Thesis + Antitheses = Synthesis...the Hegelian Dialectic.

of Immanuel Kant, swung from thesis to antithesis and back again.Thesis antithesis Synthesis vs.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis - Wikipedia

First, if the dialectic were continuous, the end goal of Reason could never beachieved, and the entire process of history would lapse into what Hegel would call a"bad infinity." History would become meaningless. And second, the very idea ofReason (which presupposes an order to the universe) would be lost. As Hegel himself notes,"the of Reason in itself coincides with the ofthe world." Logically analyzed, Hegel's concept of Reason cannot exist withinmeaninglessness, and so the whole of the Hegelian enterprise would have to be abandoned.

"Truth" was now found in Synthesis alone (in the compromise of Thesis and Antithesis).

the allegedly Hegelian dialectic in ..

Critique of Practical Reason and and the "antithesis" are reconciled by the "synthesis.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel out of the Transcendental Idealism of Immanuel Kant), from his famous dialectic teachings of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

the progress of history and ideas from thesis to antithesis and then to synthesis.

Hegel's theory is basically that mankind is merely a series of constant philosophical conflicts. Hegel was an who believed that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. The rules of the dialectic means mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites. Hegel's dialectic taught all conflict takes man to the next spiritual level. But in the final analysis, this ideology simply justifies conflict and endless war. It is also the reasoning behind using military power to export an illogical version of freedom and false .

The reason we can call it the justification for modern conflicts and war, with impunity, is because no one can prove Hegel's theory is true. No matter how many new words they make up to define it, or how many new theories they come up with to give it validity, we can prove beyond a doubt that it is all false. And, we can show the final equation in Hegels' Dialectic is:

A: The [your nation goes here] System of Political Economy (List 1841)
B: state controlled world communism
C: state controlled global .

The Hegelian dialectic is the ridiculous idea that constant conflict and continual merging of opposite ideologies, as established by extreme right or left belief systems, will lead spiritual mankind into final perfection. (Americans understood man's spiritual quests to be outside the realm of government control). Hegel's brilliance rests in his ability to confuse and obfuscate the true motives of the planners, and millions of people world-wide have been trying to make sense of why it doesn't work for over 150 years. But like the AA definition of insanity, the world keeps trying it over and over expecting different results. ...

When Frederick Engels and Karl Marx based their communist theory on Hegel's theory of spiritual advancement via constant resolution of differences, they based the theory of communism on an unproven theory.

While Darwin's theory of evolution is still being debated, there's absolutely no proof that societies are continually evolving. When Engels and Marx later based their communist theory on Lewis Henry Morgan's theory of anthropology in 1877, they again based the theory of communism on an unprovable theory.

And when used Hegelian reasoning to base the Communitarian Network on a "balance" between (A) Rights and (B) Responsibilities, he built the entire theory of (C) communitarianism on nothing but disproven and unprovable unscientific theories....

Already gaining substantial ground against the Americans, British Marxism was bolstered when Charles Darwin published his theory of human evolution in 1859. Engels, according to modern day scholars, seized upon Darwin's theory to substantiate communism:

Quotes that validate the ACL thesis that communitarians IS the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic:

Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis Pt

Worries that Hegel’s arguments fail to fit his account ofdialectics have led some interpreters to conclude that his method isarbitrary or that his works have no single dialectical method at all(Findlay 1962: 93; Solomon 1983: 21). These interpreters reject theidea that there is any logical necessity to the moves fromstage to stage. “[T]he important point to make here, and againand again”, Robert C. Solomon writes, for instance,

Frederich Hegel called it: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

If Hegel’s account of dialectics is a general description of thelife of each concept or form, then any section can include as many oras few stages as the development requires. Instead of trying tosqueeze the stages into a triadic form (cf. Solomon 1983: 22)—atechnique Hegel himself rejects (PhG §50;cf. )—we can see theprocess as driven by each determination on its own account: what itsucceeds in grasping (which allows it to be stable, for a moment ofunderstanding), what it fails to grasp or capture (in its dialecticalmoment), and how it leads (in its speculative moment) to a new conceptor form that tries to correct for the one-sidedness of the moment ofunderstanding. This sort of process might reveal a kind of argumentthat, as Hegel had promised, might produce a comprehensive andexhaustive exploration of every concept, form or determination in eachsubject matter, as well as raise dialectics above a haphazard analysisof various philosophical views to the level of a genuine science.

Hegel's dialectic in the Age of Obama, Part 2 - WND

It is more of the Hegelian Dialectic at work made famous by socialists for centuries and the driving force behind the New World Order...The anti-gospel.

2013-07-05 · Hegel's dialectic in the Age of ..

Hegel’s description of the development of Purpose does not seemto fit the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example or thethesis-antithesis-synthesis model. According to the example and model,Abstract Purpose would be the moment of understanding or thesis,Finite Purpose would be the dialectical moment orantithesis, and Realized Purpose would be the speculative moment orsynthesis. Although Finite Purpose has a differentdetermination from Abstract Purpose (it refines the definitionof Abstract Purpose), it is hard to see how it would qualify asstrictly “opposed” to or as the “antithesis”of Abstract Purpose in the way that Nothing is opposed to or is theantithesis of Being.