<?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: 68	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/68/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/68/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Simple)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/68/#comment-3508</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4727#comment-3508</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 68: If you buy a book, do you also buy the art of printing it?

What a human being creates with his mind first belongs wholly to him. A thought, an idea, an invention. But as soon as he expresses it, it can become a thing. Someone prints a book. Someone builds a machine.

Now if you buy a book, you get two things. You can read the thoughts in it and make them your own. That is the real point of the purchase. But at the same time you hold something in your hand that you can reprint. If you buy a machine, you can take it apart and build a copy.

Is it like this with everything?

No. There are big differences here.

A painting bears the mark of the painter’s skill throughout. If you want to copy it, you need talent and practice yourself. The copy is again an achievement of its own.

With a book it is different. There the thoughts stand in letters, that is, in signs. The author did not invent these signs. Language belongs to everyone. That is why reprinting a book is an ordinary craft. It is similar with a machine. Its build is mechanical. If you look at it closely, you can copy it.

Between the work of art and the craft there are many stages. Some things are more the one, some more the other.

Summary: Works of the mind can become things that others can copy. With books and machines this is easy. With works of art, the artist’s skill itself lies in the form.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 68: If you buy a book, do you also buy the art of printing it?</p>
<p>What a human being creates with his mind first belongs wholly to him. A thought, an idea, an invention. But as soon as he expresses it, it can become a thing. Someone prints a book. Someone builds a machine.</p>
<p>Now if you buy a book, you get two things. You can read the thoughts in it and make them your own. That is the real point of the purchase. But at the same time you hold something in your hand that you can reprint. If you buy a machine, you can take it apart and build a copy.</p>
<p>Is it like this with everything?</p>
<p>No. There are big differences here.</p>
<p>A painting bears the mark of the painter’s skill throughout. If you want to copy it, you need talent and practice yourself. The copy is again an achievement of its own.</p>
<p>With a book it is different. There the thoughts stand in letters, that is, in signs. The author did not invent these signs. Language belongs to everyone. That is why reprinting a book is an ordinary craft. It is similar with a machine. Its build is mechanical. If you look at it closely, you can copy it.</p>
<p>Between the work of art and the craft there are many stages. Some things are more the one, some more the other.</p>
<p>Summary: Works of the mind can become things that others can copy. With books and machines this is easy. With works of art, the artist’s skill itself lies in the form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/68/#comment-2020</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 1822 08:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4727#comment-2020</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Painting – [a] work of art – not a &lt;em&gt;sign&lt;/em&gt; – but a representation – imitation – the sensuous [element] presents what it is [meant] to signify.&lt;br /&gt;
§ 68. I want to receive, for it, the value, that which it has cost me –&lt;br /&gt;
Spiritual production is something universal &lt;em&gt;in itself&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; –&lt;br /&gt;
Individual manual labor – plowing – the skill is not contained within it, as it is in a &lt;em&gt;machine&lt;/em&gt;, a clock, which is copied – Whoever acquires the particular [thing also] acquires the skill, the wit, acumen, talent – i.e., the [general] &lt;em&gt;capacity&lt;/em&gt; to produce the same, not the capacity to invent, i.e., to make in turn something different, but the same [thing].&lt;br /&gt;
In literary production, indeed not the [manual] skill – but likewise the capacity to produce such [a work].&lt;br /&gt;
Not so with works of art – the mode of production itself is what is distinctive – In &lt;em&gt;language&lt;/em&gt; [there are] signs; that they are signs, this too I have not made – it is already present in the people – likewise external things. In the &lt;em&gt;machine&lt;/em&gt; – means, external things – only the composition, the form, is distinctive – but mechanical.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Painting – [a] work of art – not a <em>sign</em> – but a representation – imitation – the sensuous [element] presents what it is [meant] to signify.<br />
§ 68. I want to receive, for it, the value, that which it has cost me –<br />
Spiritual production is something universal <em>in itself</em> – <em>spirit</em> –<br />
Individual manual labor – plowing – the skill is not contained within it, as it is in a <em>machine</em>, a clock, which is copied – Whoever acquires the particular [thing also] acquires the skill, the wit, acumen, talent – i.e., the [general] <em>capacity</em> to produce the same, not the capacity to invent, i.e., to make in turn something different, but the same [thing].<br />
In literary production, indeed not the [manual] skill – but likewise the capacity to produce such [a work].<br />
Not so with works of art – the mode of production itself is what is distinctive – In <em>language</em> [there are] signs; that they are signs, this too I have not made – it is already present in the people – likewise external things. In the <em>machine</em> – means, external things – only the composition, the form, is distinctive – but mechanical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
