My concern about praxis, hindges on its relation to our use of reason. Its method. This is why I hoped, perhaps in vain, that someone might be willing to look at my post from the Bucknell List. Since I believe 20th C. science ( including maths ) relies on a transcendental system of ideas, which is I believe at the root of formal thinking. Hence, our notion of the thing-in-itself is rightly at fault as Hegel claims. This means, the thought has an absolute and relative value. On the one hand it cannot be exchanged, and on the other our culture can recorgnise its movement (for its essence is absolute ), as its posssibility becomes actual by our measurement of it. Its chance has a value. It then appears as if its movement happens regardless of how it is judged by our culture. This is I assume, where Marx and Hegel are at odds ?

Whether the message is right or not, perhaps is not as important as the fact that we should be trying to get it right.

"Hence reflection, whenever it sets itself to remedy these defects, becomes speculative thinking, the thinking proper to philosophy." ( Section 9. TSL )

Looking at mere multiple positions implies not looking at presuppositions. How is your grounding viable? What is your aim? How will you align yourself? I do see, with Hegelians a true desire to make things work, with what is alive in Hegel, to help establish a new age. (William Hayes. 10 Dec. 1998. Hegel List at Bucknell )

Something similar of course could be said by the Marxist. So, if the communists had accepted Hegel's System and rejected his Phenomenology, there is little to doubt, that our state of affairs would be quite different.

Paul Healey