I do not know Iber.

But no matter.

What he clearly states is one thing. I am interested in the argument in support of his statement.

Who has the authority to  prohibit the contradiction? And in what respect is the prohibition and imperative of the contradiction two sides of the same coin?

It is an interesting claim which is why I am interested in the argument.

As you go on in your next paragraph, you make the claim “that Hegel of course doesn’t allow the contradiction in the realm of formal logic and mathematics.”

I would put this differently. Hegel recognizes that in the realm of formal logic and mathematics contradiction is precluded. It has nothing to do with what Hegel does or does not allow.

But the point that should be at issue is why there is need for a second – speculative – species of logic where Hegel does allow contradiction?

Why is not formal logic sufficient?

And if there is a second species of logic what is the nature of this logic?

What is a logic of contradiction?

How do speculative logical moves differ from formal logical moves and why are such moves needed?

I raise these questions because I believe that these are the questions a formal logician or mathematician would raise upon hearing that Hegel “doesn’t allow the contradiction in the realm of formal logic and mathematics.”

The reason why I am raising these questions with you is that I believe that it is a common view among nonHegelians that Hegelians do not understand the logic of Hegel’s Logic.

The reason why Hegel is ignored is in part because his advocates have done a poor job of presenting the why and wherefore of Hegel’s speculative logic.

The American Hegelian, Terry Pinkard, has gone so far as to suggest that there is no such thing as a distinctive speculative logic. For Pinkard, there is only the one logic we have always shared. He hopes to gain a hearing for Hegel among nonHegelians by focusing on features of Hegel’s thought that for Pinkard appear to align with Sellars’ notion of the space of reasons.

I do not sense that you want to go this far. But I am not sure how you wish to make sense of the cryptic core of Hegel’s thought as represented by what I called the Hegelian nugget in the passage from your remarks that I quoted in my post.

Since you are new to this site I am interested in how you view these matters.

You do not have to do this right here, right now. It is just something you might want to consider and discuss at your leisure.  

• Alan