> Are you denying the Hegelian dialectic as a process for uncovering truth and reaching understanding?

I mean, even throwing everything in your basket at the wall hoping that it sticks could be "a way" for discovery, so.. I'm denying nothing in such an all-around fashion. Was it Feyerabend to say anything goes?

> the impossibility of totalizing signification and recognition

That has also a name, and thanks to actually well-defined terms I believe there is at least some rough boundary of what the limits could be or not.

> Is there something to be gained by denying the limitation of symbolic thought (aside from grasping for symbolic authority)?

I'm not denying the limits (some of which I'm sure somebody way smarter than me already demonstrated).

I'm criticizing hypocrites that just handwaves that ex post and call it a day, as if something this fundamental (and definitively unorthodox) shouldn't be in the first pages of their work, and especially as if "pointing out there's a problem" was the same of how proving it from first principles.

A failure that it's even more stark considering that a certain man a century ago spent 360 pages just to explain how 1+1=2 in the most dead cold way possible, and another nuked the provability and consistency of mathematics itself in a tenth of that.

I'll grant though that I was taking more of an issue with users of this sub here, more than specific philosophers.

> 'Progess' is ideological in the most unproductive sense.

As in "scientific progress" it does not seem particularly bad. Even though yeah, I can see how there may be a waaay better word to make my point.

> Historicism is for fools and capitalists.

Nothing to add there.