In response to the Sat07Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:

> I have read the 'Science of Logic' and 'Philosophy of
> Right' discussions having to do with the ontological
> argument but have found no argument to speak of there
> against Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
> All Hegel does in these is to assert his conclusions,
> that Kant approaches the idea of God by the wrong
> measure (possible experience), a measure appropriate
> only to finite entitities, but not to God. Since Kant's
> entire claim lies in exhausting the claims of cognition,
> could you suggest further readings (i dont have
> access as yet to the lectures on Religion) that
> would in fact summarize his arguments.
>
> > 1) SCIENCE OF LOGIC (Hegel, 1812, trans. Miller,
> > 1969, in the section entitled, Being, pp. 85-89)
>
> its relevant passage is below:
>
> "Now though it is of course true that Notion is
> different from being, there is a still greater
> difference between God and the hundred dollars
> and other finite things. It is the definition of finite
> things that in them the Notion is different from
> being, that Notion and reality, soul and body, are
> separable and hence that they are perishable and
> mortal; the abstract definition of God, on the other
> hand, is precisely that his Notion and his being are
> unseparated and inseparable. The genuine criticism
> of the categories and of reason is just this: to make
> intellect aware of this difference and to prevent it
> from applying to God the determinations and
> relationships of the finite"
>
> What Hegel has not done is to justify this difference,
> certainly not in these passages.
>
> =====
> Omar

Thanks for typing in the paragraph for everybody to see,
Omar. Clearly one paragraph is not enough to outline
the full Dialetical revision of the Ontologial Argument
by Hegel, but this paragaph does highlight very well
one of the key issues.

This key issue is also the one articulated by Maurizio
Canfora, namely, the difference between finite things
and the Infinite.

When we speak of finite things, clearly the Idea is
different from the Thing. (This very difference, this
absolute distinction, is what comprises the mortality,
the temporary nature of anything finite.)

However, Hegel suggests, when we speak of the
Infinite, the same rules do not and cannot apply.
That is a vital point to make in these early stages
of reviewing Hegel's Dialectical Solution to the
old Ontological Problem.

You ask for additional citations in the list of seven
for further elaboration, Omar, and you don't yet
have access to Hegel's lectures on religion. Very
well, then, read Hegel's HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY,
next, in the section on Anselm and the section on
Kant.

The citation you shared with us today will itself
become increasingly clear as the other texts are
reviewed in this thread.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

P.S. The seven citations currently under discussion
are the following (and any of the many others that
Hegel wrote):

1) SCIENCE OF LOGIC (Hegel, 1812, trans. Miller,
1969, in the section entitled, Being, pp. 85-89)

2) SCIENCE OF LOGIC (Hegel, ibid, in the section
entitled, Objectivity, pp. 705-707)

3) LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
(Hegel, 1830, trans. Haldane, 1995, volume 3, in the
section on Anselm, pp. 64-67)

4) LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
(Hegel, ibid., within the section on Kant, pp. 451-454)

5) LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
(Hegel, 1824-1827, trans. Hodgson, 1985, in the
Introduction, vol. 3, pp. 69-71)

6) LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
(Hegel, ibid., in the section on the Ontological
Argument, pp. 174-184)

7) PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT (Hegel, paragraph 280)