>>25174329
no

>>25174329
It's an oversimplification of Hegel's dialectics. NO he would not approve.

it's a massive oversimplification of what he said, and the more you read of Hegel, the more you realise that the dialectical method really isn't anything magical or frankly that mind blowing, he never really presents it as such. The fact that he doesn't himself use the terms presented in the diagram isn't really what is at issue, it's that there's a lot more to Hegel's philosophy than this schema. Really the dialectical method is not, in my view, really that different from the sort of method you use in a real life dialectic, like a philosophical conversation or argument.

That being said, a sort of meme understanding of Hegel is I guess better than none at all to start from. If you want a really good book on Hegel that you can probably understand without having read Kant, check out Terry Pinkard's 'Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason' Actually pg. 12 of the white Cambridge edition has a really good explanation of the dialectic as it applies to history. There's lots of really clear books written on Hegel besides this. Robert Pippin's 1989 book 'Hegel's Idealism' is also very very good and pretty comprehensible without being an expert.

>>25174378
>>25175327
its not even Hegel, its Fichte technically.

Man, who cares.