besides　the　bare　individuality　which　belongs　to　form；　determinateness　as　universality　absolutely
  reflected　into　itself；　as　presupposed；　that　is　here　still　immediately　assumed；　genus。
  From　this　determinateness　of　the　extremes　which　belongs　to　the　progressive　determination　of　the
  judgment；　there　results　the　precise　content　of　the　middle　term；　which　is　essentially　the　point　of
  interest　in　the　syllogism　since　it　distinguishes　syllogism　from　judgment。　It　contains　（1）　individuality；
  but　（2）　individuality　extended　to　universality　as　all；　（3）　universality　which　forms　the　basis　and
  absolutely　unites　within　itself　individuality　and　abstract　universality…that　is；　the　genus。　It　is　in　this
  way　that　the　syllogism　of　reflection　is　the　first　to　possess　genuine　determinateness　of　form；　in
  that　the　middle　term　is　posited　as　the　totality　of　the　terms；　the　immediate　syllogism　is　by　contrast
  indeterminate；　because　the　middle　term　is　still　only　abstract　particularity　in　which　the　moments　of
  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　tha