[p. 505]
|505| of its nature, are negations, so ethical life, insofar as it expresses itself in the individual as such, is a negative. In the first place it cannot express itself in the individual unless it is his soul, and it is so only insofar as it is a universal and the pure spirit of a people. The positive is by nature prior to the negative, or, as Aristotle puts it, the people is by nature prior to the individual; for if the individual, separated, is nothing self-subsistent, he must, like all parts, be in one unity with the whole; but whoever cannot be communal or, from self-sufficiency, needs nothing, is no part of the people and therefore either beast or god.13) Then, insofar as it expresses itself in the individual as such, it is posited under the form of negation, i.e. it is the possibility of the universal spirit, and the ethical qualities that belong to the individual, such as courage or temperance or thrift or generosity etc., are negative ethical life – namely that in the particularity of the individual no individuality be truly fixed and no real abstraction be made – and possibilities or capacities to be in universal ethical life. These virtues, which are in themselves possibilities and in a negative signification, are the object of morals, and one sees that the relation of natural right and morals has in this way been inverted, namely that to morals falls only the domain of the in itself negative, but to natural right the truly positive, according to its name, that it is to construct how the ethical nature attains its true right; whereas – if both the negative and this as the abstraction of externality, of the formal moral law, of the pure will and of the will of the individual, and then the syntheses of these abstractions, such as coercion, the limitation of the freedom of the individual by the concept of universal freedom
13) Editors: Politik I, 2

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.