Hegel and Kant on the Ontological Argument

Summary on Hentle and Kant 's ontological argument: I will refute Kant' s ontological argument against criticism of Hentle 's Kant' s argument. In ontological arguments can be expressed in a syllabologic way. Everything that I imagine is clearly and unambiguously attributed to the nature or essence of what can be regarded as the truth. I clearly understand that there is the essence or essence of a perfect existence; therefore, existence is a perfect existence, that is to say the complete existence of existence.

Note: I did not provide an example of "Hegel" ontological debate because I know that such discussion is not proposed. Many people argue that Hegel provides an ontological argument; however, when asked to list the premise of discussion, Hegel's friends can not express it. (To protect Hegel from these claims - but not to provide the premise of "Hegel's ontological argument" - see Reading and Bubbio 2014) I imagine existence rather than a bigger existence. Without more existence, I can imagine that there are multiple entities, not larger ones - that is, they exist and have a larger presence. I can not imagine existence that exists rather than existence rather than a larger existence. Therefore, there is no more existence

Criticism of the ontological argument began with Gauniro at the same time as St. Anselm. Perhaps the most famous criticism of ontological debate is due to Emmanuel Kant in his criticism of pure reason. Most notably, Kant argues that ontological arguments are at risk by implicit assumptions that "existence" is a predicate. But as Bertrand Russell said, it is easy to be confident that ontological arguments are less accurate than what they are doing. This will help explain why ontological discussions have captivated philosophers for nearly 1000 years.

This philosophy of "absolute perception of existence and difference" confirms the new ontological position of Deleuze between Kant and Hegel. For Kant, thought is only a "perfectly ideal" problem, for Hegel, dialectical thinking is perfectly practical. However, for Deleuze, the idea itself has problems. Like Hegel, Deleuze will prove that instinctive reality can not be caught by dialectical thinking. Thoughts can certainly fully express the existence - but it is only the difference between (non-conceptual, nonnegative) format that you can essentially maintain the problem of difference (for Hegel). Between Kant and Hegel, Deleuz's argument is that the idea as a problem is constitutive. In other words, they themselves oppose the rationality of Kant's rationality unilaterally. So why does Deleuze argue that "eternity is a dizziness of philosophy"? Deleuze 's work may have both an obvious answer and a potential answer.