or God would have no self-distinguishing consciousness. Both, as we saw, are entirely the same notion; the distinction lies not in the objective fact, but purely in the diversity of starting-point adopted by the two developments of thought, and in the fact that each stops at its own special point in the thought-process. If they rose above that, their thoughts would coincide and they would find out that what is to the one, as it professes, a horror and is to the other, a folly are one and the same thing. (quotation from the Phenomenology of spirit 2. the difference between marx s dialectic and hegel's dialectic P93"They (forms of consciousness)exist with in this world as a real and objective component of it, if also anidealone. This is the first specific difference between the materialist dialectic of marx and engels and hegel's idealist dia lectic. hegel said that the theoretical consciousness of an individual could not 'leap over his own epoch, the world of his time Nevertheless he inserted the world into philosophy far more than he did philosophy into the world. This first difference between Hegelian and marxist dia lectic is very closely connected with a second one..This passage states with full materialist clarity that, given the unbreakable interconnection of all real phenomena in bourgeois society as a whole, its forms of consciousness can not be abolished through thought alone. These forms can only be abolished in thought and consciousness by a simultaneous practico-objective overthrow of the material relations of production themselves, which have hitherto been comprehended through these forms. A, the coincidence of reality and consciousness with histor B, Philosophy as the result of Spirits Self-Consciousness On the one hand, the state is the way to solve the problem of universality On the other hand we can only arrive at the wholeness within Philosophy itself C. there are two different kinds of forms of consciousness One is those within history The other is the absolute philosophy, which is after the end of history Lukacs. Dialectic could only be the d ialectic within history The dialectic of soul and form in the process of the origin of the proletariat Korsch Not only those false consciousness are part of the reality within history, but our criticism of them(the criticism of the dominant forms of consciousness and the comprehension of the new content)is also the form of consciousness within history A, how the false consciousness is connected with the other parts of the reality with the totality of the world B, how our criticism is also connected with the new emerging reality(a self-conscious part within the new reality)2 or God would have no self-distinguishing consciousness. Both, as we saw, are entirely the same notion; the distinction lies not in the objective fact, but purely in the diversity of starting-point adopted by the two developments of thought, and in the fact that each stops at its own special point in the thought-process. If they rose above that, their thoughts would coincide, and they would find out that what is to the one, as it professes, a horror and is to the other, a folly are one and the same thing.”(quotation from the Phenomenology of Spirit) 2, the difference between Marx’s dialectic and Hegel’s dialectic P93 “They (forms of consciousness) exist within this world as a real and objective component of it, if also an ‘ideal’ one. This is the first specific difference between the materialist dialectic of Marx and Engels and Hegel’s idealist dialectic. Hegel said that the theoretical consciousness of an individual could not ‘leap over’ his own epoch, the world of his time. Nevertheless he inserted the world into philosophy far more than he did philosophy into the world. This first difference between Hegelian and Marxist dialectic is very closely connected with a second one.…This passage states with full materialist clarity that, given the unbreakable interconnection of all real phenomena in bourgeois society as a whole, its forms of consciousness can not be abolished through thought alone. These forms can only be abolished in thought and consciousness by a simultaneous practico-objective overthrow of the material relations of production themselves, which have hitherto been comprehended through these forms. ” Hegel: A, the coincidence of reality and consciousness with history B, Philosophy as the result of Spirit’s Self-Consciousness On the one hand, the state is the way to solve the problem of universality On the other hand, we can only arrive at the wholeness within Philosophy itself C, there are two different kinds of forms of consciousness: One is those within history The other is the absolute philosophy, which is after the end of history Lukacs: Dialectic could only be the dialectic within history The dialectic of soul and form in the process of the origin of the proletariat Korsch: Not only those false consciousness are part of the reality within history, but our criticism of them(the criticism of the dominant forms of consciousness and the comprehension of the new content) is also the form of consciousness within history. A, how the false consciousness is connected with the other parts of the reality with the totality of the world. B, how our criticism is also connected with the new emerging reality(a self-conscious part within the new reality)