Has it ever touched your mind the idea that probably 100 dollars, a unicorn,
a Ferrari, etc. are all not the same thing than "God"?

This brings us back to the necessity of a definition of the term "God".

If "God" is notning else but the representation of Spirit, of the
dialectical unity of being and thought reconciled with itself, then the
ontological argument re-acquires all its validity. Hegel does not reject
Kant's argument that having 100 dollars in my mind does not make me richer.
But "100 dollars" are not the same as "God".

The entire philosophy of Hegel is the fascinating attempt to show the
inconsistency of a dualist form of knowledge. Trying to have Hegel corrected
by Kant is like trying to have Einstein corrected by Newton.

Ciao,
Maurizio Canfora

----- Original Message -----
From: "Omar Lughod" <olughod2003@...>
To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: [hegel] Hegel's Ontological Solution (was: outside Hegel)


> --- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:
>
> > Kant's 100 dollar riddle would seem to be air-tight,
> > by
> > the standards of the modern reader. The idea of 100
> > dollars is not the same as 100 dollars in my pocket,
> > therefore Being is *not* included within the Idea.
> > For Kant the Idea is more of an Abstraction that is
> > dualistically counterposed to the Real Being of
> > 100 dollars.
>
>
> I do not interpret Kant's argument as laying claim to
> a disjunction between the idea and being, but the
> opposite: the thought and the being of a thing are
> identical. but the "being" of a thing, and its
> "actuality", or rather, its "reality" as defined with
> respect to the categories and their condition -- the
> "possibility of experience", are not the same.
>
> Kant's argument is that existence, and hence being, is
> not a real predicate. Reality is on the other hand a
> real predicate, for real things can be realized in
> experience.
>
> the notion of Being on the other hand, functions
> through the copula to merely posit what is already,
> and merely analytically, in the definition of God.
> The second premise, that a perfect being cannot lack
> existence, is merely reiterating what was asserted in
> the initial definition, and adds nothing to it of a
> substantive nature. In essence, the conclusion is
> stating: what is posited in the defintion of God as a
> perfect being is that God exists.
>
> And if this is so, i do not understand how one is to
> move from the mere defintion of a thing, God or
> otherwise, to its reality, which is something else
> altogether.
>
>
>
> =====
> Omar
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>
>
> Homepage: http://hegel.net
> Group Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel
> other Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/res/ml.htm
> Listowners Homepage: http://kai.froeb.net
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Hegel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Group policy:
> slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
>
> Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude
both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as
scientific standards apply.
>
> The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net,
that is the copyright belongs to the author but the mails are issued under
the GNU FDL (see ttp://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>