System of Ethical Life

[p. 298]

|298| to the use of others. Because, for itself, in relation to the subject, it is an abstraction of need in general, it is a universal possibility of use, not of the determinate use which it expresses, for this is separated from the subject.

c. The subject is [not] merely determined as one who possesses, but taken up into the form of universality; as a singular in relation to others, and universally negative; as a recognised possessor; for recognising is being-singular, negation, in such a way that it remains fixed as such, but ideally, in others; merely the abstraction of ideality, not ideality, is in them. In this respect possession is property; but the abstraction of universality in it is right; (it is ridiculous to want to consider everything under the form of this abstraction, as right; it is something wholly formal α) infinite in its multiplicity, and totalityless; β) without any content, in itself.) The individual is owner, possessor by right, not absolutely, in and for himself; his personality, or the abstraction of his unity and singularity, is merely an abstraction and a thing of thought; nor is it individuality in which right and property lie, for individuality is absolute identity, or itself an abstraction; rather, it lies solely in the relative identity of possession, insofar as this relative identity has the form of universality; right to property is right to right; right of property is the side, the abstraction, in property according to which it is a right, for whose other, the particular, possession remains.

The negative of this potency against the universal is the relation of freedom; or the negative insofar as it constitutes itself positively and posits itself in difference against the universal, thus in relation to it; not lack and the enveloping of difference; in this latter, undeveloped, respect the preceding potencies would be its negative.

The mechanically negative, which conflicts with and does not fit a particularity determined by the subject, does not belong here; it is not at all for this determinacy insofar as it is practical; rather, this respect belongs wholly to nature. – The negative comes into consideration here solely insofar as it is in conflict with the universal as such

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83