In response to the Mon16Jun03 post by Andrew Hunter:

> Paul wrote:
> > Being is within the Notion. On this point Hegel agrees
> > with Anselm and disagrees with Kant. Anslem's argument
> > was not perfect, but Kant's objection was also imperfect.
>
> This is true except for infinite being. Hegel says, "... The
> abstract definition of God on the other hand is precisely
> that his Notion and his being are *unseparated and
> inseparable*" (SCIENCE OF LOGIC, para 146, Miller).

Yes, Andrew, but that is still the abstract definition as
given by Anselm himself. The concrete proof is still lacking.
It is still merely asserted.

> The perfect being of Anselm's argument being deduced
> from its idea was not wrong, but lacked the subtler
> (definitional) context of this identification of idea and
> being of perfect being, which to my mind makes a
> stronger argument.

Yet we have still not reviewed Hegel's full argument,
Andrew. Also, Anselm's argument merely focuses on the
notion of perfection -- suggesting that the idea of God
without Being is an imperfect and thus inadequate idea
of God. Kant was correct -- this is not an adequate proof
that God exists, it only proves that Perfection has Being.
As Hegel said, Anselm's argument was not really an
argument at all. The important thing was that Anselm
raised the question and the problem so directly. How
can we prove that Being is within the Concept?

> But Kant's argument was always a little silly, because
> the ontological argument is not something that could
> possibily apply to a finite being. e.g. $100.

Yes, Andrew, that's correct. That's also Hegel's reply
to Kant, that Kant didn't really address the ontological
problem itself, but only made a wisecrack back to Anselm.
Kant did not wish to meet Anselm half-way, even though
Anselm reaches out from nearly 1,000 years ago.

Hegel's formal reply to Kant is, as you said, that God is
logically categorized as infinite, therefore examples from
the finite world, e.g. $100, are inadequate examples for
rebuttals.

> Hegel affirms at one point (SL, can't remember exactly
> where) Decartes' definition of God as a being equatable
> to its idea. Kant and Anselm perhaps lack this. He also
> affirms the 'difference' between God and the a finite being
> such as $100.

Quite right, Andrew. We are making progress and getting
warmer.

> Again I feel I must qualify: DETERMINITE being is, FINITE
> beings are, within the Notion, absolute being IS the Notion.
> I think this is sufficiently supported in the quote I supplied
> immediately above.

I cannot agree here, Andrew. Hegel says explicitly, in the
context of this Ontological Argument, that Pure Being is
*not* the Notion. On the contrary, Pure Being is *abstract*.
Hegel says,

"The being in determinate being, which
is supposed to express the concept of
God, is nothing else than abstract being,
which is the same as nothing." (Hegel,
SCIENCE OF LOGIC, 1812, trans. Miller,
p. 113)

Notice that in the quotation you cited, Andrew, Hegel also
said that Being was the *abstract* definition of God. Hegel
says this again in his Encyclopedia Logic, viz:

"But this Pure Being is the pure abstraction,
and hence it is absolutely negative, which,
when taken immediately, is absolutely
nothing." (Hegel, ENCYCLOPEDIA
LOGIC, trans. Geraets, para. 87)

Actually, this theme is repeated in many places in Hegel's
writings, including this example from his lectures on the
philosophy of religion. Hegel says,

"Being is nothing more than the
inexpressible or the conceptless. It is
not the concrete, which the Concept is,
but is wholly and only the abstraction
of self-relation." (Hegel, LECTURES
ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION,
1827, one-vol. ed., trans. Hodgson,
p. 185)

It should be pretty apparent: Pure Being is not God, but
Pure Being exists *within God* as God (whose existence
we have yet to prove within this thread) who is the
all-inclusive reality of realities.

> Yes, but this is counter to our practical training. How does
> this affect the practical? Ethics for example, shares with
> metaphysics a teleology. But what is its nature?
> Indeed, one can understand the Marxist attraction to
> materialism, and to agency.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew Hunter.

Andrew, you have jumped to another topic, yet let's first
finish the topic at hand and prove (or disprove) the existence
of God using the Ontological Solution provided by Hegel.

Hegel is not easy to follow, and the parameters are only
now being laid out. However, at present we can say for
certain that, for Hegel, God is not merely Pure Being.

If one jumps to the conclusion that God is nothing but the
abstraction of Pure Being, one may rightly ask about the
practical and ethical consequences of such a judgment.
However, that is not Hegel's judgment. Let's first follow
Hegel in his world-shaking discovery of the Ontological
aspect of Dialectics, and then we can proceed to the wider
implications of such a discovery.

Andrew, thanks for contributing to this thread. I consider
the Ontological Problem to be critically important for a full
and proper understanding of Hegel.

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