Finally: the third moment, where the opposition between Being and Nothing is negated while, at the same, unified. Becoming is neither Being nor Nothing—it is both the negation of the opposition between the parent concepts the unification of them.
An entity conceptualized as Becoming is both Being and Nothing and yet neither.
Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant.
The terminology was largely developed earlier by the neo-Kantian Johann Gottlieb Fichte, also an advocate of the philosophy identified as German idealism.
Heuristically, you might think of Hegel’s dialectic like a mathematical or logical equation. But, instead, it deals with the process of conceptual formation.
Take, for instance, Hegel’s famous example: the concept of Being.For instance: an individual white male will be treated equally because of his race and gender (he is the same as all other white men), but hierarchically based on his individual characteristics (intersectional hierarchy).In this way, intersectionality cancels out both racism and universalism, but, in fact, preserves them both in its new form.The thesis was capitalism unrestricted competition. For way more information on Hegel and Dialectics (this process we're talking about), check this out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ The question before us is Does This Stuff Work In Practice? source=search This process harkens back to the days of Plato but Hegel added to it to help synthesize more varied and different types of arguments. Because as a way of thinking, it creates a process where contradictory information can be processed and utilized to create new, more sophisticated thoughts that in essence negate the original and less sophisticated ones.First, I should add a disclamatory note: while applying the Hegelian dialectic to the social sphere has lead to disastrous consequences (namely, Marx’s dialectical materialism, a doctrine that informed many brutal communist movements), we should not simply discard the dialectic as an instrument of torture; rather, we should reacquire it for purely theoretical purposes.It may provide a helpful framework for understanding social movements.; it means two things—(a) to cancel, and (b) to preserve.It is an aptly paradoxical definition, to say the least.Thus, Nothing cancels out Being, but it does so while preserving Being in its conceptual constitution; for to know Nothing is simultaneously to know Being.To attempt it more clearly: once Being is determined as a concept in a moment of understanding, its one-sidedness leads it to push itself into its opposite.