>>11939415I’m guessing something to do with thesis-antithesis-synthesis. That’s a set of three, so three sets of threes? Memes don’t tend to explain much.
Hegel opposed deductive logic as a one-sided formalism, and consequently viewed form as requiring to be constituted by its respective content. In apparent retrospect, disregarding and reducing qualitative phenomena into abstract forms of quantities was the opposite of Hegel’s conception of form. This is not really true, but comes out of a later development that more firmly rigidified the form-content relation in the positivism-moralism distinction.
The problem with Hegel is similar to Marx. Hegel is viewed as anti-mathematics and anti-positivist, as some sort of a normative moral theorist, when really this is a result of the failure of the Hegelians. Since Hegel is either read through Marx or Heidegger, Hegel is usually transposed unto Marx (and tangentially Heidegger unto Hegel), this says more about Marxists (and Existentialists) than Hegel. Hegel wasn’t opposed to deductive reasoning and by extension mathematics, but sought to situate rationality in history, situate form in its content, and viewed deductive reasoning as a one-sided though necessary step, a moment, in a much broader development
The problem is that Hegel’s view of history as the triumph of reason is thrown into crisis with capitalism. Instead of the state as the harmonious unity of a civil society, the state exists because society cannot solve its own problems by itself, even though that is the only way those problems can be resolved. State Socialists tried to reconcile and overcome the problem of politics in theory, affirming the role of the state in mediating society, without comprehending its origins in social practice (more specifically the implications of commodity fetishism), conceding social practice only in a one-sided opposition (e.g. the so-called evils of the market) that reproducing the resulting antimony as moralists
