Talk:Dialectic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Dialectic, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
This page: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html should be added somwhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.35.12.196 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 July 2004 (UTC).
[edit] Kant?
My understanding (probably flawed) is that Hegelian dialectic arose primarily in response to Kant, and the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad arises with Hegel (although it's not named by him). This makes the introduction a bit odd.
[edit] Exposition needs revamping
The musicologist bit belongs in the body of the article IMO. There should be something clearer to explain dialectic up front.
Pazouzou 00:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What are your objections? It is a clear real world example that also illustrates the importance of the concept. Hyacinth 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think relational dialectics should be covered somewhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.183.187.47 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC).
[edit] More details, less rhetoric.
Many philosophers have offered critiques of dialectic, and it can even be said that hostility or receptivity to dialectics is one of the things that divides twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy from the so-called "continental" tradition, a divide that only a few contemporary philosophers (among them Richard Rorty) have ventured to bridge.
So what does the "Anglo-American philosophy" do - agree with dialectic or disagree? For that matter, what does one who disagree with dialectic believe? How does non-dilectic philosophy disagree with dialectic philosophy?
- It's generally thought that whilst on the continent of Europe dialectics has entered the cultural as a legtimate part of thought and philosophy, it is generally misunderstood, disregarded, ridiculed or treated with great suspicion in the UK and the USA, and plays no discernable part in their culture with their strong mechanical positivist bias. Of course there are many notatble exceptions to this. Andysoh 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Parts of this page sounds like it was dumped from someone's honors thesis - good, but a little unapproachable for someone without a good grounding in philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.114.136 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC).
[edit] reductio
i don't know much about this subject, but isn't the socratic method essentially reductio ad absurdum? if so, should there be a reference to the latter?
[edit] Robert Pirsig
"Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" contains, among other things, a critique of dialectic and the socratic method.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.231.231 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC).
- more like a vindication of the dialectic. not of simple logic and rationality- but that's not what the socratic method is about. ;) --Heah (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] triads
I took out the reference, in the Marxist dialectics section, to "other schools of thought that use the triadic model", since they weren't identified and I couldn't figure out what the point of that section was. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- But I mean, they were presented as critiques of Marxian dialectics. I'm not aware of any modern Fichtean school that criticizes Marxism from that perspective. Or was I missing something? Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "sinister dialectic"
I just moved the following new paragraph to this Talk page, because I have no idea of what it means, and no examples were given: "In some political analysis, this sort of dialectic has taken on a more sinister meaning, whereby both sides in a conflict are either directly controlled or indirectly manipulated in order to control the change which results." Although it sounds like an interesting idea, I couldn't figure out what it means, whether it's reporting on some current useage of "dialectic" or is original research, etc. If the person who added it would give some examples, that would help. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] George Orwell
While I agree that doublethink is not a dialectic, I would argue that it is the absence of a dialectic - the elimination of the ability for people to think of things other than the mainstream. To me, 1984 was about breaking the historical cycle, leading to the stagnation and eventual death of society as we know it. For example, if in a country there were very weak exective powers and a strong parliament, then it might be very difficult to react quickly enough to situations where time is short. After such an event, people might change their government to have stronger exective powers (etc.). In 1984, there would be no reaction, no change, and no dialectic. So I would say that 1984 is actually about how crucial a dialectic is to a living society. --Ignignot 16:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] moved Literature section here
I just moved the so-called "Literature" section here because I don't see what it adds to the article, is just some disconnected factoids, and in my view detracts from the article and makes it less encyclopedic. Half the literature ever written could be analyzed as dialectical or anti-dialetical. If someone really has something to contribute here, they should really explain what it is rather than stick in disconnected facts. Here's what I moved:
In Literature:
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand critical of dialectics. Interestingly, Chris Sciabarra in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical argues that Rand's method is dialectical.
Does anyone really believe that this should be in a general article about dialectics? Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] dialectic application to ecology
does the concept of 'niche contruction' (and the conflict with evolutionary theory/natural selection) arise from the application of dialectic thinking to ecology? That is, does the phrase 'not only does the environment cause changes in species, but species also cause changes in their environment' represent a dialectic argument? Dec 19,2005 CornColonel
Given that Lewontin is one of the main people to popularize the niche concept, I'd say yes. Apr 12, 06 Cellulator
[edit] Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis
Hegel never used these terms so their application is a bit too simplistic in the understanding of Hegel.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.104.198.235 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
Readers might like to visit my site (link at the bottom of this page), where I systematically take apart dialectical materialism, from a Marxist angle.
Rosa Lichtenstein.
07/03/06
- It's cute that there is an "anti-dialectics" site. The existence of such a site further affirms the principles of dialectics, of course. --Nat 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Rosa L:
"The existence of such a site further affirms the principles of dialectics, of course."
Not if not a single one of these 'principles' makes a blind bit of sense.
- In popular language, dialectics says that for every thesis, there is an antithesis. If dialectics is a thesis, your site is an (attempted) antithesis. You're affirming dialectics by opposing it. That's the strength of dialectics - it encompasses even its opposition. --Nat 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would like to propose the synthesis of these two ideas: "Who cares." ;-) --Ignignot 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Rosa L writes:
"In popular language, dialectics says that for every thesis, there is an antithesis."
Which, of course, makes not a blind bit of sense.
And:
"I would like to propose the synthesis of these two ideas: "Who cares.""
Clearly not you; so what?
11/03/06
[edit] Quote from Marx under Marxist Dialectic
I'm changing the first use of the word "ideal" to "Idea" — I think this was a (slightly confusing) typo. Please revert if I am mistaken, but post me a brief response why "ideal" is right (unless, of course, it is just that that is what Marx actually wrote; I can't check, as there is no citation.) Lewallen 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I googled and found that that was indeed the correct quote, so I reverted... but it still doesn't make perfect sense to me. Lewallen 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is not "ideal" in the sense of a Platonic ideal, but simply an adjective derived from the noun idea. Forgive me if I'm just pointing out what you already know. Franklin Dmitryev 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think most modern writers would put 'conceptual' to avoid confusion, but Marx could conceivably have found such a confusion a fertile one, given his revolutionary, materialist perspective. Likewise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.136.91 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
-
khm, you must be forgetting that marx was german? are you giving yourself enough credits to criticize him? matt.
[edit] Buddhistic Dialectic
Apparently, the sub-entry just relates what Engels thought he understood of it. That is POV and should be marked as such. Engels is not an authority on the matter. -- ZZ 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's pretty pointless. ALL citations on controversial issues are POV, because obviously everybody has an opinion on nearly anything. The NPOV stance does not apply to citations, it applies to the Wikipedians. We should try to be objective, not the sources, so there is really nothing gained by indiscriminately tagging articles where both sides of an inconclusive argument are exhibited. --84.186.249.142 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the statement about the buddhist dialectic, but did Engel's really state such a thing? If so where? Somehow I'm skeptical. Is there an actual citation for this somewhere?
[edit] Trichotomy
I think that this article is misleading as are most discussions of the concept of Dialectic because they portray dialectic as dinstinct from or in opposition with Classical Logic. Which is to say that Dialectic does not allow for an "actual contradiction" or violation of Identity and Law of Excluded Middle, rather it identifies contradictions in terms or argument, which are cause for revision of premise or conclusion. In this sense the Law of Identity is central - something and it's contradiction (i.e. A and ~A) cannot both be true. If it is realized that two statements which are seemingly opposite are either both true or both false it means that they do not have a genuine inverse truth relation. Dialectic is the study of trichotomies. It is the process of realizing this "seeming contradiction" and resolving it by resort to some other statement which has a genuine relation. It is stripped of its of glorified philosophy terminology - trial and error.
Rosa L wrote:
Well, Hegel fans often say things like the above, but the so-called 'Law of Identity' (unknown to Aristotle) has nothing to do with the 'Law of Non-Contradiction'.
The former, in its traditional (i.e., pre-Leibnizian) form concerns the alleged relation between and object and itself; the latter relates to the truth-functional implications that hold between a proposition and its negation. Since propositions cannot be treated as objects without destroying their logical form, the 'law of non-Contradiction' is not about objects.
[And if, per impossibile, a proposition could fail to be identical with itself, it would not be a proposition, and hence nothing could follow from it.]
Of course, Hegel had rather odd views about 'judgements' and 'propositions' themselves, but unless one is fluent in Martian, they make no sense. [On this see John Rosenthal 'The Myth of Dialectics' (Macmillan, 1998).] But even so, a judgement cannot be an object, nor yet the name of one, without destroying its logical form, too.
So, this part of 'dialectics' is based on seriously defective logic (and this is so whether or not it is true that Hegel accepted/rejected these alleged 'laws' of logic in the dialectical or the speculative part of his philosophy), as indeed are others.
All of which vindicates Bertrand Russell's claim that the worse a man's logic, the more interesting are the conclusions that are alleged to follow from it.
More details here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm
and here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm#Lawler
RL 29/08/06
[edit] Pierre de la Ramée (Petrus Ramus)
We appear to have a big gap in the story of dialectic between Socrates (circa 470–399 BC) and Hegel (1770-1831) - but what of Pierre de la Ramée (aka Petrus Ramus, 1515–1572) and his once canonical (even in England) Dialectique (dates varying between English and French Wikipedias)? Does the development of dialectic really jump from one philosophical 'Herrenvolk ' to another, without the inspirational influence of a French revolutionary? BTW, I just noticed that the evidence of editor opposition to the orthodox, mainpage summary of dialectic as Socratic-Hegelian reads 'Kant... Ramus.' :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.189.76 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
- In addition, Hegel acredits Kant as being the first to revive ancient dialectics. I am not sure that "instead of regarding the contradictions into which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as Kant tended to do in his Critique of Pure Reason" is correct. I thought his four cosmological antimonies (etc) were a celebrated reintroduction and redefinition of dialectics along more classical greek lines.
- And I think there was around the time of Pierre de la Ramée a strong influence of the neo-platonists; perhaps one find more than one or two attempts to retreive dialectics from the Aristotelian grasp.
- The article on Pierre de la Ramée does not indicate this influence however, nor does it indicate what his dialectic might have consisted of. Andysoh 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confused
Well, as someone who came to the article with a desire to find out what Dialectics actually means (in the context of reading a history of Soviet Russia) I'm certainly confused. From the article, it seems that dialectic could be one (or more) of:
- A form of conversation between two people with opposing views, resulting in the formation of a third view -- the synthesis -- the implication being that the synthesis is likely to be more valid than either original view.
- A form of monologue (internal or otherwise) in which the protagonist "acts out" the roles of the two holders of opposing views described above, as a reasoning device (or persuasive device) to arrive at the synthesis.
- An actual belief that there is a fundamental pattern in nature, that "things" emerge, then later their opposites emerge and finally a third alternative supercedes both
- Something else altogether?
Looking elsewhere on the Web hasn't helped my confusion -- I fully admit I haven't looked at any dead tree sources.
Either the article isn't clear enough, or there is a genuine ambiguity about the whole thing -- in which case the article should state that an ambiguity exists.
Ukslim 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is a very precise summary of this article and of dialectics in all its forms. The article is therefore quite clear, but the subject is not perhaps easily accessible. If you are reading about soviet russia and wish to know the dialectics which Lenin supported (not Stalin), you might go to [1] Andysoh 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: UKSlim I am not surprised you are a little confused -- this whole approach to theory is itself riddled with confusions and logical blunders.
So, your last option is correct, but just add to it: "Not so much ambiguity as wall-to-wall nonsense"
Rosa Lichtenstein 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thesis: Ambiguity is a problem (Ukslim). Antithesis: Ambiguity isn't a problem (anonymous, owing to repeated, largely US {but also some British} censorship)...
[edit] Proudhonian concept of dialetics, anyone?
Hi, last year I did a dissertation on the politics and philosophy of the 'Anarchist' writer, journalism and philosophy of P-J Proudhon. He had a slightly different concept of dialectics. His theory that there was always be thesis and anti-thesis, and that there could be no synthesis. So there would be uneasy relationship between the two opposing ideas until it was superseded by different, 'superior' or more appealing ideology/philsophy. I'm not too confident to write a new chapter on this on this subject. But if anyone else wants to write about it they are welcome to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.163.65 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
- Proudhon therefore appears to present a concept of a non-synthesis. But surely that inevitably forms an antithesis to the thesis of a synthesis, resulting in...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.136.90 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Aristotle
Some of the opening remarks seem to me to reflect the Aristotelian tradition. "It is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion." One could perhaps either insert, "originating with Aristotle" or, I wondered whether they might be better moved to an Aristotle section, perhaps with his ideas on dialectics made more explicit and the opening summary remarks made into a summary of sections that follow? Andysoh 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] first line
I think this article is good but I'm not sure about the first line. Is there a source in classical philosophy (other than Fichte) where dialectic is posited as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis? If so, why not specify the earliest origins? Is it Aristotle?
Alternatively, I wonder if this description should say something like:
"In philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is commonly described as an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue."
Dialectics is often attributed to the Ancient Ionian philosophical school, particularly Heraclitus as per the wikipedia entry. Perhaps some acknowledgement of this?
Socrates seems to have combined something of this school with the best of the old Sophist tradition (which some trace back to the ionian school anyway), from where the term dialectic may have originated.
Plato's development may have been to make dialectics more of a mystical type of enlightenment (in his republic, for instance).
Andysoh 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Much talk of ancient history, few examples of benefits
In all this deliberation on the precise provenance of the concepts, little has been done to demonstrate their day-to-day practical value, if any(?). :)
- In relation to science, see the last section: Dialectical biology.
- We could possibly make reference to http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/sn-cohenrs1.html, where there is a scan of a "Science and Nature" magazine sponsored discussion in the USA. Irving Adler (North Bennington, Vermont) makes by far the most useful points in my opinion. I think they have been shortened. There is much that is wrong with the editorial position of "Science and Nature" in relation to the dialectics of nature in my opinion, and that makes me hesitate.
- Dialectics is (and always was, going right back to Anaxamander in 600BC Miletus in ancient Ionia in my opinion) a logic of revolution, or a logic given birth to by revolutionary times, and in relation to society its practical value extends to those who wish to understand revolutions, that is, sudden changes, upheavals, coming-into-beings and passings away.
- In cosmology, see "phase change" and its significance in understanding the cosmos. Phase change is an example of quantity into quality or vice versa. One could say that an awareness of the possiblity of encountering dialectics of nature in the form of a phase change could help predict, or does help predict, developments in nature. cf, for example, Brian Greene, 'The fabric of the cosmos'.
- So - day-to-day practical value? ... you might say, no, not to you and me, not every day, just some days - exceptional days. :)
Andysoh 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure dialectics hasn't got day-to-day practical value, which is perhaps what someone new to the subject most needs to know. In authoritarian behaviour, people tend to accept what they're told about things by anyone remotely suggestive of authority, and are trained/reared to view contradiction as perverse, disobedient, disloyal. But when one adopts dialectics as part and parcel of one's day-to-day examination of reality, it becomes a routinely liberating mind-tool. Thus, for example, instead of meekly accepting your authoritative-sounding conclusion to the effect that dialectics may lack day-to-day value, I simply, routinely, explore the antithesis, resulting in a quite revolutionary, if not necessarily original(?) conclusion.
- I would also really want to place these observations near the commencement of the systems analysis entry, but a cursory glance at it seems to suggest that, as often happens, the Wiki entry (and possibly the subject itself) has been cornered and monopolised by established idées fixes, which the simple application of dialectics at once exposes.
- N.b.,: What would happen were one to propose to a student of dialectics? ;|
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.225 (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree, actually. Some people think in rigid categories, and are the worst at practical things, and are always taken by surprise when the thing in question turns out to be many sided, appoproximate, full of contradictions, subject to sudden change (such as snapping off...) So it is useful, but not mysterious, and possibly not so easily accessible as an idea to new people as when one discusses big things, like big science or revolutions.
- I wonder whether the systems analysis people would violently object to a criticisms section, in which one could perhaps place something? The only problem is, without some good sources, (Wittgenstein's later stuff, or something really heavy like that - his critique of logic and embracing of a holistic approach is the first step on the rung of dialectics) they will just laugh like a drain - and who could blame them - they're not philosophers.
- Now the logicians might be fair game, although I've been reading a few critiques suggesting that hegel and trotsky misrepresented logic. I suspect the critiques take an ahistorical approach, and that hegel and trotsky correctly represented the logic, as it existed in their time. But its just a suspicion at this stage. Andysoh 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
I do not know why you are repeating these hoary old falsehoods. I have taken them all apart at my site -- not one single dialectical idea works (where any sense can be made of them, that is).
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/
Rosa Lichtenstein 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
