Critique of the anti-Hegelian dialect blog

       The author of the anti-Hegelian dialect blog (http://the-anti-hegelian-dailect-blog.blogspot.com/) writes that:

'Hegelian Dialect = Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. In other words, they create a problem, create a solution that is too extreme, then have "us compromise" on a solution that is not as extreme as the first solution, but more extreme that the beginning point. Then they do it all over again, steadily gaining ground and moving their agendas forward.'

        Somebody has read too much introduction texts and has not attempted the bitter labor of chewing even Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit."

        Let’s begin at the beginning: 'Hegelian dialect = Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.' Very few pieces of Hegel's logic, as unfolded in his texts such as the "Phenomenology of Spirit" and "The Encyclopaedia Logic," adhere to this kind of triad from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. A more refined understanding of Hegel's dialectic would articulate it not as thesis-antithesis-synthesis but rather as Assertion/Immediacy-Negation/Mediation-Self-Negation/Self-Mediation because it informs us of what the synthesis is. As it stands in the first formulation synthesis refers to the combining of thesis and antithesis without asserting that the aufhebung, or sublimating step, is a function of the thesis itself. Aside from logical arguments, this formulation of Hegel's logic is just plain crude.

          'They create a problem:' What a way to specify scope! Who or what are they? For this blogger I do not know, but, for Hegel they are Ideas or Concepts in a properly philosophical construal of such terms. This means that what undergoes the logic are Concepts. The blogger is correct to state that 'they (understood as concepts) create a problem', for in Hegel's dialectic Concepts contain a self-moving nature and as such are not moved by the thinker but move on their own, and their movement is 'problematic' insofar as "there is nothing at all anywhere, in which contradiction cannot and should not be exhibited." What the hell the blogger has in mind about 'a solution that is too extreme' or 'then have "us compromise" on a solution" is beyond me, I will leave it up to himself or a commenter to clarify this one. In hopes of negatively defining these statements I will lay out a line of Hegelian logic in hopes that someone may pick up on a correspondence between an actual line of the logic and this above construal:

           (1) Being is > Being is Indeterminate, i.e. it is no-thing

           (2) Being is Nothing > is Indeterminate, i.e. Being is not Nothing

           (3) 'Being is Nothing' is Becoming

In the antecedent of (2), 'Being is Nothing, one may be able to abstract some notion of 'extreme' but more so in the sense that 'steal burns at an extreme degree of heat' rather than 'Sharia law is extreme.'

         My intuition is that the language of 'extreme' and 'compromise' are literary support for the last line; "then they do it all over again, steadily gaining ground and moving their agendas forward." This informs us that the blogger does not have Concepts or Ideas in mind when writing 'they' because Concepts, as construed by Hegel and under the light of none Hegelians, do not have 'agendas'. This last line tells us that the blogger has a political bent against Hegel. Sure, Marxism has had a horrendous history under such figures as Mao and Stalin, but this says nothing of Hegel's logic. Stalin's Diamat is radically different from Hegel's logic insofar as it is extremely teleologically bent and Mao's notion of contradiction although it does share much with Hegel's is distinct. A fortiori, if we were to judge a mode of reasoning by its historical substantiations, Christianity ought to be swiftly stomped out. I for one do not think this is the case, Christianity as a mode of reasoning, despite its murderous history, has much to offer to a person's life.