[p. 249]
|249| dissatisfied; punishment for litigious parties and pettifogging legal counsel – the increase of court costs itself, and especially in higher instances etc., make right more difficult,123) and compel people to see how they come by their right; – but likewise see to it that whoever has a mind to can give himself over to the whole length and breadth of the carrying out. – It is the deception of wanting to find an absolute determination in such temporal, determinate, concrete, sensuous things and relations as such.
123) In the margin: Remedying the evil is itself in turn an evil
c.124) criminal administration of justice is the power of the law over the life of the singular; the law is his absolute might even over his life; for it is his essence, as purely universal will, i.e. as the vanishing of himself as a particular being, life; – the law is likewise the liberation from crime and pardon; it is master over evil just as much as pure life; the deed is for it as if it had not happened, what exists has as such no truth for it.
124) In the margin: The singular is a legal person – and the judicial power a movement of the externalization of his right, of his essence as thought in relation to his existence, he counts as having his will in his existence, – and his peaceful particular will is respected. – But in that he has given up his opining of right to the universal, he thus counts as pure person, and in so far as he, as pure person, as pure will, separates himself from the universal, as evil; – in civil dispute not as pure will but as supposed right against the universal; so that this is to count; – or right against particularity of the other, fraud, dolus circumvents his will, but addresses itself to his knowing –
This125) might over all existence, property and life, and likewise over thought, right, and good and evil is the commonwealth, the living
125) In the margin: By the singular’s having given up his supposed right, he presents himself as pure being-recognised; he counts as such – as before his will in the common will about determinate things – so now his pure will as such counts – This pure being-recognised has immediately in itself the two sides, to be pure being-recognised, and pure being – a) α) as pure being-recognised, as will, he is opposed to force – to the alien will that is not common – he is protected against force over his property and doing, and his life in general – his life is immediately his pure will. – β) he is, as pure will, the abstraction of pure being – or he is no longer an opining about his right – i.e. he is there only through his opining – this he is no longer – he is something lifeless – I.e. the law has complete might over his life – he, his life, stands opposed to the universal, in which he is pure abstraction – and this is his essence, recognised by him. – He has renounced his life against the universal – it is judge, as over his supposed right, so over his pure being. – This is the absolute might over life – the singular knows himself positively in it b) but the singular, stepping over against it, as absolute might for himself – is for himself absolute infinite will; – and absolute might – i.e. that which sublates an other absolute – this other he can sublate – because it is being; quantitative – determinable by something else – unknowing – he seizes it by this, and has thereby brought the other under himself – murder; – crime – he is evil* – * Alongside: – only against the will force, or cunning, c) The law is the actual punishment, this substance which is the reversal of the concept, – that he has killed himself – the other is equal to him, thus himself – not something alien – punishment as punishment – not as revenge – It is turned against evil as evil – dolus, not guilt in general – satisfaction of the concept, and the law appeased. Law carries out right. But this pure right is likewise exposed to contingency, – or as pure right it is the abstraction that cannot hold to itself absolutely – α) it has to protect the will as such, and to make the violation, force of the other, rebound upon himself; but in the singular case where force and non-force begins is hard to say; it can begin already in the contract proper. – Willing is determinate willing – it has, purpose, is to it object, thus relation of knowing; thereby it intervenes in otherness, in the quantitative, in the contingent – the object of its knowing can be altered for it, concealed, connection of the purpose and of its doing, means is [a matter of] judgement – he can be made to believe his purpose attained in a way through which he destroys it – no force proper has been done to him – he has enormously injured himself in the contract with knowledge and will, and – the law, for which only the declared common will counts, has here to take the actual purpose under protection; the inner meaning against an enormous laesion; – the particular will against common will, which is essentially declared – Here it is indeterminate to ascertain where fraud actually begins as force which is to be punished β) theft, robbery, – are just such mixtures; they concern particular existence, violate there the will without knowledge – here the will and knowledge – but they violate here not the absolute will but over α) a determinate one, i.e. β) it in a particular existence – not as pure being, not as life; and the reaction can therefore also not be the absolute one, not death – [it goes only] to his freedom, beating, particular being – But public security is too much compromised, i.e. the pure will is also violated therein – thief, robber violates in the will the pure will – admittedly in a particular existence – but the will is only as pure will; – the death penalty can also be awarded; – (But contingent circumstances) – degrees of crime, approximate manifold determination – γ) Murder proper – only essentially evil, the imputation – not accidental killing – but there too – the intention – hard to ascertain – flees back from the simple existence of the deed into the night of the inner – confession of the criminal is required – on account of the mistrust of the inference from the circumstances to the inner, this inner must pronounce itself – is free of all circumstances – obstinacy against this pronouncing – not to be overcome, the law is to know δ) Evil is what is in itself null – the pure knowing of itself – this darkness of man within himself – precisely thereby the absolute will – nothing alien to the law; to recognise it as itself, to forgive it – or as deed – to make it undone, for precisely this single deed is a drop that does not touch the universal, is absorbed – spirit, and treats man as spirit, a homicide, what does it matter to the whole? and again therein the undone.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.