>>21006450
Don't be silly. It has been and continues to be an extremely common way of representing Hegel. It's nice to hear you're beginning to see it be cleared up
>>21007075
???
There's nothing wrong with reading secondary literature. If you need to have your fuckin hand held I'll clarify to you that I am referring to people who make no effort to engage Hegel at all, and only repeat what they've heard in passing.
>>21006482
It is highly misleading. It paints an alternative picture and fails to shed any light on what Hegel is saying. The "dialectics" are varied, complex, and subtle, and where opposition plays a role, it's generally not a decisive role. Hegel's own use of the word "antithesis" - which is rare - never refers to anything resembling the so called "hegelian dialectic". Consider his definition of pure change - "antithesis within antithesis itself, or contradiction". Also, his definition of opposites proper, which is something that contains within itself a trace of its own opposite - it is opposite "of" something.
There's a limited set of things to which the terms may apply, arguably, and it's mainly just that there's a triadic pattern in his explanations. Not a claim about some special way that antitheses interact with their theses. The "thesis antithesis synthesis" mantra makes people think that there's some given metaphysical result from knocking contrary things together but it ain't really like that.