이글은 헤겔의 추리론을 추리 형식을 통한 개념규정의 발전으로 이해하고, 이를 통해 현존재 추리와 이로부터 반성추리로의 이행을 해명하고자 한다. 헤겔에 따르면 추리의 세 도식, 1형 개별-특수-보편, 2형 특수-개별-보편, 3형 특수-보편-개별의 상호 전제를 통해 현존재 추리로부터 반성추리로의 이행이 서술된다. 헤겔의 서술에서는 오성적 추리와 이성적 추리가 구분되는데, 전자는 추리의 형식을 외면적인 것으로 치부하고 마는데 반해서 후자는 추리 형식과 개념규정 사이의 내적 연관성을 의식한다. 오성적 추리는 추리의 형식과 내용을 외면적 관계 하에서만 파악한다. 추리 형식은 단지 주관적인 것으로 그 내용은 현존재로 이해된다. 그 결과 추리를 증명하기 위해 그 전제들의 증명을 무한히 요구하게 된다. 반면 이성적 추리는 추리가 곧 개념이므로 추리 형식과 개념의 형식규정 사이의 내적 연관성을 의식한다. 이에 따라 현존재 추리 1형만을 특권화하지 않고 2형과 3형 속에서도 개념규정의 발전을 파악한다. 추상적 자기관계라는 현존재의 형식을 띤 개념규정이 1형에서는 질적·직접적인 개별성으로, 2형에서는 그 외면성으로, 3형에서는 무규정성으로 발전한다. 더 나아가 이성적 추리는 수학적 추리인 4형 보편-보편-보편 또한 개념규정의 발전으로 이해할 수 있다. 개념규정이 개별, 특수, 보편 사이의 동일성을 확보하지만 이 동일성이 다시금 매사와 양항의 구별을 내포하게 되어 결국 ‘자기 내로 반성된 직접성’이 된다. 이것이 바로 반성 추리의 근본적 매사인 개별성의 형식규정이다. 오성적 추리는 추리의 형식과 내용을 외면적 관계 하에서만 파악한다. 추리 형식은 단지 주관적인 것으로 그 내용은 현존재로 이해된다. 그 결과 추리를 증명하기 위해 그 전제들의 증명을 무한히 요구하게 된다. 반면 이성적 추리는 추리가 곧 개념이므로 추리 형식과 개념의 형식규정 사이의 내적 연관성을 의식한다. 이에 따라 현존재 추리 1형만을 특권화하지 않고 2형과 3형 속에서도 개념규정의 발전을 파악한다. 추상적 자기관계라는 현존재의 형식을 띤 개념규정이 1형에서는 질적·직접적인 개별성으로, 2형에서는 그 외면성으로, 3형에서는 무규정성으로 발전한다. 더 나아가 이성적 추리는 수학적 추리인 4형 보편-보편-보편 또한 개념규정의 발전으로 이해한다. 여기서 개념규정은 개별, 특수, 보편 사이의 동일성을 확보하지만 이 동일성이 다시금 매사와 양항의 구별을 내포하게 되어 결국 ‘자기 내로 반성된 직접성’이 된다. 이것이 바로 반성 추리의 근본적 매사인 개별성의 형식규정이다.

This thesis purports to articulate the syllogism of existence and its transition into the syllogism of reflection by regarding Hegel’s theory of syllogism as the development of concept’s determination through syllogistic forms. It is, according to Hegel, described that the reciprocal premising of three syllogistic schema explains the transition: first figure I-P-U, second figure P-I-U, third figure P-U-I. In his account the syllogism of rationality can be methodologically distinguished from that of understanding; thereby, the former takes in consideration the intrinsic consonance between syllogistic forms and the determination of concept, while the latter just outwardly handles them. The syllogism of understanding depicts the syllogistic forms and contents on a superficial manner by which the syllogistic forms are merely thought of as subjective and contents of the syllogism as something existential. For this reason, it is required that a proof of the conclusion of syllogism should entail that of its two premise, and over and over. The syllogism of rationality, conversely, is aware of the inner-relationship between syllogistic forms and contents, for the fact that the syllogism is identified with the concept render it possible. It never grants a privilege to the first figure in the syllogism of existence, and rather in its second and third figure detects the veiled point, the development of the concept. The determination of the concept at the form of existence or Dasein, the abstract self-relation is unfolding itself as qualitative and immediate individualities in the first figure, as their externality in the second figure, and up to the no-determinedness in the third figure. This thesis purports to articulate the syllogism of existence and its transition into the syllogism of reflection by regarding Hegel’s theory of syllogism as the development of concept’s determination through syllogistic forms. It is, according to Hegel, described that the reciprocal premising of three syllogistic schema explains the transition: first figure I-P-U, second figure P-I-U, third figure P-U-I. In his account the syllogism of rationality can be methodologically distinguished from that of understanding; thereby, the former takes in consideration the intrinsic consonance between syllogistic forms and the determination of concept, while the latter just outwardly handles them. The syllogism of understanding depicts the syllogistic forms and contents on a superficial manner by which the syllogistic forms are merely thought of as subjective and contents of the syllogism as something existential. For this reason, it is required that a proof of the conclusion of syllogism should entail that of its two premise, and over and over. The syllogism of rationality, conversely, is aware of the inner-relationship between syllogistic forms and contents, for the fact that the syllogism is identified with the concept render it possible. It never grants a privilege to the first figure in the syllogism of existence, and rather in its second and third figure detects the veiled point, the development of the concept. The determination of the concept at the form of existence or Dasein, the abstract self-relation is unfolding itself as qualitative and immediate individualities in the first figure, as their externality in the second figure, and up to the no-determinedness in the third figure. According to the syllogism of rationality, the mathematical syllogism, U-U-U, the fourth figure of the syllogism of existence as well proves as a phase of concept’s self-development. Three moments of concept, herein, attain their identity, but we have yet to confirm what the concept takes as its definite category; therefore, this identity is able to be considered as still bounded within the syllogistic demarcation of the middle term and extreme terms, finally culminating in ‘immediacies reflected in itself.’ It is the very determinateness of individuality that is the basic one of the middle term in the sphere of syllogisms of reflection.The mathematical syllogism, U-U-U, the fourth figure of the syllogism of existence as well proves as a phase of concept’s self-development. Three moments of concept, herein, reach their identity, but have yet to attain it in a completed shape; therefore, this identity is bound within the syllogistic demarcation of the middle term and extreme terms, finally culminating in the ‘immediacy reflected in itself.’ It is the very determinateness of individuality that is the basic one of the middle term in the sphere of syllogism of reflection.

Hegel, Science of Logic, Concept, Syllogism, Form.