but what base his theories lies on? Like marx theory are based on anti capitalism basically, what about hegel? Hegel was attempting to finish the "project" (its not a real project, but more like a way of completing philosophy by answering the major questions and making it coherent) of German Idealism . Also what is Dialectical process is actually? What he was doing was to not start with any assumptions. Any category of thinking, any method, any new object of thought had to to arise from the previous line of thought; it was not allowed to presuppose anything. Then there is the question how to start, how to actually think from one category to the next if you can't presuppose any movement or method. This is what the Science of Logic deals with. Thats why people will tell you to read that book in order to understand Hegel, because thats the """method""". I'm trying to read hegel but I couldn't seem to understand Don't worry, thats normal. I tried reading the Science of Logic again and again and I'm still not completely through. Some people are faster, some people slower. And Hegel is one of the hardest people to read. So don't worry and don't be discouraged. Continue or take a break, maybe come back later and start again. This is normal. More on reddit.com

Well, Hegel does not aim to do science in that sense (the word "science" in Science of logic means something different from our contemporary understanding of the term), so it is not clear why the criterion of falsifiability would apply to it (even assuming that falsifiability is indeed the best way to cash out the idea of science, something that most philosophers of science would deny). Also, he gives arguments for his view. People find them not to be easily dismissible, so we keep working with it. More on reddit.com

Welcome to r/askphilosophy . Please read our rules before commenting and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

The short answer is the polarization results from the argument of Realism vs. Idealism. Bertrand Russell has a fairly good account of this in the essay My Mental Development During 1898, various things caused me to abandon both Kant and Hegel. I read Hegel’s Greater Logic, and thought, as I still do, that all he says about mathematics is muddle-headed nonsense. I came to disbelieve Bradley’s arguments against relations, and to distrust the logical bases of monism. … Bradley argued that everything common sense believes in is mere appearance; we reverted to the opposite extreme, and thought that everything is real that common sense, uninfluenced by philosophy or theology, supposes real. With a sense of escaping from prison, we allowed ourselves to think that grass is green, that the sun and stars would exist if no one was aware of them, and also that there is a pluralistic timeless world of Platonic ideas. The world, which had been thin and logical, suddenly became rich and varied and solid. Mathematics could be quite true, and not merely a stage in dialectic. With Hegel / Kant, in order to posit that grass is green one must invoke The Absolute and philosophically posit some identity of thought, thinker, and that-of-which-one-has-a-thought. With naive realism, you just say "That grass over there is green." Russell, and other soon-to-be-analytics, were schooled in a system inundated with Hegel. Once they were in a position of academic power they cast off the shackles of their schooling and went with the opposite extreme against Hegelianism. You can interpret that movement as either philosophical, or a sort of Freudian "killing their father", if you like. When academics look back at that movement today, we have the options of which side to pick. Whichever side we pick, we become entrenched in that position, arguing the perennial arguments of fundamental disagreement between that Hegelian Idealism and whatever flavor of Realism we adopt. The reason it is so polarizing is that there isn't really a palatable happy middle ground between the two. You're either an idealist or a realist. Pragmatism, especially Dewey, tried to argue a middle ground between Realism and Idealism, but that ultimately created a third school, Pragmatism. Instead of ameliorating the situation to resolve the conflict, it just becomes a new team that yells at the other two teams. More on reddit.com