[p. 316]
|316| of the relation. In so far, then, as it is not the abstraction of its relation to the object that is sublated, but rather it itself is injured in that relation and something in it is sublated, and what is sublated in it is not the diminution of its possession, for this does not concern it as a subject, but the annihilation of it as indifference through and in this singular act; since, then, the indifference of the determinacies is the person, and this is injured here, the diminution of property is a personal injury; and here, in this whole potency of particularity, it is necessarily such. For immediately it is not personal if only the abstraction of the relation of the subject to the object is injured; but this abstraction as such has not been made in this potency; it does not yet have its reality and support in something that is itself universal, but has it solely in the particularity of the person; and for that reason every robbery is personal; the relation is personal, which it otherwise is only when it is real or empirical, when the possessor is just looking at the object of his possession, or holding it, or has it otherwise locked up within his domain, which he counts as part of the space he occupies with his possession; this empirical relation, as a particular one, is here the relation of this potency in general, for no way has yet been indicated in it by which the empirical relation itself would be made indifferent and property would be protected without it; i.e. by which the ideal relation, without being empirical, would be real, so that through injury of the ideal relation, of possession as property, the personal relation would not be injured.
Theft is therefore here just as much personal and robbery; and the subsumption of a possession that is property under the desire of another, or the negation of the indifference, and the assertion of the quantitatively greater particularity against the quantitatively lesser one, the subsumption of the more different under the lesser, that is, force, not in general but against property, or robbery, must also have its counteraction, or the reversed subsumption. As subjugation has taken place here, i.e. the lesser force has been subsumed under the greater force, so conversely the force that is now greater must be posited as the lesser; and according to absolute reason this reversal is as necessary in and for itself as that subsumption is actually robbery. But robbery exists only
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.