Alas, the difference between a Hegelian and a dialectician, is that a Hegelian cannot tolerate a contradiction posed against the absoluteness of his idealized dialectic, while the dialectician is capable of applying dialectic to itself. Only one of these has remained true to thought.
A
Hegelian works his way into a position of sublated
Aristotelian dogma; while he rejects the absoluteness of the
Aristotelian form, he merely replaces it with his own absolute form,
every bit as unfalsifiable and dogmatic as the Aristotelian form. He doesn't merely represent one-side, he claims to have finalized the identity of all sides! To be a
Hegelian in this sense, is not to be dialectical, but to be
idealistic, and in the worst case, it is to be philosophically religious.
The highest task in interpreting Hegel is to recover the dialectic from the error of his absolute form.
-
-
-
