Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

--- In hegel@^$1, "Paul Trejo" wrote: > Dear Hegel List, > > Since there's been no response to my post last week > regarding Hegel's empiriocriticism and his direct criticism > of the philosophy of materialism, I will defer the point. I > thought it would

Dear Paul et al, a concession re my response to your pt 2 (and otherwise I concur). My response to pt 2 was meant to observe that Anselm did not presuppose or assume perfect being on which his proof rested. However, I am now prepared to accept that Hegel

Dear Paul, After reading the commentary on the LPR below I address each of 1, 2 & 4 of your seven steps of your account of the argument as you have deployed it. I respond affirmatively to 3 & 5-7. Regards Andrew Hunter --- In hegel@^$1, "Paul Trejo" wrote

Hello Again Paul Trejo, So, the difference (Anselm re Hegel) is the context to which I referred and was hoping to avoid (to get a single clear point), but this is not a mere 'context,' but is the rational expression of the Absolute itself, and in such a

Dear Paul, If Anselm recognises the unity of Being and thought (as Hegel asserts in the LPH v.III under 'Anselm,' and under 'Kant') in God, where does Anselm err? Must not also this absolute be self-grounding (retrospectively, now that we are aware of the

Dear Emmanuel, Welcome. I'm afraid I can't read your quote, or even source it. So I'll have to rely on your comments. You seem to be making two related points. One is that 'objective representation' offers an incomplete picture. O.K. The other is that

--- In hegel@^$1, "Paul Trejo" wrote: > In response to the Mon16Jun03 post by Andrew Hunter: ... > > > Again I feel I must qualify: DETERMINITE being is, FINITE > > beings are, within the Notion, absolute being IS the Notion. > > I think this is

Hello Paul, --- In hegel@^$1, "Paul Trejo" wrote: > Here's the excerpt: > > "But of course the difficulting of finding > *being* in the Notion as such and equally > in the Notion of God, becomes Insuperable > when the being is supposed to be that which

Hello again Omar, I think you're missing the point, Hegels, and mine re: Hegel. > --- In hegel@^$1, Omar Lughod wrote: > Andrew, > Let us grant that reason can be the basis for > knowledge (something which Kant does grant, though not > tout court). You

Hello Omar, --- In hegel@^$1, Omar Lughod wrote: > Essentially, Kant's criticism lies in the following > reflection. Only one with God's putative capacities > ("intellectual intuition", or "intuitive > understanding") could know God. Since human's lack