本文的標題（英文原文：What is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his ontology?）是我在臉書的“Serious Philosophy”群中向一個聲稱擁有研究黑格爾40年歷史的專業哲學家提出的問題，而且正如專業哲學家通常會做的那樣，他沒有回答該問題……
You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
（中譯文：你假定黑格爾（的論述）沒有任何前提，而實際上明顯有一個前提，就是邏輯）
】
他的這句話應該是針對我原文中的以下句子（他對我要他給出他針對的是哪句話的要求不回應）：
【
Hegel himself not only made a great effort for the logical rigorousness in his endeavor of integrating the traditional metaphysics and logic into a new system he called as logic, but also confidently declared in the Introduction of the Science of Logic that the construction of his logic would not depend on any presupposition and all its content would be generated by the work of logic itself.
Philosophy, if it would be a science, cannot, as I have remarked elsewhere, borrow its method from a subordinate science like mathematics, any more than it can remain satisfied with categorical assurances of inner intuition, or employ arguments based on grounds adduced by external reflection. On the contrary, it can be only the nature of the content itself which spontaneously develops itself in a scientific method of knowing, since it is at the same time the reflection of the content itself which first posits and generates its determinate character.
首先，我那句被他攻擊的話，“that the construction of his logic would not depend on any presupposition and all its content would be generated by the work of logic itself（他的邏輯將不依賴任何預設，其所有內容將由邏輯本身的工作產生）”並非我的發明，而是依據上述黑格爾的自我聲明所做出的，並且根據黑格爾本體論的完整的論證推導過程的實際狀況所做的真實地反映黑格爾對他的本體論進行的推導論證的方式的評論！！！
退一步說，這位有40年經驗的專業哲學家在他的那句評論（You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic）中提到的邏輯（logic）是否有可能指的不是黑格爾的邏輯，而是一般的形式邏輯呢？如果是那樣，那麼除了表現出他根本不知道我的原文討論的是什麼之外，還明顯地漏掉了一個前提：語言；而他添加語言後，還需再要添加一個：字符；一旦添加了字符，他還需要再添加發音和思維能力，等等。
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
You are not able to read my article, and thus your attack on my article is NOT relevant to the text of my article at all. You are just simply attacking whatever you imagined in your mind, not my article. You enjoy doing this kind of silly thing because you have been cheated by yourself. Your dishonest habit of commenting others' writing without quoting the original makes you feel that you could say whatever you think of the original text without the need to understand the original text…….
