

Leave a Reply