Dear Paul,
Thanks for your reply, although I have to admit that I�m a bit disappointed
with it. It seems that you do not want to solve the puzzle that arises out
of Beiser�s �Cambridge essay�, which is definitely not hermeneutical in
nature.

The puzzle is this: If the Absolute must be a causa sui, then it must also
have a unitary structure. That means that the Absolute-as-causa-sui must not
be dualistic. Furthermore, it must also not be absolutely idealistic, for an
Absolute-as-causa-sui with an absolutely idealistic structure is equivalent
with an illusory Whole. The question is: How can we make *explicit* the
structure of Hegel�s Absolute-as-causa-sui without falling into the danger
of dualism and absolute idealism?

*PAUL*

>[Comment: But why Hegel's system cannot be materialistic?
>

Because, Ioannis, Hegel himself directly refutes materialism.
Are you unaware of the many texts in which he addresses this?
Evidently Beiser hopes his readers remain unaware of these
critical texts.

---IOANNIS
Of course I am not unaware of the texts you are referring to, but that�s not
the point here. The point is not whether Hegel refutes materialism (which he
does without any doubt whatsoever), but whether Hegel�s refutation of
materialism can be made explicit in such a way so as to avoid the danger of
dualism and absolute idealism.

*PAUL*

>What could it be, so that the problems posed by Beiser to be solved? Paul
>does not provide us with a clear argument.

The clearest argument, Ioannis, is that Hegel himself
rejects the metaphysics of materialism. He does this
explicitly and directly. He does this with logic and
with speculative reason. Hegel is unambiguous about it.
It is amazing that even in the year 2004 there are
readers who can ignore these critical texts by Hegel.

---IOANNIS
Well, I think there is nothing to be said in this point. You are just simply
avoiding to enter the demands of this discussion.

*PAUL*

>To speak of God as the Whole of Nature is to be a Pantheist.
>Hegel explicitly denies that his system is pantheistic. [Comment: If
>Hegel's system is not pantheistic, what can
>it be, without being dualistic? Paul does not provide us with a clear
>argument (this is so only with respect to this discussion, of course).]
>...
>All the best,
>Ioannis

Well, Ioannis, Beiser hopes to misrepresent Hegel as saying
that God is the Whole of Nature. That is false. That is easy
to show from quotes by Hegel that I have already shared over
the years here.

Hegel says that God is the Whole, and that Nature is a *part*
of the Whole. Beiser clearly misrepresents that fact.

Since Nature is only *part* of the Whole, only *part* of God,
then his system is not Pantheistic. That is plain logic.

So, Ioannis, my arguments are logical sound. The only point
that needs to be made is the proof -- that is, who is correct
in representing Hegel -- Beiser or Trejo?

---IOANNIS
Okay, this is exactly the problem with your post. Your argument is the
following:

(1) Beiser says that for Hegel God is the Whole of Nature.
(2) There is no doubt that for Hegel God is not the Whole of Nature.
(3) There is no doubt that for Hegel God is the Whole.
(4) There is no doubt that for Hegel Nature is part of the Whole.
(5) Whoever says that God is the Whole of Nature is a pantheist.
(6) Beiser says that Hegel is a pantheist.
(7) There is no doubt that Hegel is not a pantheist.
(C8) There is no doubt that Beiser is wrong in his interpretation of Hegel.

Well, that�s all very nice, but that�s not philosophy. It�s mere playing
with words. This argument by itself has absolutely no PHILOSOPHICAL
significance. What I am trying to find out is this: If Hegel�s system is not
pantheistic (which is undoubtedly not), how could WE make this system
explicit so that it could avoid the dangers of dualism and absolute
idealism?

Hence you are totally mistaken when you are saying that �the only point that
needs to be made is the proof � that is, who is correct in representing
Hegel � Beiser or Trejo?�. That�s exactly NOT the point here.

*PAUL*
The only way to solve that problem is to read Hegel's actual
texts. I have shared these quotes in the past, and I am
willing to share them again if you want to see them. But
so far you seem willing to simply quote Beiser to know what
Hegel said. What about it, Ioannis, would you like to see
the proof texts I have in mind?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

---IOANNIS
I would love to see the proofs, but first I want to know in advance what are
they proofs for. Because if they are just proofs of what Hegel is saying, I
am not interested in them. If they are again proofs of the existence of God,
I am also not interested in them. But if they are proofs that will assist us
to make Hegel�s conception of the Absolute-as-causa-sui EXPLICIT with regard
to the puzzle I (via Beiser) stated above, then I would be grateful to you
if you could post them again.

Now, considering the content of your post, I think there is no reason to
change the label of this thread: �History and failure of a discussion: The
problem of metaphysics�. In fact it is the perfect label.


Best wishes,
Ioannis
(But I have to admit that I was so glad that you responded to my challenge
even if no advance has been made )

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail