Is reason reasonable - or is it an empty abyss?

 According to the logic of a traditional reductio ad absurdum argument, if the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, we must conclude that the premises are false—which leaves us with no premises or with nothing. 

We must then wait around for new premises to spring up arbitrarily from somewhere else, and then see whether those new premises put us back into nothingness or emptiness once again, if they, too, lead to a contradiction. 

Because Hegel believed that reason necessarily generates contradictions

 because dialectics, trading ideas in an argument cannot get beyond arbitrariness it generates only approximate truths, and falls short of being a genuine science. So next time you argue try to be conscious of how of 'this' is hot air.