本文的标题（英文原文：What is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his ontology?）是我在脸书的“Serious Philosophy”群中向一个声称拥有研究黑格尔40年历史的专业哲学家提出的问题，而且正如专业哲学家通常会做的那样，他没有回答该问题……
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.
（中译文：你假定黑格尔（的论述）没有任何前提，而实际上明显有一个前提，就是逻辑）
】
他的这句话应该是针对我原文中的以下句子（他对我要他给出他针对的是哪句话的要求不回应）：
【
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，我那句被他攻击的话，“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（他的逻辑将不依赖任何预设，其所有内容将由逻辑本身的工作产生）”并非我的发明，而是依据上述黑格尔的自我声明所做出的，并且根据黑格尔本体论的完整的论证推导过程的实际状况所做的真实地反映黑格尔对他的本体论进行的推导论证的方式的评论！！！
退一步说，这位有40年经验的专业哲学家在他的那句评论（You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic）中提到的逻辑（logic）是否有可能指的不是黑格尔的逻辑，而是一般的形式逻辑呢？如果是那样，那么除了表现出他根本不知道我的原文讨论的是什么之外，还明显地漏掉了一个前提：语言；而他添加语言后，还需再要添加一个：字符；一旦添加了字符，他还需要再添加发音和思维能力，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…….
