its Notion are not yet posited。 This first syllogism of reflection may be called the syllogism of
allness。
（a） The Syllogism of Allness
（b） The Syllogism of Induction
（c） The Syllogism of Analogy
C The Syllogism of Necessity
The mediating element has now determined itself （1） as simple determinate universality； like the
particularity in the syllogism of existence； but （2） as objective universality； that is to say；
universality which contains the entire determinateness of the distinguished extremes like the allness
of the syllogism of reflection； a fulfilled yet simple universality…the universal nature of the fact；
the genus。
This syllogism is pregnant with content； because the abstract middle term of the syllogism of
existence posited itself as determinate difference to become the middle term of the syllogism of
reflection； while this difference has reflected itself into simple identity again。 This syllogism is
therefore the syllogism of necessity； for its middle term is not some alien immediate content； but
the reflection…into…self of the determinateness of the extremes。
These possess in the middle term their inner identity； the determinations of whose content are the
form determinations of the extremes。 Consequently； that which differentiates the terms appears as
an external and unessential form； and the terms themselves as moments of a necessary
existence。
In the first instance this syllogism is immediate； and thus formal in so far as the connection of the
terms is the essential nature as content； and this content is present in the distinguished terms in
only a diverse form； and the extremes by themselves are merely an unessential subsistence。 The
realisation of this syllogism has so to determine it that the extremes also shall be posited as this
totality which initially the middle term is； and that the necessity of the relation which is at first only
the substantial content； shall be a relation of the posited form。
（a） The Categorical Syllogism
（b） The Hypothetical Syllogism
（c） The Disjunctive Syllogism
In this way then the formalism of the syllogistic process； and with it the subjectivity of the
syllogism and of the Notion in general； has sublated itself。 This formal or subjective side consisted
in the fact that the mediating factor of the extremes is the Notion as an abstract determination； and
this latter is distinct from the extremes whose unity it is。 In the consummation of the syllogism； on
the other hand； where objective universality is no les ' s posited as totality of the form
determinations； the distinction of mediating and mediated has disappeared。 That which is mediated
is itself an essential moment of what mediates it； and each moment appears as the totality of what
is mediated。
The figures of the syllogism exhibit each determinateness of the Notion individually as the middle
term； which at the same time is the Notion as an ought…to…be； a demand that the mediating factor
shall be the Notion's totality。 But the different genera of the syllogism exhibit the stages of
impregnation or concretion of the middle term。 In the formal syllogism the middle term is only
posited as totality by all the determinatenesses； though each singly； functioning as the mediating
factor。 In the syllogisms of reflection the middle term appears as the unity that gathers together
externally the determinations of the extremes。 In the syllogism of necessity it has likewise
determined itself to the unity that is no less developed and total than simple； and the form of the
syllogism which consisted in the difference of the middle term from its extremes has thereby
sublated itself。
Thus the Notion as such has been realised； more exactly； it has obtained a reality that is
objectivity。 The first reality was that the Notion； as within itself negative unity； sunders itself； and
as judgment posits its determinations in a determinate and indifferent difference； and in the
syllogism sets itself in opposition to them。 In this way it is still the inwardness of this its externality；
but the outcome of the course of the syllogisms is that this externality is equated with the inner
unity； the various determinations return into this unity through the mediation in which at first they
are united only in a third term； and thus the externality exhibits in its own self the Notion； which
therefore is no longer distinguished from it as an inner unity。
However； this determination of the Notion which has been considered as reality； is； conversely；
equally a positedness。 For it is not only in this result that the truth of the Notion has exhibited itself
as the identity of its inwardness and externality； already in the judgment the moments of the Notion
remain； even in their mutual indifference； determinations that have their significance only in their
relation。 The syllogism is mediation； the complete Notion in its positedness。 Its movement is the
sublating of this mediation； in which nothing is in and for itself； but each term is only by means of
an other。 The result is therefore an immediacy which has issued from the sublating of the
mediation； a being which is no less identical with the mediation； and which is the Notion that has
restored itself out of； and in； its otherness。 This being is therefore a fact that is in and for itself
objectivity。
Mechanism … Chemism … Teleology
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NOTION
Section Two： Objectivity
In Book One of the Objective Logic； abstract being was exhibited as passing over into
determinate being； but equally as withdrawing into essence。 In Book Two； essence reveals itself
as determining itself into ground； thereby entering into Existence and realising itself as substance；
but again withdrawing into the Notion。 Of the Notion； now； we have shown to begin with that it
determines itself into objectivity。 It is self…evident that this latter transition is identical in character
with what formerly appeared in metaphysics as the inference from the notion； namely； the notion
of God； to his existence； or as the so…called ontological proof of the existence of God。 It is
equally well known that Descartes' sublimest thought； that God is that whose notion includes
within itself its being； after being degraded into the defective form of the formal syllogism； that is；
into the form of the said proof； finally succumbed to the Critique of Reason and to the thought
that existence cannot be extracted from the notion。 Some points connected with this proof
have already been elucidated。 In Vol。 1； pp。 86 sqq。； where being has vanished in its immediate
opposite； non…being； and becoming has shown itself as the truth of both； attention was drawn to
the confusion that arises when； in the case of a particular determinate being； what is fixed on is not
the being of that determinate being but its determinate content； then； comparing this
determinate content； for example a hundred dollars； with another determinate content； for
example； with the context of my perception or the state of my finances； it is found that it makes a
difference whether the former content is added to the latter or not…and it is imagined that what has
been discussed is the difference between being and non…being； or even the difference between
being and the Notion。 Further； in the same Vol。； p。 112 and Vol。 II； p。 442 we elucidated a
determination that occurs in the ontological proof； that of a sum…total of all realities。 But the
essential subject matter of that proof； the connection of the Notion and determinate being； is
the concern of our consideration of the Notion just concluded； and the entire course through
which the Notion determines itself into objectivity。 The Notion； as absolutely self…identical
negativity； is self…determining； we have remarked that the Notion； in determining itself into
judgment in individuality； is already positing itself as something real； something that is； this still
abstract reality completes itself in objectivity。
Now though it might seem that the transition from the Notion into objectivity is not the same thing
as the transition from the Notion of God to his existence； it should be borne in mind on the one
hand that the determinate content； God； makes no difference in the logical process； and the
ontological proof is merely an application of this logical process to the said content。 On the other
hand however it is essential to bear in mind the remark made above that the subject only obtains
determinateness and content in its predicate； until then； no matter what it may be for feeling；
intuition and pictorial thinking； for rational cognition it is only a name； but in the predicate with its
determinateness there begins； at the same time； realisation in general。 The predicates； however；
must be grasped as themselves still included within the Notion； hence as something subjective；
which so far has not emerged into existence； to this extent we must admit on the one hand that the
realisation of the Notion in the judgment is still not complete。 On the other hand however the
mere determination of an object by predicates； when that determination is not at the same time the
realisation and objectifying of the Notion； also remains something so subjective that it is not even
the genuine cognition and determination of the Notion of the object…subjective in the sense of
abstract reflection and uncomprehended pictorial thinking。 God； as the living God； and still more
as absolute spirit； is known only in his activity； man was early instructed to recognise God in his
works； only from these can proceed the determinations； which are called his properties； and in
which； too； his being is contained。 Thus the philosophical ＇begreifende＇ cognition of his activity；
that is； of himself； grasps the Notion of God in his being and his being in his Notion。 Being merely
as such； or even determinate being； is such a meagre and restricted determination； that the
difficulty of finding it in the Notion may well be the result of not having considered what being or
determinate being itself is。 Being as the wholly abstract； immediate relation to self； is nothing
else than the abstract moment of the Notion； which