Hegels critique to the proof, actually, stems from and largely embraces Kants objections to it, however, as it is usual with Hegel, he disagrees with Kant in the conclusion he obtains, though, he in some way adopts Kants original diagnostic1. In the case of the ontological argument, Hegel is well aware of the which does not have any meaning) to which they are simply appended what is thought are the adequate predicates according to a subjective opinion. impeccable. Hegels critique to the proof, actually, stems from and largely embraces Kants objections to it, however, as it is usual with Hegel, he disagrees with Kant in the conclusion he obtains, though, he in some way adopts Kants original diagnostic2. In the case of the ontological argument, Hegel is well aware of the difficulties and shortcomings that the proof contains, and we can say (even if we do not explicitly states it) that he agrees with the idea that it does not matter how much we put inside the concept of a absolute necessary being, we are not able to add a priori existence or being to such concept. In other words, he acknowledges the difficulty that the apprentice of wizard strategy has. However, he understands this difficulty as a yearned chimera and an ever-present difficulty of the modern thought: to go and to give the spark of light to the monster. Although, Hegel expresses this critique in different terms and developing a different argument, the same problematic core of the proof seems to be what is under attack in his critique. On this matter, for Hegel, the problem is the abstract and purely external manner in which it is wanted to attach the predicates to the subject in the propositions for the proof of Gods existence. For Hegel this is an operation where God is taken just as an empty name (which does not have any meaning) to which they are simply appended what is thought are the adequate predicates according to a subjective opinion. impeccable. Hegels critique to the proof, actually, stems from and largely embraces Kants objections to it, however, as it is usual with Hegel, he disagrees with Kant in the conclusion he obtains, though, he in some way adopts Kants original diagnostic3. In the case of the ontological argument, Hegel is well aware of the difficulties and shortcomings that the proof contains, and we can say (even if we do not explicitly states it) that he agrees with the idea that it does not matter how much we put inside the concept of a absolute necessary being, we are not able to add a priori existence or being to such concept. In other words, he acknowledges the difficulty that the apprentice of wizard strategy has. However, he understands this difficulty as a yearned chimera and an ever-present difficulty of the modern thought: to go and to give the spark of light to the monster. Although, Hegel expresses this critique in different terms and developing a different argument, the same problematic core of the proof seems to be what is under attack in his critique. On this matter, for Hegel, the problem is the abstract and purely external manner in which it is wanted to attach the predicates to the subject in the propositions for the proof of Gods existence. For Hegel this is an operation where God is taken just as an empty name (which does
1 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the
antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them. 2 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them. 3 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them.
not
have
any
meaning)
to
which
they
are
simply
appended
what
is
thought
are
the
adequate
predicates
according
to
a
subjective
opinion.
impeccable.
Hegels
critique
to
the
proof,
actually,
stems
from
and
largely
embraces
Kants
objections
to
it,
however,
as
it
is
usual
with
Hegel,
he
disagrees
with
Kant
in
the
conclusion
he
obtains,
though,
he
in
some
way
adopts
Kants
original
diagnostic4.
In
the
case
of
the
ontological
argument,
Hegel
is
well
aware
of
the
difficulties
and
shortcomings
that
the
proof
contains,
and
we
can
say
(even
if
we
do
not
explicitly
states
it)
that
he
agrees
with
the
idea
that
it
does
not
matter
how
much
we
put
inside
the
concept
of
a
absolute
necessary
being,
we
are
not
able
to
add
a
priori
existence
or
being
to
such
concept.
In
other
words,
he
acknowledges
the
difficulty
that
the
apprentice
of
wizard
strategy
has.
However,
he
understands
this
difficulty
as
a
yearned
chimera
and
an
ever-present
difficulty
of
the
modern
thought:
to
go
and
to
give
the
spark
of
light
to
the
monster.
Although,
Hegel
expresses
this
critique
in
different
terms
and
developing
a
different
argument,
the
same
problematic
core
of
the
proof
seems
to
be
what
is
under
attack
in
his
critique.
On
this
matter,
for
Hegel,
the
problem
is
the
abstract
and
purely
external
manner
in
which
it
is
wanted
to
attach
the
predicates
to
the
subject
in
the
propositions
for
the
proof
of
Gods
existence.
For
Hegel
this
is
an
operation
where
God
is
taken
just
as
an
empty
name
(which
does
not
have
any
meaning)
to
which
they
are
simply
appended
what
is
thought
are
the
adequate
predicates
according
to
a
subjective
opinion.
impeccable.
Hegels
critique
to
the
proof,
actually,
stems
from
and
largely
embraces
Kants
objections
to
it,
however,
as
it
is
usual
with
Hegel,
he
disagrees
with
Kant
in
the
conclusion
he
obtains,
though,
he
in
some
way
adopts
Kants
original
diagnostic5.
In
the
case
of
the
ontological
argument,
Hegel
is
well
aware
of
the
difficulties
and
shortcomings
that
the
proof
contains,
and
we
can
say
(even
if
we
do
not
explicitly
states
it)
that
he
agrees
with
the
idea
that
it
does
not
matter
how
much
we
put
inside
the
concept
of
a
absolute
necessary
being,
we
are
not
able
to
add
a
priori
existence
or
being
to
such
concept.
In
other
words,
he
acknowledges
the
difficulty
that
the
apprentice
of
wizard
strategy
has.
However,
he
understands
this
difficulty
as
a
yearned
chimera
and
an
ever-present
difficulty
of
the
modern
thought:
to
go
and
to
give
the
spark
of
light
to
the
monster.
Although,
Hegel
expresses
this
critique
in
different
terms
and
developing
a
different
argument,
the
same
problematic
core
of
the
proof
seems
to
be
what
is
under
attack
in
his
critique.
On
this
matter,
for
Hegel,
the
problem
is
the
abstract
and
purely
external
manner
in
which
it
is
wanted
to
attach
the
predicates
to
the
subject
in
the
propositions
for
the
proof
of
Gods
existence.
For
Hegel
this
is
an
operation
where
God
is
taken
just
as
an
empty
name
(which
does
not
have
any
meaning)
to
which
they
are
simply
appended
what
is
thought
are
the
proof,
actually,
stems
from
and
largely
embraces
Kants
objections
to
it,
however,
as
it
is
usual
with
Hegel,
he
disagrees
with
Kant
in
the
conclusion
he
obtains,
though,
he
in
some
way
adopts
Kants
original
diagnostic6.
In
the
case
of
the
4
I
will
try
to
make
this
statement
more
clar
in
the
following
chapters,
specially
in
relation
to
the
antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them. 5 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them. 6 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them.
ontological argument, Hegel is well aware of the difficulties and shortcomings that the proof contains, and we can say (even if we do not explicitly states it) that he agrees with the idea that it does not matter how much we put inside the concept of a absolute necessary being, we