His method is dialectical—not as a mechanical alternation of thesis and antithesis, but as a patient tracing of tension across concepts. Simple oppositions dissolve under his scrutiny. Instead of treating contradiction as failure, he reads it as motion: a productive friction revealing where assumptions harden into dogma. Thus he insists that concepts must be tested against both formal standards and social reality. A valid argument that sustains injustice is still subject to critique; a sound social program that rests on muddled concepts risks implosion.