Hegel’s contemporaries already saw Absolute Knowledge as a violent arrest of dialectical mobility

Evidence

Even if we cannot know why he made those decisions, it is possible to imagine that, for once, Hegel was overwhelmed by the attacks on his work. … During his lifetime, Hegel came up against a great deal of incomprehension from readers who rejected ‘the allover quietism of the system, which disowns the very mobility of the method at work in its position’. Already, then, the question had been raised of how the mobility and the dynamism of the dialectical processuality could be so brutally suspended and put to rest by this final intervention of Absolute Knowledge. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 992

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the recurring tension flagged in earlier chapters — whether Absolute Knowledge ends all events — and connects to the reader’s MOC concern about what converts the receptive enemy/screen into an agent whose definition escapes definers.
• QUESTION: Why did Hegel suppress then reintroduce the three syllogisms? Malabou leaves it speculative; worth chasing in Enc correspondence.