Commentary on the Philosophy of Right, Chapter 25
Why There Is No Syllogistic System Here
It would seem natural to grasp the three spheres as a syllogistic system: each of the moments — the individual, the economy, the state — could in turn form the middle term, and the figure in which the economy makes use of the state to lay claim to individuals would look like a diagnosis of inversion.
This volume forgoes that approach, for a reason that concerns method. The work is already done before the figures begin: whoever chooses the three terms has already performed the analysis. Why citizen, economy, and state — and not Hegel’s own triad of family, civil society, and state? Why not needs, production, and distribution? Every division yields different figures, all of them formally correct, and none of them explains why it is precisely the economy that mediates, and not the state. The figure represents a claim; it does not support it.
What genuinely allows us to grasp the inversion is the means–end relation — because it has a standard: a means can be measured by whether it is fit for its end. Part III developed this relation, and the analysis of ethical life works with it, not with syllogistic figures. Cf. Der Schluss. [KF]