>> I continue to stress that the 100 $ example is merely an illustration,

and does not in fact count as Kant's actual argument against the ontological
argument <<

But it is precisely from what you states above that results clearly that
Kant's illustration (or analogy), as you call it, is totally inappropriated
as a criticism of the dialectical form of the ontological argument (and not
only).

When you write:

>> What I still await is an actual argument (not mere pronouncements) that

the idea of God, as represented through the ontological argument, is
sufficient to answer Kant's criticism, which is that that the ontological
argument merely elaborates a definition of God, and provides no synthesis,
and hence verification, to God's independent reality <<

I would reply: the burden of the proof is still on (Kant and) you. It is
Kant who artificially sets this separation between ideas and concepts as
impossible to overcome. Therefore, it is Kant who must prove that this
separation is justified and that it holds even after Jacobi's famous
criticism of the critical philosophy.

Don't go wandering among Hegelians looking for a justification for Kant's
dualism, you won't find it. Hegel's entire philosophy (not a single argument
within it, and certainly nothing that can be summarised in a post) is the
demonstration that reflective dualism is an artificial construction by the
very understanding which is protagonist of one side of this dualism.


Maurizio Canfora