I repeat, the 100 discussion does not constitute
Kant's argument, but only is one of many illustrations
of it. Another such illustration of it is that God
can be defined in terms of non-being: "God is not",
with Kant's rhetorical question: can we conclude that
God does not exist on the basis of that perfectly
reasonable defintion. The point, where the
ontological argument is concerned, is that a defintion
of a thing cannot by itself provide the tools for the
establishment of its reality. the reality must be
synthtically demonstrated outside of the concept and
its definition.

--- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> In response to the Fri06Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:
>
> > ...So i ask: how is Kant's criticism of the
> ontological
> > argument invalid on Hegelian grounds?
> >
> > =====
> > Omar
>
> Finally, Omar, you have come around to the key
> issues
> that the philosophy student must debate. Well done.
> I am also pleased that Beat Greuter, in his own
> right, has
> also raised this central problem in Hegel studies.
>
> (As for Kai's objection about this thread not going
> anywhere, I think this logical direction taken by
> Beat
> and Omar today is evidence that this question has a
> lot of energy within Hegel studies. Hegel dealt
> with it,
> and it is worthwhile to try to deal with it, as
> uncomfortable
> as it might be.)
>
> 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.
>
> That is common sense today. Most people accept it.
> Indeed, it would appear most philosophers accept it,
> too.
>
> But Hegel didn't accept it. Indeed, his challenge
> to
> Kant provides a foundation upon which Hegel's
> metaphysical logic, his speculative dialectical
> logic,
> was established. Without Hegel's solution to the
> Ontological Problem, I daresay nobody can
> understand Hegel fully. It is the core of his
> System.
>
> I am glad it came to this, because this echoes a
> very
> lively thread on-going within the Hegel-Intro List,
> with Thomas Quine and Randall Jackwak among
> others. So, to avoid leading two threads on the
> same
> topic, I hereby ask Thomas and Randall to join this
> thread, because, frankly, everybody seems to be at
> the same level with regard to this critical lesson
> in
> Hegel studies.
>
> There are several places in Hegel's texts in which
> he
> speaks of Kant's 100 dollar challenge to the
> Ontological
> Solution of Anselm. THESE ARE THE REQUIRED
> READINGS that will address the questions posed by
> Omar, Beat, Thomas, Randall and many others. Here
> are a few of the critical quotations:
>
> 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)
>
> Kant's challenge is uppermost in Hegel's mind, since
> this
> is the metaphysical problem in sharpest relief. Is
> it possible
> that Being is contained *within* the Idea? That is
> the puzzle
> Kant says no. Hegel says yes.
>
> How in the world can Hegel argue for this radical
> idea?
> Hegel's response to Kant will provide the
> methodological
> basis for the remainder of Hegel's brainchild. We
> are
> taking giant steps forward by choosing to struggle
> with
> Hegel's Ontological Argument.
>
> Omar, feel free to choose any or all of the above
> citations,
> or others of your own choosing. I'm looking forward
> to
> reading more debating about Hegel's criticism of
> Kant
> and his Ontological challenge using the 100 dollars
> example.
>
> Best regards,
> --Paul Trejo, M.A.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

--- 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

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/
>

I am not aware of any argument in all of this, only a
conclusion.


--- Maurizio Canfora <mauriziocanfora@...> wrote:

> 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/
> >
>
>
>

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

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.

>
> 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)
>
>

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

In response to the Fri06Jun03 post by Maurizio Canfora:

> 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"?

That is a good point, Maurizio, taken from Hegel himself.
The difference between the finite and true infinity is one
of the key points of Hegel's System.

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

Yes, of course.

> If "God" is nothing 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.

Another good point, Maurizio.

> 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".

And that is precisely the point, Maurizio. Thank you
for putting it so succinctly.

> 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

I agree entirely, Maurizio. The Kantian paradigm has
had its day -- it is beginning to slowly phase out. Yet
it will take a long time, I think, for Hegel's genius to
finally become common sense.

Kant's riddle of the100 dollars missed the point. The
question about God is a question about the Whole,
about the Truly Infinite. Therefore no example from
the finite world can possibly do it justice. All examples
from the finite world will sharply distinguish between
the solid thing and the mental image picture of the thing.

However, when it comes to the Whole, the True Infinite,
the mental image picture of the Whole bursts asunder.
The Atheist is obliged to *prove* his implied position
that God can only be regarded as a finite object that
only appears in the imagination.

As Hegel said -- what the Atheist calls Religion and
what Hegel calls Religion are two different things.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

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)

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.
this is so for the following reason. the 100 dollar
example in fact speaks to a "concept" (100$) and not
an "idea" (God) by Kant's analysis. The two are
entirely different in Kant's thinking. Where the
concept is rooted in the faculty of understanding, and
therefore is generated by means of the categories,
(whose entire justification lies in their connection
with the materials of the senses), the "idea" goes
outside of the parameters of what is permitted to
concepts. It has no possibility of being represented
in experience at all.

The 100 dollar example is therefore merely an
illustration, an analogy, and it shows that like
concepts (100$) that do not have reality, an idea too
is a mere thought. But unlike the concept of 100$, an
idea cannot ever have empirical representation, where
the concept in fact can. a concept has "real
possibilty" of a concommitant sensible representation.
but an idea, like God, has no such possibility. thus
a concept is analogous to an idea, but not identical.
indeed, if you regard them as identical, you are
missing Kant's entire transcendental treatment of
ideas, for they absolutely lack the possibility of
empirical representation (which Hegel agrees with).
You would in fact be appealing to a strawman, treating
what is merely an illustration, (and by analogy no
less), as the actual argument.

Hegel therefore entirely misinterprets the
significance of the 100 dollar example. Kant in fact
would agree with Hegel that the idea of God is of a
different species from concepts of finite beings. But
Kant argues (and i have yet to actually see an
argument from Hegel on this) that without empirical
representation an idea (of God) cannot provide us with
knowledge, only regulative thought. it cannot provide
us with knowledge, because, within the confines of our
human finitude, knowledge requires sensible
representation, and no such representation is adequate
to God's putative supersensible reality.

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.

--- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> In response to the Fri06Jun03 post by Maurizio
> Canfora:
>
> > 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"?
>
> That is a good point, Maurizio, taken from Hegel
> himself.
> The difference between the finite and true infinity
> is one
> of the key points of Hegel's System.
>

It would be a good point if Kant was in fact making
that point with the 100 dollar example. but he is not
alas.

> > This brings us back to the necessity of a
> definition of
> > the term "God".
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> > If "God" is nothing 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.
>
> Another good point, Maurizio.

It would be a good point is there was an argument to
be seen here. Kant could easily answer that there is
a difference between "thinking" and "knowing" a thing.
"dialectical unity" is a pleasant thought, but why
consider it anything more than just that? That is the
argument that i await.

>
> > 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".
>
> And that is precisely the point, Maurizio. Thank
> you
> for putting it so succinctly.
>

Kant would agree with this point entirely: 100 dollars
is a mere concept. God is an idea. the two have only
this in common: one can think them. But they differ
in the following respect: 100$ has a "real
possibility," God as an idea has no "real
possibility": no possibility of being represented
through experience.

> > 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.

This is decidedly not an argument, but a bad analogy.
for there were many Newtonian who sought to correct
Kant's claim that space and time are mere forms of our
intuition, and not independent realities. Indeed,
there are many still who argue this.

> >
> > Ciao,
> > Maurizio Canfora
>
> I agree entirely, Maurizio. The Kantian paradigm
> has
> had its day -- it is beginning to slowly phase out.
> Yet
> it will take a long time, I think, for Hegel's
> genius to
> finally become common sense.

The news of kant's impending death remains premature.

>
> Kant's riddle of the100 dollars missed the point.

That point was obviously missed by both Hegel and
yourselves.

> The
> question about God is a question about the Whole,
> about the Truly Infinite. Therefore no example from
> the finite world can possibly do it justice. All
> examples
> from the finite world will sharply distinguish
> between
> the solid thing and the mental image picture of the
> thing.

just so. Kant would agree with everything just said
here. Kant knows not to measure God by the criterion
of finite objects. Kant measures God theoretically as
a regulative idea, and morally as a postulate that
provides regulative viability to the complete object
of the moral law-- teh "highest good".

>
> However, when it comes to the Whole, the True
> Infinite,
> the mental image picture of the Whole bursts
> asunder.
> The Atheist is obliged to *prove* his implied
> position
> that God can only be regarded as a finite object
> that
> only appears in the imagination.
>

Clearly you are not talking of Kant here who thinks
that most imaginary representations of God generate
idolatry, and impede moral practice.

as for atheists: finding no good reason to believe
that a god exists, they seek to account for the
belief, and often (not always) point to the
imagination's powers, a reasonable hypothesis given
the absence of legitimate proof for the theistic
claim.

> As Hegel said -- what the Atheist calls Religion and
> what Hegel calls Religion are two different things.

If a person adds the words "bloody" to the beginning
of every sentence he uses, i do not ask: where is the
blood? Its not clear to the typical atheist what work
'God' is doing, why the concept is an important one.
To the Hegelian atheist, that is, the one who has
thought through the dialectic (such as Pippin, or
Rosen, or Cutrofello, etc.,) to remain bound to the
notion of God is not to have thought through it deeply
enough.

As Hegel says in his last discussion in the
Phenomenology (at 797):

"Thus, what in religion was content or a form for
presenting an other, is here the Self's own act; the
Notion requires the content to be the Self's own act."

i interpret this passage, and all that follows, to
justify the view that Hegel did see religion, and
hence God, as part of the sublation. (I would
appreciate evidence of his thinking to the contrary).

And it seems to me that many atheists can agree with
that. That is, most atheists recognize that the
notion of God played a necessary role in the history
of thought: it allowed us to posit a "view from
nowhere", the "god's eye view" to give measure to both
our theoretical and moral endeavors. But at a certain
point in that history, there was the recognition that
that point of view was more reasonably viewed as a
projection of our own minds. Combined with the clear
negative effects of having a belief that each group
could use to clobber others with, there remained no
good reason to hold onto the belief. Kant certainly
helped in this respect, by pointing us to the
cognitive origins of the idea of God in our reason.
but it was Hegel, and later Nietzsche and Marx and
Freud, who made us understand its fuller etiology.

I do not deny that Hegel gave the notion of God's its
fullest elaboration. i contest, that Hegel is a
theist at the ends of his dialectical narrative. I
await evidence to the contrary.




=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com